The central question is not whether youth sports are valuable. The question is whether permanently converting neighborhood green space into specialized baseball facilities for a regional youth baseball organization provides the greatest long-term benefit to the surrounding Pinewood and Madison Park community.
The questions below focus on how a large-scaled league and organized athletic facilities could affect the neighborhood.
Residents believe these impacts should be fully evaluated before permanent athletic infrastructure is added to Madison Central Park adjacent to Pinewood Elementary.
Community Access & Neighborhood Benefit
Who Is Expected To Benefit From This Investment?
Residents support youth sports and recognize the value of organized recreational opportunities for children and families.
Residents are asking whether permanently converting one of Madison Park's remaining neighborhood green spaces into specialized athletic facilities will primarily benefit the surrounding Pinewood community—or expand the capacity of an existing regional youth baseball program.
Residents have asked:
What information or projections were used to estimate participation by Pinewood Elementary students when evaluating this site?
What percentage of anticipated field use is expected to come from children living within the Pinewood Elementary attendance area or the surrounding Madison Park neighborhood?
What evidence supported the conclusion that Pinewood would provide the greatest long-term benefit to the surrounding community compared with other potential locations?
How was community benefit evaluated during the site selection process?
How will children and families who do not participate in organized baseball continue to benefit from this public green space if it is to be converted?
Why this matters:
Publicly available demographic information indicates that Pinewood Elementary serves a student population where many families may face economic, transportation, and other practical barriers to participation in organized athletics.
Residents recognize that scholarships may reduce registration costs for some participants. However, meaningful participation in organized baseball also depends on transportation, equipment, family schedules, and the ability to attend practices and games throughout an entire season. For that reason, residents believe the question extends beyond whether scholarships are available.
Residents also note that DYSA's Extended Use Agreement applications describe community participation differently across schools. For Sedgefield Middle School, DYSA reported that approximately 75% of participants reside within the school's attendance boundary. For Alexander Graham Middle School, DYSA stated that a substantial number of participants both reside within the attendance boundary and attend the school. In its Pinewood Elementary application, however, DYSA stated that while Pinewood is within its Little League boundary and it believes many participating families reside within the attendance area, "the exact number is unknown." The application also states that Pinewood students "could represent numerous player additions" to the league. Residents are therefore seeking to better understand what evidence supported the conclusion that Pinewood would provide the greatest long-term benefit to the surrounding community.
Residents also note that, in the Alexander Graham Middle School agreement, DYSA stated that approximately 90% of participants at Freedom Park reside within a three-mile radius of that facility. Madison Park sits near the outer edge of that area. Residents are seeking to better understand how the anticipated participant base for Pinewood factored into the decision to select this site for an athletic complex.
Unlike open neighborhood green space, dedicated athletic fields primarily serve a single sport, are designed primarily for organized league play, a limited range of age groups, and are not continuously available for general public recreation. Residents are therefore asking whether this conversion provides the broadest long-term benefit to the surrounding community.
Residents believe that before permanently converting neighborhood green space into specialized athletic infrastructure, there should be clear evidence demonstrating that the surrounding community—not simply a broader regional program—will receive a meaningful and lasting public benefit.
Residents also note that both the Sedgefield and Alexander Graham agreements involve the use of an existing baseball field. In contrast, the Pinewood proposal contemplates construction of up to three new baseball/softball fields and batting cages despite the application providing less certainty regarding anticipated participation by children from the surrounding school community. Residents are seeking to better understand what evidence supported selecting Pinewood for a substantially larger athletic investment. See additional details here.
The sections below examine the questions residents believe should be answered before permanently changing the use of this neighborhood open space.
Even a single youth baseball game can involve dozens of players, coaches, family members, and spectators arriving over a relatively short period of time.
Residents have asked:
Has a professional traffic impact study been completed?
How many vehicle trips could occur during games and practices?
How many games, practices, or overlapping activities could occur on a typical weekday or Saturday? What is the related vehicle count?
How would field traffic interact with school traffic and work commute?
How would nearby residential streets be affected?
Where would overflow parking occur?
Why this matters:
Residents note that speed humps already exist on Seneca Place due to neighborhood traffic concerns. Before permanent athletic infrastructure is added, residents believe traffic impacts should be objectively evaluated.
