A proposed “Gateway Park” recreation facility at the north end of High Street, across from Flatland Road, has been criticized by Councilman Jim Gatto as a hasty political decision to end a long-standing controversy over where to locate a basketball court in town.
“This is a knee-jerk reaction to a need we’ve had for the last 15 years for a basketball court,” Gatto said at Monday’s Town Council meeting, when he abstained from a motion to make a $203,000 grant application to Program Open Space for the project. “I have a problem putting a basketball court there.”
Mayor Margo Bailey and the rest of the council voted to apply for the grant.
Gatto believes the location, an old tractor trailer facility, may not be convenient for most residents and said a town basketball court should be centrally located near the neighborhoods that will most benefit. He made reference to earlier discussions about revamping the AJAX basketball off of Cross Street. He also said the location on High Street (RT 20) and Flatland Road may not be safe for young children getting to and from the park. The Rail Trail is planned to connect to the project on the west side, but no plans were offered at the meeting to get young children across from Flatland Road or anywhere on the opposite side of High Street.
The preliminary plans for the proposed Gateway Park also include a handicap-accessible walking trail and observation era, a bridge connection to Rail Trail, and a picnic area. A former walkup bar on the site will be converted to a storage shed.
But Gatto believes the other amenities proposed mask the true intent to settle the basketball court controversy.
“The drive here was not to provide a “gateway” [to Chestertown],” Gatto said. “The drive here was to provide a basketball court, which we desperately need.”
Gatto was concerned that the location might not serve enough local residents. He said more planning should be considered to get the most potential from the project.
“We should look and see what this site can actually provide us, “Gatto said. “What I’m concerned with is that we’re going to have an under-used facility because it is not convenient to a lot of groups.”
“We are pushing something we really need to take a look at…the plan needs some work,” Gatto said.
Gatto suggested that the other amenities planned for the location should include a vendor to operate a concession, such as an ice cream stand in the old bar. “Someone who will run a business,” he said.
Bailey took issue with Gatto’s claim that the primary goal of Gateway Park was to settle the basketball court issue. “It’s just one of the pieces,” she said.
But she did concede in her belief that Gateway Park was an ideal location and the last resort to settle the issue.
“We’ve desperately needed a basketball court for 30 years now,” Bailey said. “But every time you discuss the basketball court around town people say “I don’t want it here…it’s going to bother my house and it’s going to make noise.””
“Everybody keeps shoving it somewhere else and there is nowhere else to go,” she said.
Town Manager Bill Ingersoll challenged Gatto’s notion that the Flatland Road location was not centrally located.
“Do you know that there are more families out there with children than almost anywhere else in town,” Ingersoll asked Gatto. “You might say that it is centrally located.”
Christine Betley says
I couldn’t possibly disagree more with Mr. Gatto’s assertion here. Not only is the proposed Gateway Park an ideal location for many of Chestertown’s young families as Mr. Ingersoll pointed out, it also provides a much needed resource to a portion of Chestertown that has long since been isolated by its less than central location. The community along Flatland around is in fact part of the municipality, and is therefore, entitled to finally having access to some of the other amenities afforded by town resident status. The Flatland Road community represents one of the most economically diverse populations in all of Chestertown; all of whom could benefit from this recreational resource. Further, Gateway Park is perfectly located to be accessed by a significant portion of Chestertown’s most economically disadvantaged residents, as it should be. I do agree with Mr. Gatto, that safe passage to and from the park is an issue, but that issue does not result from the addition of a park, but rather is already present (and largely ignored) with the high numbers of pedestrians and bicyclists already bravely commuting up and down Flatland Road (many of whom have no other source of transportation). I see the Gateway Park as motivation to finally remedy a pre-existing issue of disparity that has unfairly left this portion of Chestertown residents disconnected from the many “centrally located” resources that we, too, should be able to enjoy.
Kevin Shertz says
I agree completely with your analysis.
Carla Massoni says
Ms. Betley – Thank you for your insight. You identify a significant issue concerning safety for our neighbors on Flatland Road that needs to be addressed regardless of the basketball court’s final destination. But I agree with you that this location will be central to many neighborhoods and is an excellent choice!
