Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1959-02-21
Parkway Views

AocOCldILOAi Has UCCll tldllgIleu
as being against everything.
! have been a secretary most
Of the IL years of that Or
ganization's lifetime. We are
not a hard core group" fight
ing progress. Among other
things, we took the initiative
in 1857 in inviting coming
authorities into our territory
and approving their plan. Yet
Van Arsdale Turner claims
we are responsible for keep
ing coming out.
Yes, we did oppose the
George Washington Memorial
Parkway. but only because
the National Capital Plan
ming Commission. after re-
queSting that we determine
some alternate route which
could be lived with. turned
down our proposition. Not
only was an alternate, direct
route presented in compre-
hensive detail, but a gift of
$3.50, 900 worth of land was
obtained for the Government.
Representative Landlord says
it is natural for people to
fight for their homes. Mr..
Bayliss of the National Park
Service, living on Indian
Queen Point, and hypassed
by the parkway, said he would
do the same thing in the same
situation.
Those who live away from
the proposed parkway easily
can be benevolent in dispos-
ing Of other peoples property.
One spokesman for parkway
proponents. Charles B. Mac
Donald, lives a stones
throw" from me. We both
are fortunate in being by
passed. But / am not willing
to sell my neighbors down
the river.
NCPC said the alternate
route was not in accordance
with the Capper- Cramton
Act. If the act is violated, it
is done on Indian Queen and
Hatton Points. This spot
under controversy is the only
spot south of Fort Foote that
does touch the river on the
proposed route. NCPC said
that economy dictated by
passing the two points. How
ever, economy did not mat
ter to them when SO million
was saved on the alternate
route. We don't advocate
taking the two points. We
just want the same treat
ment. The Star has said that
every effort should be made
to ease the impact of the
parkway on owners of prop
erty. But that was a voice
in the wilderness.
Representative Landlord
has said the parkway is not
just a road, but a road
through a park. People away
from the parkway aren't 60
ing to go S or 10 miles out of
their way on the parkway to
get to work.
The couple of miles Of
waterfront given up in favor
of the direct section won't be
noticeable to Sunday drivers
looking for a place to picnic.
How much picnic area is
needed? There are over $40
acres at Fort Washington,
100 acres at Fort Foote, the
planned 500-acre park in
Henson Valley, and the
planned 1,000-acre park in
PiScataway.
AS for the parkway being
necessary to keep out in
naturalization, we have zon-
ing regulations for that.
Otherwise, what would people
do who live in areas where
no parkway is contemplated?
1t is claimed that only six
homes are being taken. Moth
ing is said of costly farm
buildings, lots bought tt build
on. land for private use, and
homes devaluated because the
parkway is in their back yard.
There are rs property owners
involved.
1t is not true that the pro-
posed route has been eStab-
lished for years and that
landowners could not have
been assured before they
built that they were not in
the way of the parkway.
Some of this assurance was
given no longer ago than
1857.
Our alternate road is less
than 2 miles from the river
in its widest place.
1t has been said that we
used coercion in asking other
groups to go along with US.
If this is coercion, then the
NCPC used coercion after
turning down our alternate
when they wrote citizens
associations and q mayor,
telling them they had better
fall In line with them. Fifty