I vote for the active concept

[minthill]

I have reviewed the different concepts and I would like to register my vote for the "active concept". I don't know that I would devote some much space to frisbee golf? but maybe I'm out of touch with how popular frisbee golf has become. Families can walk and bike and picnic at the active concept design and it also provides Mint Hill with much needed fields for baseball, soccer, softball, and possibly football. The active concept is the only option that allows everyone to participate. Casual, unstructured sports can also take place in the active concept, but it's the only design that would also allow structured and competitive play.

[rstevens]

As mentioned in the 2nd community meeting minutes, the general consensus was for a merge of the features of the passive and farm park plans. There has been very strong community support against active park concepts.

Why do you feel baseball and soccer fields are needed in Mint Hill?

[foractiveyouth]

I agree with "minthill" and would also like to announce my support for the active concept. As to "rstevens" question about why baseball and soccer fields are needed in Mint Hill, I happen to have first hand experience on the subject. Last summer I attempted to reserve field space for a youth baseball team in the Mint Hill area and found that all public field space was booked solid and indefinitely at all times suitable (weekends and weekdays after 5:00) for organizing children. Youth sports play a very important role in the emotional and physical development of our children and it is incumbent upon local taxpayer funded agencies such as our "Park and Rec" to provide the facilities needed to support healthy child development. Unfortunately, at this time their is just not enough field space to give all those interested an opportunity to play organized youth sports in the Mint Hill area.

[RA]

The farm concept would help to fill a real void in Mecklenburg County. There are no other farm parks while there are at least some ballfields, etc.

[Andy]

I like the active concept as well. However, I do appreciate the Farm park. This would be a unique amenity in Meck Cnty, and could draw in others to see it. Perhaps there can be a melding of the concepts, such as take out the disc golf and replace it with petting zoo or something like that. Whatever the answer ends up being, the #1 priority for me is to get as many walking trails as can reasonably fit on the site.

[recre8minthill]

I vote for the active concept because keeping our kids active and involved makes them better adults. Having more ballfields gives them opportunities to be be creative with free play but also teaches them the value of working together with teammates. Our community is growing and the active concept would offer more opportunities to get an entire family out together.

[debby]

The overwhelming opinion of 99% of all attendees of the park planning, consisting of at least 6 meetings over multiple years, was in favor of the passive and farm plans and adamantly opposed to the active concept consisting of multiple lighted competitive ball fields. These fields already exist at other parks, both local and citywide,including the Mint Hill Sports Complex on Brief Road and the parks on Fairview and Wilgrove. These fields are generally taken by the Mint Hill Athletic Association and not available to other groups who wish to play ball games. The fact that the MHAA has signed up many more players than they can accommodate with fields, should not mean that other town residents can't have a park including different amenities, excluding competitive ball fields for the MHAA. Many opportunities for children to play on all types of ball teams locally also exist within the church communities which have a number of ball fields and wonderful, competitive, educational play within a supportive, Christian atmosphere. The persons who attended the advertised planning meetings for this park over the last 2 years or so, brainstormed what they wanted in the park, which culminated in the current plan, which is also largely the product of the Park and Rec ideas, especially the agriculture and education components. There is no such park in the county, and similar parks nationwide have been very popular. Residents living close by the park look forward to having a place to walk, ride bikes, free play frisbee and ball, fish, enjoy natural areas, performances, etc. The farm and rural atmosphere will be retained, while accommodating the special characteristics of the marshy Goose Creek watershed.

[minthill]

Debby, your comments regarding the Mint Hill Athletic Association being the only group that has access to fields at Fairview and Wilgrove are false and misleading. We clarified your misconception at the most recent meeting, yet you still made the decision to post inaccurate information on this message board.

Please don't find fault with the Athletic Association because Mint Hill parents and kids want to be involved in structured and competitive athletics The bigger picture is the demand in Mint Hill for structured athletics. Regardless of where these families decide to play, they want to play! (If you've seen any of the recent figures on child obesity and inactivity, we should be celebrating the fact that our Mint Hill parents support their children being outdoors and active, and we need to be encouraging this behavior!)

