|
June 24, 2003
Neil Rodgers, Chief of Staff
D.C. Department of Parks and Recreation:
Dear Mr. Rodgers:
ANC3D, at its June 4th meeting with a quorum present, discussed the
use of public playing fields within the commission’s jurisdiction. The basis for
the discussion was my May 5th letter to you containing personal
recommendations on use of the playing fields. After considerable discussion, the
commission, by a 6 to 1 vote, with Commissioner Hugh Mullane dissenting,
approved an amended version of my May 5th letter. The
recommendations approved by the commission are contained below. As you review
your policy on use of the playing fields, we ask you give our commissions
recommendations “great weight” as required by District law.
Playing Fields--to whom do they belong? In your presentation to the
commission in May, 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 we 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. We do not think your
department has struck that correct balance yet.
Are the Playing Fields being
Over-Used, Over Scheduled? Our 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 re-grow, much less for a
attentive parent to go fly a kite with his child of a Sunday afternoon. Our
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? We would make Sunday one of those "fallow days" to meet the
neighbors’ desire for a day of quiet and to permit the playing fields to be used
for family time by parents and their children.
Distinction between Playing
Fields – We 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, we would suggest that for weekend use, priority be given to use of
fields in areas set aside for sports.
Distinction between Little Leagues and Traveling Teams -- We would
suggest that when it comes to assigning playing fields, a distinction be drawn
between organized sports for kids and the new phenomenon of traveling teams. As
described by you and Commissioner Mullane, the Little Leagues are the modern-day
equivalent of sandlot sports. Thus, we would give them priority on use of
neighborhood playing fields. The "traveling teams," as we 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 we 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. we think. therefore, a
case can be made for charging a fee to traveling teams. When it comes to private
schools using public playing grounds, we 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. We would emphasize that any fees
paid by private schools should be earmarked for maintenance of the playing
fields and should not go into general revenues.
Again, our grateful thanks to you
for coming to our commission meeting and stimulating these commission
recommendations. We hope that this is but the start of a dialogue between your
department and ANC’s representing neighborhoods on use of public playing fields.
Within our ANC, it has been suggested that one forum for expanding such a dialog
would be the creation of a task force that would include representatives of your
department, of ANC’s with playing fields in their jurisdictions, of athletic
leagues, and of private schools. We would be interested in your reaction to this
suggestion.
Sincerely yours,
John W. Finney
Chair, ANC3D
cc: Mayor Williams
Council member Patterson
Council member Mendelson
Council member Catania
Council member Schwartz
|
