Lincoln Park Damaged in Car Crash
By STEPHEN SIEGEL
Falls Church Times Staff
August 6, 2012
Playground equipment at Lincoln Park was seriously damaged last week after a driver lost control of a car on Lincoln, crashed through the fence and careened more than 15 feet, coming to rest after being stopped by the equipment.
Details remain sketchy as to how the accident occurred, and it isn’t yet known if alcohol or medical issues were involved.
No one was in the park when the crash occurred, because it happened in the evening, City spokeswoman Susan Finarelli said in a statement. “The City will replace the equipment, but it will take some time to figure out insurance, get proper quotes, etc. As soon as we have a timeline, we will get the word out.”
The car has long since been removed, and the fence that was damaged is mostly repaired. But the equipment is still a wreck: a post that was secured in concrete has been bowled over, and a metal stairs is collapsed. Caution tape surrounds the entire playset.
Update, August 8: Police say the car was driven by a “juvenile,” and that neither he nor the passenger sustained any injuries in the accident, which occurred July 31 at 8:19 pm.
The driver told officers he lost control of the vehicle, hit the gas pedal instead of the brake, and ran through the fence into Lincoln Park, crashing into the play equipment.
The driver was charged with improper control and released to a parent. A court case is pending.
By Stephen Siegel
August 6, 2012
Speaking of Lincoln Park, I would be interested in hearing what the rationale was for the big drainage installation effort that has just been completed. Yes, after a big rain, there was indeed a large puddle in the middle of the park but that tended to dry out within a day or two and nevertheless left the play areas unaffected for the most part. The effort involved was a huge undertaking, involved cutting down a thicket of large trees, installing an elaborate drainage system and closing the park for a good part of the summer. Meanwhile, the houses in the cul-de-sac we live on, have a completely inadequate drainage system that actually adversely affects the houses there, and pleas to take measures to address that issue have yielded no action. Just wondering how much the park effort cost, who actually wanted it, what is so bad about letting a puddle dry on its own and how a questionable drainage issue was addressed while other drainage issues with much bigger costs continued to be unaddressed. There may be some good explanations but at first blush, it doesn’t seem to make sense.
Brian,
Not sure of the total costs, but there were several dedicated volunteers (including myself and two grandkids) who along with City staff planted the raingarden on a hot June day (OK we’ve had a lot of those). The idea is to encourage rain to drain where it falls, rather than run off to storm drains, where it carries a bunch of pollutants that degrade the Chesapeake Bay. I hope that some signs can eventually be put up to explain what the raingarden is trying to do – so that more people can learn more about what they can do to help improve the health of the Bay.
So, in order to protect the Bay from runoff from this 1/2 parcel of park space, we have (1) razed a stand of half century-old pines that provided welcome shade to the park on a hot summer day, and (2) taken up valuable play space for children with a couple of sunken gardens. This seems to fall into the same category of blinkered environmentalism as clearing away the trees in front of the library to make way for brand new “green” homes.
Tim, I do appreciate the community time and effort and the intent that is driving it, but S. Hill seems to have a good point to me. The park lost a lot of air purifying tree, has made the grassy area unusable for running, playing, playing catch, etc. And again, it seems like an expensive endeavor when we have higher priorities.
I will expand S. Hill’s green home analogy. We tear down an “energy inefficient” 1960′s brick rambler and build a McMansion like green home in its place. Notwithstanding the probability that those big green homes are more efficient per square foot, dollars to donuts those new houses use more net energy than that the little brick ramblers they typically replace.
Making civic decisions is a constant weighing of priorities and I appreciate that. I just don’t see how this one makes sense.
S. Hill and Brian Sulc. Time to defend the City for a change. Whatever the merits of the Lincoln Park renovations, the tragic removal of the trees across from the library was not the City’s fault. That is private property and once sold to developers, they could do pretty much what they wanted. Only confiscatory zoning could have saved those trees, and I don’t think anyone wants that.
Well said Lou. I’m pretty sure S. Hill and Brian’s house sat on a vacant lot with trees on them at one point.
Lou, I’m not referring to trees across from the library. When I stated in my comment, “The park lost a lot of air purifying tree…” I was referring to trees cut down in Lincoln Park, not trees cut down in private land across from the library. Believe me, the last thing I’m worried about is whether the City is zealous enough in protecting trees on people’s private property.
John – Stay with us here. Maybe it was too subtle, but Hill’s points and mine were far from arguing against cutting down trees in appropriate situations (such as building a house on private land). The green home in place of old brick rambler analogy and points about the trees being cut down in the name of ecology were made only to highlight the irony of some decisions in the quest to save the environment. So your point is non sequitur (logically disjointed) to the points I was making. I’m all for cutting down trees when it serves our needs, such as building my house or clearing fields of fire to send mortar rounds on an terrorist insurgent safe house.
Let me try to bring you all back to my initial questions which are the main thrust of my initial comment:
1. How much did this rain garden cost?
2. How was this decided upon and weighed against all the other drainage problems that are present in this city?
Everything else that I wrote was simply to illustrate an overall concern about how well-intentioned concerns for the environment can lead to some decisions that lack balance. Because it at least looks like that was what has happened here in the case of the Lincoln Park rain garden effort.
Brian, I think if someone directed your questions to the City staff they would be able to answer both of them. It’s possible, like with many things that get done, there was some kind of grant or other earmarked funds that made the rain gardens possible but might not have been usable on other drainage problems – but I don’t know about that.
Lou — Not disagreeing with you. You can have private-sector environmentalism too, and advertising homes are “green” when built on the wooded land that was just clear-cut is pretty blinkered, if you ask me.
Regarding the raingarden, I know that the EPA has clamped down on localities near the Chesapeake Bay and requiring them to decrease the amount of water that empties into it. Unless you want the city building a massive tank on your property, which they can’t do without any easement, than a rain garden or cistern on a City owned property, such as Lincoln Park, is a good alternative and is more than likely what they are doing. There are plenty of grants out there for this which is likely what they applied for since I doubt this would’ve been approved out of their budget.
So to clear this up, they probably HAD to do something like this, got it funded through sources other than taxpayers money, got volunteers to help, and brought the community together. I see no reason to complain…
The city did use state grant money to fund this rain garden. This state grant money is for water quality improvements not flood control.
It’s true there are flooding issues throughout the city. We will be paying lots of money in the next few decades to replace our old failing storm water pipes, never mind new projects to address localized flooding. (This is reason to support the city council’s idea of applying the surplus toward pay-as-you-go CIP projects, which including stormwater projects)
The city will never be able to put in enough new pipes to solve all the flooding issues (And pipes alone dont address the water quality requirements coming from EPA). Putting the rain garden in a park allows it to serve as a demonstration site — I know the people who worry about water quality issues are hopeful that more homeowners will like what they see and try one in their own yard.
Thanks for the informative inputs. Very helpful.