There is a need for more athletic fields (baseball, soccer, softball, lacrosse, football, etc..) in Mint Hill to meet the demand of the youth of Mint Hill and that need is not being addressed with the current passive/farm concept. The fact that your group could not get a field at one of the local parks in Mint Hill underscores the need for more athletic fields. Unfortunately, the "overwhelming opinion" that you cite in your posting is not the voice of Mint Hill but simply the voice of a select few who live in close proximity to the project.

The best question from the last community meeting was, "why is parks and rec training people in farming when the people who have been farming for years can't even stay in business?" I too have trouble understanding why parks and rec would devote 6 acres to 12 people for a period of 3 to 4 years? Talk about addressing the very few...


With all that land, I don't see why we couldn't devote the Northern section to the Athletic concept, while keeping the passive/natural areas in the Southern Sections. You could have plenty of walking and biking trails throughout the entire project, and at the same time address a real need for Mint Hill.

[debby]

Several years ago I called Mint Hill Town Hall and asked to secure a practice field at Mint Hill Park on Fairview for one occasion. I was told that these fields were reserved by the Mint Hill Athletic Association for their exclusive use. To relate my experience is NOT posting inaccurate information. According to a brief look at some Mecklenburg county parks, there are 11 parks with baseball fields, 15 parks with soccer fields, 37 parks with softball fields; in addition mint hill park on wilgrove has a lighted softball field, Mint Hill park on Fairview has two Bermuda soccer fields, Idlewild Road Park has 2 softball fields. Not all parks were mentioned online in parks and recs site. Certainly not mentioned are the Balll fields at the Mint Hill Sports Complex- how many fields are there for the exclusive use of MHAA? In speaking with others in the county, I have heard that similar athletic associations exclusively dominate county parks athletic facilities..also mentioned were tennis associations exlusive rights to use tennis facilities at some parks. It seems to me that our county tax dollars are not taken solely to benefit athletic associations-far greater numbers of our citizens are not members of athletic associations- particularly the residents of the surrounding areas of well road, mint wood, hwy 51. These local residents packed the 6 or so meetings and made it overwhelmingly clear they did not want athletic fields, but facilities that were passive, different and usable by the surrounding citizens- most of whom are not athletic association participants. I had absolutely nothing to do with these citizens turning out (meaning I did not inform them of the meetings or discuss the issues prior to meetings, but I did hear what they had to say, and as I later became a liason member of the steering committee, I feel it is my duty to stand by the wishes of the hundreds of citizens who cared enough to attend approx 6 planning meetings, where they divided into groups, brainstormed requests for the parks, listened to numerous presentations-they devoted many hours of their personal time to make their concerns known. Where were you? As you can see approximately 2 years of planning has gone into this park. You came in after 2 years of meetings for the first time, and I observed a lot of shaking of your heads as Mr. Nelson presented the park plan. I also see that you have talked to a reporter for the Observer. It is rather indicative that your particular wants were outlined in the newspaper article. Perhaps the Ath Assoc could purchase private land for the additional desired competitive events? While I heard you saw that you signed up many more children for teams than you have fields to play on, does that trump your organization over the wishes of other citizens who don't want organized athletic games? There are probably 15,000 plus citizens in this town, only a handfull of those are children in your sports teams. According to Mr. Nelson, this park would fill a niche and need in the entire region for agricultural training, as well as active and passive pursuits of surrounding residents. Every citizen in this county doesn't want every park in the county to be a lighted series of ball fields.

[debby]

One last comment, this last Sunday there was an article in the Charlotte Observer entitled "Park in Mint Hill will offer farm training" by Melinda Johnston. Out of the hundreds of participants in the park planning sessions over the last 2 years, Don McDaniel attended only the last one, on 3/17/10. Yet in the only Charlotte Observer article written, Don McDaniel is the only person who has been quoted, along with Ron Freeman, both in support of athletic fields. Oddly, I didn't see Melinda Johnston at the planning sessions which she describes in the article.

