Letter to the Editor: McNeilly Park

The Baldwin-Whitehall Patch received the following email on Oct. 26. Other than addressing some minor grammatical issues, the wording seen below was written as is.

...

The residents of have every reason to be interested in the development of the 23 acres of land along McNeilly Road known as . Although marked as "Mt Lebanon-Baldwin Twp. Athletics Complex" on Google Maps, the role that Baldwin Township has in this project is next to none. Yet, the impact of such a complex on Baldwin Township residents may be significant.

As a Mt. Lebanon resident, my interest in the McNeilly property was piqued when I read reports in the local press of how development of that 23 acres of woods into baseball and soccer fields, along with the associated lighting, bleachers and concessions, would increase property values and draw new, young residents into Mt. Lebanon, thus increasing its tax base.

One of the Mt. Lebanon commissioners, Bonnie VanKirk, wrote to me using the same language. However, after doing some research on the matter, I discovered that the National Park Service, whose interest in parks is unquestioned, had a slightly different take on such matters.

While stating in no uncertain terms that parks do increase property values, such impact is dependent upon 1) the distance between the park and the home in question and 2) the nature of the park itself.

In a National Park Service white paper titled "Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors," the point was made that "property value increases are likely to be highest near those greenways which 1) highlight open space rather than highly developed facilities, 2) have limited vehicular access but some recreational access (and) 3) have effective maintenance and security." (I adduced this document in a detailed posting titled "Re-thinking the McNeilly Property" on Blog-Lebo on Aug. 23, 2011.)

My posting alluded to what it is known as a "nuisance park"—one creating noise, traffic congestion and the potential for increased crime. People living near such a facility may see their property values go down, with the amount of decrease dependent upon the proximity of one's property to the park.

Another concern that I have was the wisdom of Mt. Lebanon assuming additional debt in a time of economic uncertainty. It seemed to me that, if this property was to be developed into an "athletic complex," then the end users should bear the cost.

The various sports cartels in Mt. Lebanon adverted that they would assume the upkeep of McNeilly Park, but the burden of the initial capital costs would fall to the Mt. Lebanon taxpayer. Given that our current municipal fields and our swimming complex are in need of repair, it seems prudent to deal with these issues first before committing funds to the "McNeilly Athletic Complex." Of course, these funding concerns are Mt. Lebanon's issues and not Baldwin Township's problems, but I mention them to provide context.

After many email exchanges with members of the Mt. Lebanon Commission, I was informed that a compromise ordinance would be brought before that body on Oct. 24, 2011. The legislation addressed the pool, municipal fields and McNeilly property in such a way as to prioritize these projects, giving the pool top nod and requiring that the various sports programs in Mt. Lebanon make financial commitments to McNeilly. This resolution failed to get the required four-fifths majority (required of a bond issue) when one commissioner voted against it and another left the meeting before the vote was taken.

However, the McNeilly Park saga is not over by any means.

Since the McNeilly property physically impacts Baldwin Township homeowners more than it does Mt. Lebanon homeowners, it behooves Baldwin residents to to both the Mt. Lebanon Commission and the various sports cartels in that municipality. It is true that the property is Mt. Lebanon's (purchased under the most disadvantageous terms), but the use of this property affects both Mt. Lebanon and Baldwin Township residents—and their wallets.

Richard Gideon (sewever@verizon.net)

...

If you have a complaint, want a topic covered, want to publicly congratulate someone or have something else to say altogether, please send an email to robert.healyiii@patch.com.

The Baldwin-Whitehall Patch will not accept anonymous letters. Each letter will be published along with the name of the person who sent the letter and that person's email address.

Note: The Baldwin-Whitehall Patch, in certain cases, may choose not to publish some letters.