Bill Anderson says
As usual, Mayor Bailey is wrong and Mr. Gatto is right — not only right, but for the right reasons.
Kevin Shertz says
Personally, as a resident of the 4th Ward, I’d love to hear what you believe those reasons are.
Keith Thompson says
I’ll take a stab at it…
Mr. Gatto’s assertions seem less to do with the Gateway Park site than it does with what he calls a “knee-jerk reaction” to address the need for a basketball court. Given that Mayor Bailey has labeled a basketball court as something that would be a noise-generating distraction in any other location in town, and given that apparently there has been a need for a basketball court in town for 15 to 30 years and this is the only location that apparently doesn’t have any NIMBY objections; one can ask if the goal here is to provide something to the “economically diverse” population in town or is the goal to simply appease both the “economically diverse” and the NIMBYs. I’d like to think that the Gateway Park idea is something designed to spruce up what is an economically disadvantaged area of the town (which is the town manager’s argument), but the mayor’s NIMBY rhetoric sends a mixed-message. If the former argument is true that the town is attempting to create a nice park to serve an area with the most young families, then I think Mr. Gatto is correct in saying that the town should have a better idea of what to do with the property before commiting themselves to the grant application. Otherwise, I think he’s correct to call this a knee-jerk reaction to appease two different groups of people.
Simply, I would interpret Mr. Gatto’s observations as being less about the merits of the park itself as it is about the process the town is using to develop it.
Kevin Shertz says
I’m gonna go out on a limb and say most 4th Ward residents could care less about the politics that go into any decision and are more focused on the amenities — and tangible results — for their direct community.
Keith Thompson says
And I would go out on a limb and say that town councilman Gatto would like the residents of the 4th ward to get something that is well thought out rather than something that seems to be haphazardly slapped together for the excuse of finding a location for a basketball court. In fact, I nearly got hit by a kid riding the wrong way down Flatland Road while I was turning onto it from Rt. 20 while heading to the radio station today. Certainly the safety concerns are valid here and I drive by this location every day.
Kevin Shertz says
Keith, this park has been part of the Chestertown Comprehensive Plan for many years… this didn’t just fall from the sky. It’s one piece of a larger puzzle.
I agree with you that Flatland Road in its current form has safety problems, and hopefully rails/trails and other concurrent improvements can help. That’s in the Comprehensive Plan as well.
Carla Massoni says
In this case, I disagree. I think Mr. Gatto’s position is shortsighted.
Jack Brosius says
My real concern is with the design; there aren’t enough courts & baskets. what will happen is that the older kids (and adult players who will drive to the facility) will push out the younger players. As far as access, the speed limit in this area is 25mph which can be enforced and there is a 4-way stop at High & route 20 so the main issue is at Flatland & 20 which could be solved with a pedestrian operated traffic light. the other concern is security for the users which maybe a manned concession stand could help solve. There also needs to be a way to close off the park at night to avoid it from becoming a drug dealing area due to it’s remoteness.
The real advantage is it is not in anybody’s back yard so it avoids the “NIMBY” issue altogether which appears to have been a major roadblock before.
MB Troup says
Any input from Councilwoman Mumford? Seems like the park would be in her ward, or at the very least, the bulk of her constituents would be affected by it.
Steve Atkinson says
Whether or not this would be an ideal location can be debated. What can’t be debated is that this part of Chestertown would benefit by having a local park. The argument about safety can be raised, but there are already plenty of residents of that part of town who walk to the shopping center already and are use to the traffic patterns.
Seems to me this is a good step.
Jim Gatto says
We continue to spend money on “recreation”, without the direction of a plan. We use our “intuitive knowledge” of the community as a final clearing house of decisions; this intuitive knowledge carries with it individual concerns within the community on who will like or dislike it–and nothing to do with the benefits of a proposed project.
SPECIFICALLY; Gateway Park was never officially given a purpose–it was adequately discussed by then Councilman Anthony to be a primary entry point into a comprehensive trail system; a place designed for people to enter the trail system arriving by bike or auto It was to be a place designed to divert auto traffic [parking] away from the waterfront as people used the trails It was to be a family gathering spot, assembly point, and passive activity center because access is difficult –and will be for many years- -wheeled transport was envisioned as the primary method of egress.