[PreserveTheFarmFeeling]

To those who now say they want active ball fields: WHERE WERE YOU during the last 3 years we have been discussing this with Mecklenburg County? I have not attended every meeting, but at the ones I attended the overwhelming majority requested first a meeting place that we don't have, then for the "Farm," open space, and beautiful open land and forest be preserved for walking, biking, and enjoyment by those who don't want the glaring lights, traffic, and sounds of the ball fields that already exist all over the area. My children had plenty of places to play while they grew up on church ball fields - Hickory Grove Baptist Church has a huge one in our area, as do others. I wasn't the one requesting the farm feeling be preserved - I simply heard the vast majority of people there asking for it as well as for a location for indoor activities. It's not out of line or selfish for the other people in our area to have a DIFFERENT kind of park! GO FARM!

[foractiveyouth]

Debby,
First, I recommend you spend an afternoon or evening at the ballfields sharing in all the joy and excitement young children experience there. Give them a chance and you may realize how great it would be to have that atmosphere around all the time.

As far as your "Where have you been?" comments, does it make you right just because you spoke up first and attended more meetings? Further, as you state, the majority of the attendees at the 6 meetings you mention are contiguous or proximate residents to the park site. While this group may have an opinion for the park's development, the land was purchased and the park will be developed with funds from all of Mint Hill and Meck County taxpayers. In this context, the desires of those few residents become subordinate to the needs of the broader community the park will serve.

It's good to see that you acknowledge the overcrowding of current athletic fields in the Mint Hill area. As you mentioned, some churches have helped to fill the need for youth and adult athletics. It is common practice for enterprising religous organizations to identify the under-served needs of their community and then seek to fulfill these needs as doing so enables the church to spread their message attracting new members and donations. Hickory Grove Baptist has done this as well as any over the past 30 years thru athletics, schools, non-athletic youth and adult programs, but never have they offered miniature farming.

I don't know the population of Mint Hill, but you mentioned 15,000 so let's use that number. I do know that MHAA enrolled approximately 700 children in spring sports. If we assume that those 700 children have about 800 parents, grandparents, etc. that support them then that accounts for 10% of the Mint Hill population. Add to that those who participate through the churches and adult athletics and it is pretty clear that more than a "handful" of local citizens utilize athletic fields.

I, too, wish to see trails, natural areas, and some preservation of rural concepts and the active park plan includes all of this as well as the athletic fields. I do not support the farm concept for the park site because it just simply does not serve enough members of the community.

Bottomline is the Active plan serves the entire community and the farm plan serves the desires of the contiguous and proximate residents to the park site. Learn to love the smiles and sounds of children at play and everything will be OK.

[Carrie]

I first want to state that the tone of the dialogue seems to presume that if you are FOR the farm, then you must not like active children. Let's avoid such a ridiculous dialogue when trying to plan for our town and its residents.

Active children come in many forms - exploring nature and gardening included. The farm offers an opportunity for children to be exposed to these activities for those who simply aren't into organized sports. Though it is debatable that there are sufficient facilities in the surrounding area to accommodate the demand for organized sports team, two things are clear: 1. many facilities are available within a 10 mile radius and 2. alternatives to organized sports is very limited.

Active, healthy children also need to have a healthy relationship with food - where it comes from and how it is grown. Obesity in our children is not just an indicator of activity, but also an indicator of their relationship with food. Jamie Oliver is making this all too obvious in his recent programming - how devastating that an entire classroom of young children could not identify a TOMATO! The farm is a great way for the community to stay connected with our rural heritage and provide a resource for teaching our children.

[debby]

In response to Foractiveyouth: Your comment that I should "Learn to love the smiles and sounds of children at play and everything will be OK." I find this a very condescending statement. I raised 2 wonderful sons who played sports from age 4 through high school-baseball, soccer, and basketball. They never had a shortage of fields to play on, wonderful team parents to support them, Christian coaches to teach and nurture them, and I served as team mom consistently. Neither was there a shortage of fields at the schools. I stayed home with my children and entertained many children throughout the years. Your comment indicates the same sort of arrogance as the comment previously stating that the plan devised by Mr. Nelson reflects the wishes of only a select few who live in close proximity to the project. Hundreds of people attended the approximately 6 planning meetings in the last 2 years, giving many hours of their personal time. The suggestion indicates that those citizens of Mint Hill who are not members of the athletic association and have assisted in planning a different kind of park, are simply insignificant. There are active pursuits beyond competitive ball fields.