To The Editor:

The June meeting of the Cedar Grove Civic Association was an unusual one for me. It was one of the few times all the years as a member that I did not vote with the neighbors/abutters on a major issue. I use the combined term because there is little, if any, residential property that actually abuts the site in question. My vote also put me on the opposite side of the issue from President John O'Toole, Councillor Maureen Feeney, and Representative Linda Forry. These folks brokered the "compromise" on the plans for the site at Hilltop St. and Granite Ave.

The "compromise" was the result of a meeting put together in less than a week. It was in response to multiple phone calls, and involved state officials and several neighbors. The planning for this site has been ongoing for almost three years. In a program that has moved slower than a turtle with arthritis, why act with such haste?

The dictionary defines a compromise as a settlement reached by concessions from each side. The only thing left from "plan B" was the portable toilets (that's a relief). The only activity left in either plan was the canoe and kayak use, and some people wanted that moved. Just today, I saw some kids walking down the street with their kayaks.

As the meeting was winding down someone asked for a status report on the park. It seems the folks were concerned that pipes for the water spray were still in the ground. They wanted them removed. Perhaps they fear they are magical, and will run through the neighborhood sprinkling water. Maybe, just maybe, they realize that removal of the pipes could require a new contract. This would cause a delay in the work and possibly kill the entire project.

Paul Barry then asked a silly question. "What was objection to the spray park?" A concerned citizen stepped forward and stated that as a parent he worried about kids running across Hilltop St. to play in the water. Legitimate concern! However, he followed it up by saying, "Besides, we won't use it that much anyway." Perhaps we should demolish the tot lot and basketball court becsuse kids from the other side of Hilltop St. might want to cross over to play on the slides. Another gentleman stated that the maze-like construction in the water spray could be used as a place for teenagers to hang out and hide. The fact that the maze was a drawing on the ground, and not a structure did not seem to diminish his concern. -Teenagers are sneaky critters!

When Bob Boushell made a motion to construct a street hockey rink, the immediate response was that we didn't need it. There is one down Garvey Park. True, and there are tennis courts at Dot. Park, and a football stadium in Foxboro. What more could the kids need?

I would like to suggest an alternate use for the land that would make everybody happy. The association could buy a flock of sheep. They could live in the park and eat the grass. They could be rented to people who wanted their lawns cut. The money raised could be used to buy signs for the park.

Sign #1 - ANY ACTIVITY MORE STRENUOUS THAN WATCHING THE GRASS GROW WILL BE PROSECUTED!

Sign #2 - ANYONE WATCHING THE GRASS GROW FOR MORE THAN TEN MINUTES WILL BE ARRESTED FOR LOITERING!

Sign #3 - TEENAGERS NEED NOT APPLY! TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT!

I have great respect for our elected officials and association president. However, in this case I feel they yielded to the pressure of "rule by reaction" rather than "rule by reason," I am also convinced that the neighbors/abutters are not finished "compormising." They feel they have found the key to success. Bring a few people to a meeting speak loudly, and you almost surely will get the 'compromise' you want.

Future "compromises" could include: the 'Arboretum" style trees. If teenagers can hide in a maze that is painted on the ground, what fiendish deeds will be done among the trees? The trees must go! If kids will run to a water spray, surely they will run to a pavilion with access to the water. The gazebo and kayaks must go! The only thing left from either "Plan A" or "Plan B" will be a couple of portable toilets. A fitting tribute to the vigilance of the neighborhood!

I am a firm believer in neighbors/abutters having input on projects. Those most affected should have the most to say. That doen NOT mean absolute veto power. Someone involved with the project needs to have the guts to tell the people that it is not OUR park; it is not OUR river! The park is part of a series of projects belonging to the state. The river belongs to EVERYONE!

In closing, I would like to quote the most astute, or perhaps more aptly put, the most pathetic comment of the meeting. As the meeting was drawing to a close Paul Cass asked in a calm and reasonable voice, "Why build a park if there is nothing for kids?"

Ray Donahoe, Vice President

Cedar Grove Civic Association