re: Montgomery County Soccer Fields...

I understand that people get "accustomed" to things (in this case a 20 acre soybean field leased by a local farmer) and that generally change is kinda uncomfortable, but...

I really do get tired at the complete lack of adult like perspective that gets thrown about in situations like this that brings out every supposed professional adult to whine and sulk about something they knew about and had been planned for decades.

These fields have been on the Master Plan for a long time. I am sorry if the homeowners of the new development around the field didn't do their research, or were lied to by the housing developer, but too bad.

Same thing happened with the Purple Line ROW, which had been purchased 22 years prior specifically for a future BRT or Light Rail use, or the ICC, which had been on the Master Plan and ROW acquired for what...50 years.

Pay attention next time you buy a house and ask a few more questions other than subjectively "so...is it quiet around here?"

by freely on Sep 1, 2011 9:06 am • link • report

@freely:
What is now considered the Purple Line was, I believe, first mentioned in the 1976 Bethesda CBD Master Plan. It was just an idea back then, it was not a master planned element.

The idea was for a "trolley" running along what was then the Georgetown Branch (of the B&O Railroad) between the downtowns of Bethesda and Silver Spring. The plan recognized that the railroad line would probably need to be abandoned before any such service could operate.

by Matt Johnson on Sep 1, 2011 9:12 am • link • report

Wow, transit to Merriweather? Maybe I will go there again. As it is, I avoid it at all costs because it takes way too long to get there on a weekday.

by movement on Sep 1, 2011 9:23 am • link • report

I am sure it was, but in all fairness to the folks against things like this that I am making fun of, there is a big difference between mentioning something, and Montgomery County buying the ROW and abadoning track which is what they did in ~1986.

Either way, my larger point is that people never seem to bother looking over their plats or deeds when they make the largest purchases of their lives and buy a house, and then are "outraged" a quarter of a century later when that long planned thing comes to fruition.

by freely on Sep 1, 2011 9:28 am • link • report

@freely -- "a 20 acre soybean field leased by a local farmer" does not adequately describe the current state of things. Nick Maravell is a nationally-recognized organic farmer, and what he does there (raise organic seed) he cannot do in the agricultural parts of the county, because of National Organic Program requirements for isolation from non-organic crops.

In addition, while a local park is in the Master Plan, if the site does not become a school, there is controversy over whether "local park" is an adequate description of land leased by the school board to the county for use by a private soccer organization, with the conditions of public use yet to be determined.

As for "long planned" -- this particular land use seems to have first officially come up only last year, in a meeting the school board closed in violation of Maryland's Open Meetings Act.

by Miriam on Sep 1, 2011 9:52 am • link • report

I love the fact that the neighbors are hiding behind a farmer to justify their own NIMBY views.

I'm sympathetic to the farmer, up to a point (his plight was covered this Spring in the Post). Fact is, he's leasing land. He was getting a pretty good deal. Now his good deal is over. Why should Montgomery County taxpayers subsidize his business (however meritorious) when there are more valuable uses for the land?

Of course, the neighbors are using that, rather than their own objections to traffic for soccer games, as justification for complaining about the decision.

by ah on Sep 1, 2011 10:08 am • link • report

We gotta stop this "save nicks farm" bs. It isn't his farm. End of story. He was lucky, good for him that he was able to lease subsidized taxpayer land to grow his small crop on for awhile, but it isn't his land, and the ballfield usage is not a new plan. You want Nick to continue to farm this land? Fine, buy it from Montgomery County for him.

So he either finds a parcel of land thats actually his, or he doesn't. Organic soybean seed farming is actually on the upswing according to the US Soybean Export Council so it isn't like Nick is the last of his kind.

Also, the language in the Master Plan (of which the Brickyard site has been in for 14 years) says

“If it's not used as a school, should be used for recreational or ball field uses."

