Supporters: A Skateboard Park 'Would Benefit Everything'
Part III of a three-part series examining both the pros and cons of Pitcher Park, the proposed Dormont skateboard facility.
On July 15, 2008, former Dormont resident Mary Pitcher lost two of her four sons in a drowning incident at a reservoir in the Allegheny National Forest. The young men, Stephen Pitcher, 19, and Vincent Pitcher, 21, who grew up in Dormont, were avid skateboarders. As a memorial to the two lives lost, their mother, now a resident of Scott Township, approached Dormont Council about establishing a skateboard park and raising the money for its construction. Since then, the proposed facility has been fraught with controversy. This three-part series will look at existing skateboard facilities in other municipalities, as well as examine the views of those opposed to the creation of one in Dormont—and those who feel it would be an asset to the borough.
Dormont has its share of recreational activities—the pool, basketball courts for a pickup game, horseshoes for the older crowd, tennis courts, ballfields for organized sports, walking paths and playground facilities.
But, those activities don't necessarily appeal to everyone. According to some of Dormont's teenagers, unless they play an organized sport or it's hot outside, there's nothing for them to do. And trying to do something other than sitting at home playing video games gets them in trouble.
Skateboarding on Dormont streets or at a Port Authority stop or junction is illegal. Shopping centers, schools and the tennis courts at Dormont Park are all posted with "no skateboarding" signs—and some places include bicycles, too.
"Everywhere I go, I get kicked off," said Tyler Black, 13, of Dormont, who says he's even been told to get off the street with a skateboard in his hand as he's walked along Potomac Avenue. He has friends who have been issued citations with fines, which can be given for trespassing or disorderly conduct.
"We get tired of skating in the street and getting yelled at," said Nathan McCartney, 16. "It's hard to find places to skate around here. They think all skateboarders are all bad."
The teens say that they and their friends are often forced to wait until night falls, and then use parking lots at businesses or the senior high rise until they get kicked out.
And it's not just skateboarders. Ryan Dorsch, 12, who rides BMX bikes and rollerblades, said he's treated the same way.
Black, McCartney and Dorsch think there's a solution to the issue—and that solution is Pitcher Park Memorial Skatepark, which Dormont Council approved in April 2010. The park, within Dormont Park at the corner of Banksville Road and Dormont Avenue, would also accommodate bikers and rollerbladers and keep all three groups off the street.
"Enough is enough," McCartney said about the adult bickering that he feels has hampered the project. "We need and want Pitcher Park, and I don't understand why some people are so against it. It's not fair to us."
McCartney, who works at Kuhn's supermarket, said he and other skateboarders respect their parents, teachers and police; work hard in school; do their chores; and go to work.
"So, at the end of the day, with the little bit of free time we have, after doing everything that we are supposed to do, told to do and is expected of us, do we have to be told that what we want and love to do can't be done? All we want to do is skate and have a good time. We have a right to do what we love just as much as anyone else—and we also want to know that we have a clean and safe environment to do it in. Why do some people think that is so wrong?"
Although skateboarding has grown in popularity over the past few decades and many towns across the country have added skateboard parks to their recreational offerings, there are no facilities in Dormont or its bordering neighborhoods.
"There's nowhere for them to go," said Mandy Swartzwelder, a parent whose son is among those targeted by police. "This skatepark is going to be a great thing. It's a shame. All there is in Dormont is the wooden (playground) castle and that's for little kids."
Mary Pitcher said the idea for the skatepark was an effort by family and friends of her two late sons, Vincent and Stephen, who were avid skateboarders and BMX bikers, to create something positive for the community from a devastating tragedy.
"I have felt personally the discrimination that my own sons faced just trying to find a safe, appropriate place to ride their bikes or skateboards in this area," Pitcher said.
While some people opposed to the skatepark have legitimate reasons to object, there are other adults who support the effort by Pitcher to memorialize her two sons.
One of those adults is one-time Dormont resident Steve Aguzzi, associate pastor of Mt. Lebanon United Presbyterian Church. His church, which includes a number of members from Dormont, is considering starting a skateboard ministry as an outreach for teens.
