Evening star., 1955-02-20

munities and probable delays in
the road
When the Olmsted firm was
brought into the picture to de-
sign the park part of the belt to
parkway characteristics" Off
cialS said, the firm suggested sew
eral alternate routes. After ex-
amining them, however, officials
said, the firm concurred that
none were feasible.
Officials stressed the "disrup-
ton" would mean more than the
taking of individual homes. 1t
would mean. they said, local
streets serving communities.
would have to be closed wherever
they conflicted with the limited
access freeway. and that some
homes likely would be isolated
from the community.
Why was the road proposed to
traverse the park in the first
place?
The first official map showing
the belt in the park was the Mar
tional Capital Planning Commis-
sion's Comprehensive Plan Of
1850. In May, 1858. it also was
placed on the official highway
plan of the Maryland planning
agency.
As far back as the 194os, off,
cials of the Maryland agency
said, proposed plans showed a
belt route. The location of most
of them was north of the contro-
versial park.
Residential Expansion.
At the end of the decade, how
ever, the Maryland officials said,
residential development had ex-
panded to such a point that a
suitable route could not be found.
Also, they said, topography OF
the land was found to be not
suitable. The National Capital
Planning Commission. charged
with approving park develop
ment, agreed.
Subsequently, the Maryland
Planning Commission decided
that a carefully designed road
way would constitute a legiti-
mate development of the park,
opening it for wider public uses.
To show what has happened
groWth-wise, the Maryland plan
ners last week made population
studies of the II subdivisions and
one apartment project close to
the north and south sides OF the
controversial park area.
The study showed a population
increase from 4,902 in April.
1850, to 1897 as of last January
1-nearly a 100 per cent boost.
If the planners had not been
able to use the park, they said,
they could have used powers OF
land reservation to discourage or
halt development along a differ
ent belt route. Such powers
have been exercised along the
route outside the park-holding
down costs and eventual prop.
erty damage.
Reasons for Inquiry.
How did the pending Senate
inquiry come about?
During the last session OF Con-
gress, committee officials said.'
former Senator Gordon. Repub-
lican, of Oregon, and then COM
mittee chairman. became inter-
ested in the park issue. How
ever, no hearings were held. I
When Senator Murray assumed
the Craftsmanship this year. the
committee aides said, he decided
to look into it. He told the COM
mittee staff to prepare the reso-
luton he introduced.
Senator Murray told The Star
he had reached no personal con-
clusions about the merits of the
controversy, but put in his bill as
q basis for testimony.
Former Senator Gerald P. Nye,
leader of large citizens COM
mittee opposing the park use for
the belt. said he urged Senator
Gordon to make the inoury last
year and spoke to Senator Muir
ray this year. 1t also has been
urged by park officials.
The case for the resolution is
expected to be presented by Con-
rad l.. Wirth. National Park
Service chief, and representatives
of Mr.. Nye's group.
Republican Senators Beall and