People can be mad at how the process went down for who was going to operate the fields, but not that their are going to be recreational fields there. Thats been the plan for more than a dozen years.

by freely on Sep 1, 2011 10:13 am • link • report

RE: MPP Buses

A great idea but at $40 per roundtrip ticket (nearly the price of a roundtrip to NYC), it's way too expensive. Two people could rent a car or zipcar for substantially less. I know it's more about the convenience than the money but I think a cheap, utilitarian "chinatown" type bus would be a better business model than a luxury rock 'n roll bus.

by Falls Church on Sep 1, 2011 10:29 am • link • report

the MD flag is backwards/upside down

by JessMan on Sep 1, 2011 10:36 am • link • report

@freely, actually, what the Potomac Master Plan says (on p. 135) is

All school sites not otherwise recommended in this Plan for conservation should be considered for other public uses, including park land, if they are declared as surplus.

(The Brickyard site has not been declared as surplus.)

And

[The Brickyard Junior High School site] could be developed as local parks with ballfields or other recreational uses. (Recreational uses should be evaluated with other public uses identified elsewhere in this Plan to determine the priority use for each available site.) Any site acquired for parkland should be evaluated to determine whether it is appropriate for recreational activities (e.g., trails, ball fields, etc.).

(When and where were other public uses and recreational activities evaluated? Does the definnition of "a local park with ballfields" include "a ball field leased to a private county-wide organization"?)

I am not saying that Nick Maravell has a moral right, in perpetuity, to this land. I am saying that to me, as a non-lawyer, what is going on does not accord with the Potomac Master Plan. And it ought to.

(Also, for what it's worth, the Brickyard site is nowhere near my back yard.)

by Miriam on Sep 1, 2011 10:43 am • link • report

Is there an significant need for a new soccer field in the Potomac area? Seems that most of the soccer played in MoCo is at Bretton Woods or the MD Soccerplex. Could a "recreational" use be tours and/or helping with/learning about the farm?

by thump on Sep 1, 2011 10:48 am • link • report

@JessMan - Pole is on the right.

by ah on Sep 1, 2011 10:51 am • link • report

I tried to take transit to Merriweather once and it was a nightmare. From the MARC, there was a tiny bus whose driver clearly did not know where he was going. Then we got there and realized that transit had stopped running by the time the concert ended. Luckily, we managed to catch a ride with someone else -- with 4 of us packed into the back seat, it would have been a terrible tragedy if we'd been in a crash on 95. Otherwise, it would have been a crazy-expensive cab ride, if we'd even managed to find one.

by Gavin on Sep 1, 2011 11:43 am • link • report

I'd be curious how the PG Co elections would turn out if they had IRV

by Bossi on Sep 1, 2011 12:02 pm • link • report

@thump, I agree completely. The farm could become a unique educational center to teach students about where food comes from and about organics. Montgomery County has the opportunity with it to be a leader in creating an educational model.

Students could get fresh air and exercise visiting on/helping with the farm, learn something new, and develop teamwork skills at the same time - meeting many of the same goals as soccer fields, except they'd be learning something they might not come across anywhere else. This would be a much better use of the land, in my opinion, than creating yet another soccer field.

by Donna on Sep 1, 2011 3:39 pm • link • report

@ freely: the farmer was doing a service in "Stewarding the Land" saving tax payers monies (in land care), and watching over land (so as not to become a dump site, etc)- As is generally done all over USA.

The County is not doing this as a service for the community: The land will be delivered to a Private "pay-to-play" soccer organization. No money in it for the taxpayer; rather, likely that tax payer will pay for all the additional traffic, sewer and various issues that would go along with.

The farmer is the last of his kind in Mont. Co. and unique in the State (perhaps only 1 other that is similar, and still not the same). Any "rise" in organic soybean that is noted 'today' doesn't take into account of the Nation's passing of GMO Bill that will put ALL USA certified Organic farms @ risk of being lost.

The problem is more multi-faceted.

And, as Miriam noted above, the Master Plan DID NOT call for private soccer fields: Actually, it was only to be considered for a Community park w/ball fields IF IT WAS DEEMED SURPLUS; which it was not.

by Follow Process! on Sep 1, 2011 8:59 pm • link • report

From what I understand, there aren't sufficient soccer playing fields in that part of the county. So entire teams from the area have to drive to Gaithersburg and beyond to play a game.