Madison Park currently serves as flexible neighborhood green space used for walking, gathering, informal recreation, and passive enjoyment.
Residents have asked:
How much open space would remain available?
How would public use change?
What opportunities would future residents have to enjoy the space?
What role should neighborhood green space play in a growing community?
Key Fact: Approximately 68% of Pinewood’s original open space has already been lost since 2010.
Residents are asking whether the remaining neighborhood open space should be converted into dedicated athletic infrastructure or preserved for broader community use.
Residents also note that Madison Central Park was established in 2010 through the assistance of a grant intended to preserve and enhance neighborhood recreational space. Residents are seeking a better understanding of how the proposed conversion of that open space aligns with the original purpose and long-term vision of those public investments.
Residents have heard that lights are not planned and that hours are expected to be limited.
However, residents would like clarification regarding which restrictions are permanently binding and which could be modified through future amendments, approvals, or renewals.
Residents have asked:
Are field lights permanently prohibited?
Are operating hours permanently restricted?
Is tournament play permanently prohibited?
Could additional infrastructure be added in the future?
What approvals would be required for future modifications?
There is an important difference between:
A feature that is not currently proposed, and
A feature that is permanently prohibited.
Residents are asking for clear documentation of any long-term restrictions.
The proposed field area is located near existing playground and family recreation spaces.
Residents have asked:
How would active areas interact with the existing playground, walking paths, and informal recreational areas?
How will playground users be protected?
Could foul balls reach existing recreation areas?
What protective measures are planned?
How will pedestrian safety be addressed?
How will organized athletic use interact with existing family recreation areas?
Residents believe safety considerations should be evaluated before final field placement decisions are made.
Residents have raised questions regarding drainage, grading, and stormwater management.
Questions include:
Has a stormwater analysis been completed?
How would grading and field construction affect runoff?
Could nearby drainage patterns change?
How would heavy rain events be managed?
What mitigation measures are planned?
Residents believe these impacts should be evaluated before construction occurs.
The 2010 creation of Madison Central Park appears to have involved extensive planning, public engagement, engineering, grading review, and zoning approvals. Documents can be found here. Residents are seeking to understand what comparable planning and evaluation has been completed for this proposal.
Organized athletic facilities often require supporting infrastructure beyond the playing field itself.
Residents have asked:
What restroom facilities would serve players and spectators?
Would existing school restrooms be used?
Would portable restrooms be required?
Would additional utility or service infrastructure be needed?
How would maintenance and servicing be handled?
Would future support facilities be required as usage increases?
Why this matters:
Athletic fields often require supporting infrastructure to accommodate players, coaches, officials, and spectators. Residents are asking for a complete understanding of operational needs before permanent changes are made.
The Madison Park area includes mature trees, natural areas, and nearby wildlife corridors.
Residents have asked:
Has a wildlife impact assessment been completed?
How would increased activity affect wildlife movement patterns?
Would trees be removed?
How would habitat areas be affected?
What environmental mitigation measures are planned?
Residents believe environmental considerations should be evaluated alongside recreational benefits.
Residents support youth sports and recognize the need for athletic facilities.
The key question is not whether baseball should be played.
The question is whether Pinewood/Madison Park is the most appropriate location for a multi-field athletic complex.
Residents have asked:
What alternative sites were evaluated?
What criteria were used to select Pinewood?
How does Pinewood compare to other DYSA locations? Residents have reviewed a large number of existing baseball facilities throughout the region and have observed differences in acreage, surrounding land uses, residential adjacency and site configuration. Residents would like to better understand how this site was selected.
Were larger or less residential alternatives considered? What about existing parcels in less residential areas that have ample space for additions?
Residents have also raised questions regarding the public engagement process. Some residents report that they first became aware of the project when survey stakes appeared on the property. Residents have also expressed confusion regarding project timelines, approval milestones, and when various agreements became effective. Residents also note that the executed agreement is dated February 1, 2026, and are seeking a clear public timeline showing key decisions, approvals, and opportunities for community input.
Questions include:
When were residents first notified?
What opportunities were provided for community input?
How were neighborhood concerns incorporated into planning?
What opportunities remain for future engagement?
Residents are asking for meaningful public participation before permanent changes are made to neighborhood open space.
Please refer to this Timeline for resident outreach to CMS and DYSA.