So now we have a destination point for a variety of users –age unknown – many-most-arriving by foot along Flat Land Road [no sidewalk];
along Rte. 20 [no sidewalk], crossing a high traffic automobile bridge [no sidewalk], but there is a connection to a non-engineered, unfunded and unapproved hiker/biker trail. To give credit, we the council have TALKED INCESSANTLY but never offically voted a dime to study, plan, or implement the trail–so does it exist? Are we building this facility with no support? Did I mention no water, no sewer or restrooms? The hastily developed grant has no funding request for any of these necessities for an isolated facility – Gateway Park.
Kevin Shertz says
How long were you a member of the Chestertown Planning Commission, Jim?
How long have you been a Chestertown Town Council member, Jim?
How much navel-gazing does Chestertown require before it acts on anything, Jim?
Zach MIlash says
Your completely right, and I understand why you disagree with this idea. Two things have to be considered if the Mayor and the Council wish to use the basketball court in this location to solve the problem brought up way back when with AJAX. Firstly, access to the court. It would be in a good location for town residents on flatland road to have access to it, however that would require that if walking/biking (which can be reasonably assumed because it is intended for youth) people cross over an extremely busy and poorly lit road. This is an immediate safety issue that has to be weighed heavily. Also with residents from “downtown” Chestertown walking/biking to the location along similar road conditions, the town should not overlook the safety issue that is presented here if they intend this court to fix the AJAX issue. If they do, people will either get hurt worst case scenario, or they will recognize the safety issues in getting to the park and it will become largely unused for its intended purpose and the town will have wasted money on a basketball court/park and will be back at the same issue we are in today. Some may argue that the people coming to the park from “downtown” can easily use the rail trail to avoid traffic. This is a valid point, however as Mr. Gatto has said, the trail for that section is basically non-existent, and will be that way for some time. So unless that trail is in place before or relatively soon after the park is made, these issues of safety should be of top concern.
Secondly, as MR. Gatto pointed out the park has no plans that I see as of yet to put in water or sewer. If the town wishes to have an athletic area such as the basketball court, it would be smart to provide water to the people who are using it. On the same hand it would also be smart to provide an area for restrooms. If not, people will be using the park as restrooms and no one will like that. These things don’t have to be fancy, but it is common sense to provide amenities such as this to an area where you expect people to be playing sports/biking/running/walking.
As an idea the plan to put a “gateway” park in that location is a good idea. However, I question if the town is getting too far ahead of its self given the intended purpose of the park (to act as a gateway to the town via rails to trails) and the fact that the rails to trials are not even planned/funded/built to that location. When the time comes this park may be a good idea, but proper planning, evaluation of the location, and insight into what amenities should be provided need to be looked into more closely then they seem to be at this current stage.
MB Troup says
So we’re back to “this free money sure gets expensive.”
Bill Kille says
And lets not forget to add some more speed bumps, Rt 20, High St. and Flatland Rd.
matthew weir says
Boy, if the park were to go in it sure would be nice to be able to buy a cool drink, ice cream or snack at a Royal Farms down the road…
Keith Thompson says
…except that the town put too many restrictions on the Royal Farms store planned for this end of High St.
Jim Gatto says
PLEASE remember the name GATEWAY PARK : it was NEVER intended to be a neighborhood park; Its location as a neighborhood park should be identifed as a cop-out in the extreme. Ms Betley makes a statement of the area around Gateway Park.; unsaid is that this area [ at least a 1/4 mile away is dominated by single family middle class houses , and is still developing. If the Planning Commission does it job, recreational areas will be incorporated into the new and existing neighborhoods.–There is vacant land in both Washington Park and Coventy for truely neighbordood park[s]. Specifically, the idea of a basketball court was NEVER vetted; so to make statements as to access to the users is premature, as we do not know who the users will be…we can assume…is that how we got a decision to change the purpose of the Gateway Park? Ms Massoni says I am short sighted..-1st time in my career for that one. I am usully labled the one thinking to far in the future..and I am still looking long term.. The basketball court is a short-term solution negating long- term benefits– read my first posting as to what Gateway park was envisioned to be.