In addition @Follow Process!, isn't the field to be used by MSI teams? MSI, according to their website, is " a non-profit youth soccer organization that promotes youth soccer in Montgomery County". I had plenty of friends who played on those teams when they were kids, and I haven't heard anything bad about this organization.

Why can't this farmer just lease other farmland elsewhere in Maryland, at market rates? Does no such land exist?

by Justin on Sep 2, 2011 12:54 pm • link • report

@ Justin, Actually there are over 20 sites w/multiple fields in Potomac (20854) alone, and Potomac has a 4% surplus of fields (player:field ratio); while communities like Wheaton, Langley & Takoma Parks have -23% to -46% player:field ratios.

As a matter of fact, there were players (still in uniform) from Wheaton and Silver Spring @ the June 9th mtg who wondered why their communities weren't getting the fields, while the affluent Potomac community was.

MSI HAS brought soccer to many people; however many were surprised to find that, as a nonprofit, they had $1 million PROFIT last year. Many feel that a not-for-profit should have reduced fees to players and their families by 1/2. Add that they have a $6 million surplus. Some even refer to this surplus as a "slushfund."

Why "slushfund?" Because rather than outright buying land for fields, or maintaining existing fields (of which they have many, look @ fields venue on their website); they chose to use $350,000 to hire "professionals" that included a lobbyist known to get School lands into private hands. Paying out and having this much money while parents are donating their time and money for FREE? Some are not too happy about hearing these facts.

Add to this information that some soccer families have just realized that there is an automatic "opt-in" clause on the registration form. This clause states something to the effect that those signing agree to the organization's search for and development of more fields. One needs to click on the check in order to "opt-out" of the approval; however, many coaches sign up their whole team leaving parents further out of understanding the whole picture.

And, unfortunately, the farmer can't "just lease" other farmland as the U.S. government just passed a "GMO (Genetically Modified Organism)" Bill that allows conventional farms to use GMO products. This Bill has put ALL organic farms @ risk of losing their certification (that takes YEARS to achieve) because of cross-pollination from birds, wind, bees and such. This location happens to be far from any other farms, and so, is unique.

And the rate paid is the going market rate for said land. The new lease price was raised only an additional $200 a for the total year.

Also, since MD has just passed the "No Child Left Inside" mandatory graduating environmental courses, many feel that using this school land to teach our instructors and our students is the best utilization for all.

As a matter of fact, Congressional Members, Agricultural and Environmental organizations have been going there for years to learn how to farm w/o the use of chemicals and pesticides: And this particular farm collects heirloom seeds w/some of his corn varieties and lineages dating back to Native American, Pre-Settler days.

This site for soccer/ball fields? It just doesn't make sense on many levels.

And to ah,
From what I've learned speaking to people and from reading documents, this whole issue is more about the LACK OF TRANSPARENCY and the CIRCUMVENTION OF PROCESS than anything else. We cannot allow those transgressions, or we are all susceptible. We must follow process to protect our rights, or this could be any of our neighborhoods tomorrow.

by Follow Process! on Sep 7, 2011 3:21 am • link • report

@ ah,
Just re-read some comments, and to your comment:

"Why should Montgomery County taxpayers subsidize his business (however meritorious) when there are more valuable uses for the land?"

My response:
"WHY SHOULD MoCo TAXPAYERS SUBSIDIZE A PRIVATE SOCCER COMPANY?
Add:
The company involved in all the back room negotiations made over $ 1 million in PROFIT last year and has a $ 6 million stash.

These proposed soccer fields will raise MoCo taxes (as we pay for roads, lights, water, electric, patrols and more) to the site."

by Follow Process! on Sep 7, 2011 9:16 pm • link • report

@freely
"These fields have been on the Master Plan for a long time. I am sorry if the homeowners of the new development around the field didn't do their research, or were lied to by the housing developer, but too bad."

For someone complaining about not doing research, you have not done yours. None of the houses around the site are new or built as a development. All are individually built homes with the newest having been built 28 years ago in 1983. Most homes were built in the early '60s. So, this is not something that happened because they 'failed to do research'. In fact, when the Master Plan was last amended, many residents either sat on the advisory panel or made comments during the process.

And for the record, I do not live near the field.

by Whiner on Sep 8, 2011 12:38 pm • link • report