The Washington times., 1936-03-10
MD. PARK BILL
FACES HARD
BATTLE

SILVER SPRING, March 10.
Montgomery county's so-called
Park Area Bill" will strike tough
Shedding during its Journey
through the State legislature dur
ing this special session, 1t was
predicted here today by county
civic and political leaders.
Revised copies of this measure
as approved by the Maryland Ma
tional Capital Park and Planning
Commission, which if enacted
would enable the Park and Plan.
ming Commission to take over and
develop a park site in four county
areas upon receipt of a petition
signed by so per cent of the prop
erty holders in that particular
section, the costs and mainten'
.ance to be assessed against these
affected property owners, are now
in the hands of the county'S dele
cation at the legislature awaiting
presentation.
See Defeat Ahead
Those opposing the measure
feel confident that the bill will
not be brought up for action at
this session since Statewide relief
and other emergency matters
must be disposed of first, but they
do point out that if it does come
up they believe public sentiment
will bring about it's defeat.
The measure in its original form
was approved by the Park and
Planning Commission and the
Kensington Chamber of Com
merce, but did not receive the ap-
proval of the powerful Montgom-
cry County Civic Federation,
which represents some 40-odd
county organizations.
Irving C. Root, chief engineer
of the Park and Planning Com
mission, and a proponent of the
measure, declared today that the
principle of building parks by as
SeSSing the costs on neighboring
property owners who reap the
benefit from the improvement,
has proved successful in other
States. He expressed the opinion
that once a sample of this new
method of park construction is
tried in this county it will prove
popular.
Will Write Protest
Under the present park system
all residents of the Metropolitan
area are required to pay a 7-cent
tax for parks, while only about
12 Of l per cent Of the taxpayers
live within the area directly hene-
fitted by their construction, Mr..
Root pointed out.
Wilton T. Allen, a member of
the Park and Planning CommiS-
sion, declared today he did not
favor enactment of the bill in its
present form but did not vote on
it, as it was approved before he
became a member of the commits
sion. But he intends to write to
Gov. Harry w. Nice and members
of the county delegation protest
ing against it's enactment.
Mr.. Allen said he believed the
measure would enable large prop
erty owners who are developers, or
hope to be, to obtain development
of park lands in the vicinity of
their holdings thereby greatly en-.
hancing the value of what might
have been practically worthless
property.
Others opposing the bill claim it
could easily prove a patronage
plan for the park commission to
exercise during an election year.
Since by developing park in
certain area and placing number
of men from this district at work
it might greatly influence the vote
cast in that election district.
Should the measure come up
during this legislative session,
large delegation of county resi-
dents numbered among the opposi-
ton will go to Annapolis and en-
deavor to bring about its defeat,
Sidney M. Oliver, deputy clerk to
the board of county commission
ers, declared here today.