Letter: Dover Resident Wants Collaboration Between Caryl Park and D-S Schools Field Expansion Projects

Citizens for the Preservation of Caryl Park member Elisha Lee has spoken powerfully about a project being promoted by Dover Parks and Recreation to construct, with private funds, new playing fields in Caryl Park, converting acreage currently devoted to passive recreation. (2/23/12, “Dover group speaks out against Caryl Park athletics fields plan,” Wicked Local Dover).

I wish to associate myself with the view that taxpayers deserve the opportunity to endorse or defeat such an initiative, especially if the cost of maintaining the facilities would fall to them a decade or so down the road. Having heard no claims that a private fund-raising effort would include a maintenance endowment, there is cause for general concern on this score. 

It seems preposterous to me that a group seeking to develop public lands with private funds faces so few impediments that supporters can pretty much afford to ignore the weight of public opinion. One thing is clear: were CPARC supporters concerned about public opinion, they would be soundly discouraged by now.

For starters we have the responses from the Planning Survey which can be found on the Town website (http://www.doverma.org/town-government/town-offices/planning-board/). These results demonstrate that open/undeveloped space and scenic roads are viewed as Dover’s most valuable physical assets.  Respondents showed interest in using tax dollars only to acquire more conservation land. Just 30% of respondents wanted more playing fields, compared to 70% who wanted no more or fewer of them.Folks would seem to be content with things the way they are, with the strongest sentiment for change being a hankering for more agriculture and walking trails.

Nor have CPARC proponents been deterred by the knowledge that the Dover-Sherborn Regional School System is pursuing a field-use study of the facilities under its jurisdiction, funded by the D-S Athletics Boosters. Instead they hope to accelerate their own permitting process in a predictably competitive and single-minded, but nonetheless misguided, rush to its goal line.

Some P&R programs already make use of school-controlled fields. So it is hard to imagine how either group can define future needs in isolation from one another. It is irresponsible for P&R to spend money positioning itself to construct new facilities under its jurisdiction without knowing the implications of the school’s study and subsequent plans. This is a situation that screams for cooperation and collaboration. Would it be too much to ask that taxpayers not be saddled with the maintenance on potentially excess facilities that could come about as a result of silos of local government failing to work together? 

Is anybody doing a serious needs analysis? The one warning I would offer both groups: do not determine future needs based on past use. The single argument upon which P&R seems to rest its unshakeable determination to move forward in isolation is the assertion of a critical level of excess demand for its programs. 

To my knowledge no hardcore head-count numbers have been produced to support this claim. In contrast, we have the 2010 federal census. It too is online and accessible to all. The census data reveal that in recent years both Dover and Sherborn have seen precipitous drops in the number of births, intensifying a downward trend that began more than a decade ago. For those hoping this is a fluke, be aware that this is not a local phenomenon. A 2010 Pew Research Center study documented a decline in the number of births nationwide and demonstrated a link to our unstable economic climate. Current economic conditions and the antics in Washington provide little cause for optimism that this trend will be reversed anytime soon. Put simply, there are too few kids in the pipeline to sustain current usage levels, much less justify expansion. And a much bigger chunk of them are from Sherborn.

This argues for any documented need for field expansion to occur under the auspices of the regional school system so that maintenance costs could be equitably shared.

Barbara H. Palmer

145 Dedham St.

Dover