In the dumps

Part 5

by Kristen Lombardi

Against this divisive backdrop, officials and citizens agree on the obvious -- Green Hill's need for revitalization. The administration applied for $500,000 in state funds for improvements last year, but met resistance from Joel Lerner, director of Division of Conservation Services in the state's Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. Lerner, who approves park grants, told Worcester officials he would withhold money until the city got rid of its six-acre leaf-mulching operation, because composting is "inappropriate and unlawful use of park space," says Lerner. He also ordered the city to increase golf-course access and decrease roads that cut through the park.

The administration responded by lifting a golf policy of preferred tee times for members and leagues. Hoover suggested updating the 1979 Master Plan, which had collected dust on officials' shelves. He convened the advisory committee and city council appropriated $50,000 to hire an architect. The administration then committed to move the mulching operation out of Green Hill in two years.

Now, a year later, the administration's finished and filed its 1997 Master Plan with the state. Lerner has praised the city for attempting to "reverse decades of decay" and has offered $1 million in grant money if the city speeds up allocation of $1 million in local funds it set aside for park improvements. On September 23, city councilors adopted an $800,000 loan order for implementing the 10-year Master Plan, and the city assigned $200,000 in federal funds to Green Hill. So, with $2 million available, Parks Deputy Commissioner O'Brien says, Green Hill repairs will begin in April.

"We're going to be as aggressive as possible in improving [the park]," says O'Brien.

Undoubtedly, the Master Plan polishes the lackluster image of a park O'Brien calls "one of the city's biggest assets." It outlines $12 million in improvements, with the city paying for $8 million. Initial repairs begin at the Green Hill Parkway entrance and continue through the center, O'Brien says, while the plan calls for repaving and redrawing Skyline Drive and building boccie and volleyball courts, for instance. The Master Plan also outlines redevelopment of existing fields, picnic facilities, and playground equipment.

Even critical councilors view the plan as evidence of an administration rectifying Green Hill's abuse: "The Master Plan is a recognition by the current administration that previous ones neglected the park," says Patton.

Maybe so, but fanfare around park improvements has drowned out debate on the Master Plan element still left unresolved -- how to best cap the landfill. Coalition members like Troiano argue the Master Plan only "gives us basic things." After all, members say, in 10 years Green Hill will simply have what it always should have had -- a well-maintained infrastructure.

"The Master Plan brings Green Hill up to speed," Dusoe concedes. But, he says, it wouldn't be necessary if officials had treated Green Hill as a resource. "Parks commissioners are obligated to maintain parks properly, but they're advocating to put a landfill in one. It blows me away," he adds.

Coalition supporters say officials are putting forth a plan that ignores this dumpsite's natural surroundings. If officials cared about Green Hill's beauty, coalition supporters say, they'd look at long-term effects of dumping street waste on the area's water supply, wildlife, and so on.

"Despite [the] plan's fiscal merits, it doesn't work for a place like Green Hill Park," says Deborah Cary, director of Massachusetts Audubon Society in Worcester. She says catch-basin materials, in particular, consist of street run-off, such as oil, salt, and cigarette butts. "These materials should be kept away from recreational space," she adds.

Such a notion seems standard outside of Worcester. Many park operators store materials, such as sand or stone, in parks, says Jeff Maron, executive clerk for New England Park Association, a group of commissioners from 145 communities. For instance, managers might stockpile logs, chip them, and use the bark to cover trails. But as park advocates, says Maron, NEPA members limit the materials brought into their park environments.

"Parks store natural materials, which don't have harmful implications for the environment, but I've never heard of a park in New England where outside materials are brought into park confines," says Maron.

In the end, several things are certain. Green Hill's landfill cannot be ignored much longer, especially since the city never formally converted the dumpsite to recreational space. Officials must find a place to deposit Worcester's street waste in three years, and finally, the state DEP hasn't offered direction, except to say street-sweepings are "allowable in a vacuum."

Now that officials are trying to reverse Green Hill abuse, coalition supporters say, promises to treat the park as a resource will be tested by their willingness to look at capping alternatives. Officials may decide to uphold cost arguments, stand by principles, or compromise. Still, supporters say, officials cannot use the landfill's existence as an excuse.

"Just because the city sinned long ago doesn't give us the right to abuse the park any longer," says Rosen, adding the city "has the power to treat the park as a resource."

In case officials ignore this power, coalition members are certain to remind them. Indeed, the group's committed to a year of hard campaigning and three years of compromise-seeking before it capitulates, members say.

"People have jumped through hoops to get information from [officials]," says a member who asked not to be named. "Because of the process so far, compromise is going to be tough."

Ironically, as coalition members begin aggressively championing their agenda, most admit they had never anticipated such a fight. Morgan, for instance, says the notion of dumping in a natural resource seems foreign in an era of environmental activism and government clean-up. She thought once citizens asked the administration not to dump in a park, "people would realize the ridiculous-ness of it all," she says. Others note how communities elsewhere are figuring out ways to better preserve open space, while Worcester seems to be doing the opposite.

"This is a people's park, not a distribution center," says Troiano, who believes a park is for citizen recreation and relaxation, not truck traffic and street waste. "I've never heard of a legally sanctioned disposal site in a public park; it's absurd."

Back to the beginning Kristen Lombardi can be reached at klombardi[a]phx.com.