That said this does not mean we do not build a baskeball court or other recreational facilities, but build them to a fully vetted and recognized plan. We need to prioritize resoures in our most dence neighborhoods; and in those with the least opportunity to access the remote locations of county facilities.; and most importantly create a multi-year finacial plan and stick to it.
KEVIN– Personally I will always work to create the best positive additions to Chestertown rather than accept a second rate, ill-thought out, knee jerk reaction to a long term need.
How much navel-gazing does Chestertown require before it acts on anything? You have been warming a seat on the Planning Commission for a long time. You tell me.
ps MS Massoni thanks for all of your hard, dedicated work for Chestertown
Kevin Shertz says
Jim wrote, “How much navel-gazing does Chestertown require before it acts on anything? You have been warming a seat on the Planning Commission for a long time. You tell me.”
Seriously, Jim? I haven’t been a member of the P.C. since my term — which was the balance of your former term — expired last year.
My take: “plans” are just pieces of paper in a filing cabinet if they never move towards an viable path to implementation. I’ve seen many instances in my career where the possibility of doing any thing you want can actually lead to doing nothing because you’re paralyzed by all the potential choices.
So let’s get the ball rolling on actually having a Gateway Park, especially if grant money is still an option (I’m expecting we’ll have less grant opportunities, not more, in the coming years.) This location seems reasonable for the basketball court given the realities of whatever NIMBYism there seems to be on the issue, and at some point in the future, it could always be removed or repurposed for parking if found to be wanting or is otherwise made redundant. Why not now steer the focus towards having a final layout that gives the Town to most future possibilities while accommodating a basketball court today? My inner pragmatist would rather that the Town be focusing its time-constrained planning energies on its long-term waterfront strategy, which would actually be a contributor for people coming into the area and even needing a “gateway.”
Getting this going also makes the prospect of implementing other parts of the Comprehensive Plan (like connecting Gateway Park to rail/trail, etc.) seem less daunting… and what will make this a true “gateway” park is having all those other connectors in place. But, we need to start somewhere.
Kevin Shertz says
I notice that Kent County is the only county in the entire State of Maryland with no current annual programs on file for Program Open Space… not even a planning grant request. Possibly another sign that we’re not implementing improvements in our community as quickly as we could?
https://www.dnr.state.md.us/land/pos/POS_Local_Annual_Programs.asp
I also notice that the current submission period is for FY2014. So, we’re talking about *possible* funding for a parcel with a basketball court that’s still at least 2 years away from development.
Jim Gatto says
KEVIN … NOW YOU ARE SAYING THINGS THAT NEED TO BE SAID!! Forget about who accomplished what etc. Your professional acumen that I greatly respect [though not always agreeing with] is plowing through; we operate without a town or county recreation plan based on user and community need; we chase elusive grant money without committing our funds. THAT IS SOME [NON] COMMITTMENT TO OUR COMMUNITY
Gibson Anthony says
How many planners have been involved in the currently proposed plan for “Gateway Park”? Has the Planning Commission reviewed for consistency with our Comprehensive Plan and endorsed it?
From the Chestertown Comprehensive Plan:
“The Town needs to develop a recreation plan that reflects the needs and character of it citizens, including its older citizens.”
Again from our Comprehensive Plan:
“This series of images shows the area where MD 20 and MD 514 (Flatland Road) join. It is an important
“gateway” to Chestertown, and the Town intends to give it special focus. Signage, trees, ornamental plantings,
pedestrian improvements, and appropriate lighting are issues that will be addressed in greater detail by the
Planning Commission and staff. The proposed traffic roundabout at MD20/291 and the Radcliffe Creek
canoe park are envisioned to be part of the “gateway” improvements. The gateway should provide a
harmonious transition to the “boulevard” improvements planned for High Street extended.”
The currently proposed plan encourages children (inherently pedestrian) to cross an intersection that has been recognized for years and needing pedestrian-friendly design improvements. One of validations for the purchase of Gateway Park was that town ownership provided the flexibility for design improvements at that intersection which were supported by the Comprehensive Plan. We don’t have a Recreation Plan, we don’t have a Recreation Commission, and we haven’t had the Planning Commission do a review for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
It’s possible that the Planning Commission will endorse it. That would be comforting.