A Letter to the editor which appeared in the Murrysville Star in January 2004 concerning Pleasant Valley Park:

Should the 262 acre Pleasant Valley Park be retained as a park or opened up for development?

Last night I attended a Murrysville Council Meeting, where the topic which dominated the community comment was the possibility that Murrysville would sell the Pleasant Valley Park in order to divert funds to other parks in the Municipality. This was the first time I have attended a council meeting, and did not know what to expect. I was not disappointed: the meeting was entertaining from several points of view, not the least of which was my admiration of the well prepared and thought out speeches that were heart felt and inspired. Some of the analogies presented included the possible hindsight that France may have suffered concerning the Louisiana Purchase, and Russia for Alaska. Others spoke eloquently about continuous green space, habitat for species, and the detrimental effect of development. Some even talked of the possibility of new eco-tourism, which now occurs in Frick and Duff Parks.

All but one of the community speakers, who discussed this topic, advocated keeping the park. Their speeches were well prepared and quite compelling. As the discourse emanated, possibly through providence, or possibly through well thought out seating arrangements, the very last speaker turned out to be the sole dissenting voice. It reminded me of the movie "Witness for the Prosecution" where one very last minute witness made all the difference in the world. His arguments too were compelling, presented in a manner which, self admittedly, were a position of logic. He granted that the property was very beautiful, but based on his objective reasoning, he suggested that the property be sold so that the funds could be put to good use. The major points of concern were with the cost of building a suitable pull off or parking area and safety concerns with the traffic patterns on the stretch of Pleasant Valley Road next to the park. He indicated that Murrysville, according to some statistic, already has sufficient park space. He proposed that it would be difficult to prevent partiers and ATV riders from misusing the park, and he also stipulated the benefits that the money obtained by the sale of the park could provide, the most of which would support "ball fields" and other community park developments.

Had the last speaker gone first, or possibly in the middle of the other speakers, I suspect that a suitable rebuttal may have been delivered by one or more of the supporters of Pleasant Valley Park. I myself did not have the preparation or agility to stand and generate an appropriate response. I live in Washington Township, but I regularly hike, jog and view nature in the parks of Murrysville. Because of this issue, I have recently discovered Pleasant Valley Park, which I had not known of before. I visited the park last weekend and found it quite nice. I don't agree with the safety concerns, if a suitable turning lane were constructed, which possibly the state may be able to fund, if this is a state road. As for "ball fields", aren't there enough of those in the community? Why is it necessary to sell a large track of pristine wilderness to fund a few of those?

I noticed that the commissioners of Westmoreland County have recently made some hard decisions to try to bring the county budget into line. I realize too, that the commissioners of Murrysville are trying hard to do the same thing, and at the same time are trying to further the development of the community parks. Through patience and by spreading development out through a sufficient time period, they ought to be able to find and spend the funds necessary through simple growth in the tax base, and growth in the economy, without sacrificing a non-renewable resource such as Pleasant Valley Park. If they do decide to sell the property after all, why not sell it to an individual or group not interested in developing it for business or residential purposes, but who may be interested in donating it to a conservancy, possibly as a name sake or for tax purposes.

Whatever your opinion on the retention of this park, at the very least as many people as possible should let their thoughts be known.

Sincerely,
Douglas A. Bauman
Washington Township