|
5/10/03
Neil Rodgers, Chief of Staff
D.C. Department of Parks and Recreation:
Dear Mr. Rodgers:
On behalf of ANC3D and its neighborhoods, I want to thank
you immensely for coming to talk with our commission on May about policies on
use of public playing fields. You are an articulate, responsive spokesman for
your department, and I must say you introduced some new thoughts --at least for
me--in what should be the policy on use of public playing fields. I was
particularly struck by the point made by you and Commissioner Hugh Mullane that
the days of youthful pick-up games on the local sand lot are gone, replaced by
organized sports and leagues for kids (and their parents). As a creature of
those earlier days, I must say that something has been lost in terms of
initiative and self-reliance, but I accept we are not going to change, with some
playground policy steps, the new era of organized sports from toddler to
overpaid pro athletes. We have come victims of what I call the "coliseum
syndrome," in which we are willing to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to
build a stadium to entice a pro baseball team but unwilling to raise similar
amounts to rebuild our tottering school buildings.
So accepting the new reality of organized sports for our
youth, let me offer some thoughts and recommendations growing out of the
discussion at the ANC meeting. I want to emphasize that these are my initial
thoughts as an individual ANC commissioner, not those of ANC3D. My hope is that
ANC3D can reach a consensus on policy recommendations for use of public playing
fields at its June 4th meeting. For that reason, I am sending copies of this
letter to fellow commissioners and other interested persons in the hope it may
lead to discussion and a consensus. So on to my thoughts and recommendations:
Playing Fields--to whom do they belong? In your presentation, you made
the argument that in scheduling their use, the playing fields belonged to the
community as a whole, namely the city. Of course, that is true in one way, but I
would argue that the playing fields also belong to the local neighborhoods. That
is why we have set up neighborhood recreations centers around the city, such as
Palisades and Hardy in our neighborhood. It follows, therefore, that in
scheduling use, a compromise, a balance must be reached between city-wide
leagues and neighborhood use. I don't think we have struck that correct balance
yet.
Are the Playing Fields being Over-Used, Over Scheduled? My answer would
be 'yes.' That becomes self-evident when a field, such as Hardy, is scheduled
for use seven days a week. That doesn't leave time for the grass to regrow, much
less for a attentive parent to go fly a kite with his child of a Sunday
afternoon. (Do you suppose kids still make and fly their own kites?) My
suggestion is that a playing field, particularly in a residential neighborhood,
such as Hardy or Palisades, should be free from use by organized teams a couple
of days a week. The "fallow days" would permit renewal of family activities, as
well as of the grass.
Sunday Use? I would make Sunday one of those "fallow days," since I was
brought up to believe that Sunday was a day of rest and a day for the family.
But I may be old-fashioned in such beliefs, for Sunday may be the only day that
modern-day parents can watch their child in organized play. Putting religious
beliefs aside, once again there is the need to strike a balance between playtime
for children and parents and the desire of neighborhood residents for quiet.
This brings me to my next point.
Distinction between Playing Fields--I would suggest that when it comes to
use, a distinction should be made between playing fields located in residential
neighborhoods, such as Hardy and Palisades, and fields located in dedicated
sports areas, such as at Carter Barron. Thus, I would suggest that for weekend
use, priority be given to use of fields in areas set aside for sports. That
brings me to my next point.
Distinction between Little Leagues and Traveling Teams -- I would suggest
that when it comes to assigning playing fields, a distinction be drawn between
organized sports for kids and the new phenomenon (at least to me) of traveling
teams. As described by you and Commissioner Mullane, the Little Leagues are the
modern-day equivalent of sandlot sports. Thus, I would give them priority on use
of playing fields. The "traveling teams," as I understand them, are composed of
older players and in some ways are on the lower rungs of the ladder of organized
sport that now extends from high school to athletic scholarships to college and
on to pro sports. They are not necessarily neighborhood kids, and they are much
tougher on a playing field. Thus I would restrict their use of neighborhood
playing fields, and assign them to fields in dedicated sports areas.
Should Fees Be Paid for use of Public Playing Fields? If, as you and
Commissioner Mullane maintain, the little leagues are the form of sport these
days for the neighborhood kids, then it is hard to justify charging them a fee
to play. The case becomes a little more complicated when it comes to "traveling
teams", for they are no longer neighborhood kids but teenagers drawn from the
region. They also are much tougher on the playing fields. I think. therefore, a
case can be made charging a fee to traveling teams. When it comes to private
schools using public playing grounds, I think the case for a fee becomes
clear-cut. It is no longer a case of neighborhood kids at play. Rather, the use
by private schools is part of the academic program offered by the schools to
parents, not just from the District, who choose to send their children to
private schools. We thus have a situation where a private, non-profit
institution which pays no taxes to the District is able to use public land for
its own academic program and at no cost. At the very least, a private school
should be required to pay a fee to offset the wear-and-tear it causes to the
public playing fields. There is an interesting precedent for a private school
paying a fee for use of public land. When St. Patrick's School needed more space
for parking on Whitehaven Parkway, it wanted to use public space on the side of
the parkway. The District Department of Transportation granted use of the space
but charged an annual rental fee to the school. If a private school has to pay
for use of public space for parking, then the same principle applies when it
uses public space for its athletic program.
Please accept these as somewhat
random thoughts offered for your consideration and by fellow commissioners and
neighbors with the hope of stimulating a consensus view from the commission that
would be accorded "great weight" by your department.
Again, our grateful thanks to you for
coming to our commission meeting and stimulating a policy review.
John Finney
|