"When you have a lot of kids who don't have much to do in the community, it makes for a very bad community," said Aguzzi, who was the church's former youth pastor. "I understand the argument on the other side of it. Sometimes a community is called to put their issues on the backburner for the sake of children. Sometimes you have to pull together for a greater calling. There are things greater than house values."
Aguzzi said a church leader he spoke with in California, where skateboard parks are in abundance, "couldn't believe that there's a dispute." He said a skatepark can be a community-building activity, a place for fundraisers, for mentorship and character building.
"The goal of our organization was to donate a skatepark. Period," Pitcher said.
But the nonprofit Pitcher Park Memorial Skatepark group found that wasn't so easy—and, in fact, council rejected the proposal once before Pitcher appealed to a new council, which voted in favor of the project.
The first plan was to place the skatepark at the site of the older tennis courts on Memorial Drive, but after resident objections, it was designed to be parallel to those courts but further away from homes. When that met with objection, Pitcher said borough officials chose the Banksville Road tennis courts as the best site with visibility and away from homes in an already-established recreation area.
Borough officials also asked the Pitcher Park group to refurbish or replace the existing basketball court along Banksville Road, and refurbish the tennis courts on Memorial Drive, which was done this summer with the help of Mt. Lebanon United Presbyterian Church, donations from Jim Jenkins Garden Shop and professional assistance from a tennis contractor.
Grindline Skateparks Inc. of Seattle, WA, has been hired to construct the 15,000-square-foot concrete facility. Grindline has designed and built more than 100 skateparks since 1990, according to its website.
"Their work is impressive," said Councilwoman Heather Schmidt, who voted in favor of the skatepark along with councilwomen Kim Lusardi, Laurie Malka and Joan Hodson. "It's beautiful."
The skatepark is to be built within a five-year timetable, Schmidt said. After council granted approval, a legal agreement between the borough and Pitcher Park was to be drawn up by the attorneys for both sides as a matter of administrative protocol.
Schmidt said council specified that no construction could proceed until all the money to fund the project was in place. As long as those terms are met, Schmidt said, the skatepark should become reality.
"I don't think a new council would be able to come in and say, 'No, you can't do it,'" she said, particularly since Pitcher Park has already spent money on the project.
Even without starting work on the skatepark itself, Pitcher's spent about $60,000. The park alone is estimated to cost between $500,000 to 600,000, which Pitcher hopes to achieve through grants, in-kind services, donations and through fundraisers, like the recent Dormont Dungeon. One donation of services came today (Friday) from Keystone Consultants Inc. of Carnegie, which agreed to provide a required survey of the site at no cost to the Pitcher Park group.
The Pitcher Park group will also hold an escrow account to maintain the park for 20 years after it is built.
After the park was approved, dissenting borough officials sent letters to New Sun Rising, which provided the nonprofit umbrella status for Pitcher Park in the beginning. New Sun Rising dropped Pitcher's group, telling her they "couldn't handle the dynamics of Dormont," she said. Councilman John Maggio, who voted against the skatepark, said he sent one of the letters after "inappropriate postings, signs and pictures she was putting out, including one of me as the Burger King person," something Pitcher said she regrets doing.
Pitcher said she then had to pay out another $850 to file with the Internal Revenue Service so the group could get status as a 501(c)3 nonprofit and a 509(a) public charity.
"The fact that the controversy is still occuring is stemming from a small group of people in Dormont, even after their demands were met by moving the initial design three times, away from houses, not taking away green space, replacing a half basketball court with a collegiate-size court and refurbishing tennis courts—with all this being done and the skatepark being built with no taxpayer dollars," Pitcher said.
Hodson, who said she's in favor of any recreation in the borough, said a masterplan for Dormont Park done in the 1990s actually included a plan for a skatepark. Schmidt, a rollerblader and skateboarder herself, said she knows firsthand the need for a safe place to do it.
"If you didn't play an organized sport, you didn't have anything to do," said the Dormont born-and-raised Schmidt, adding that skateboarding tends to attract more "artsy" and creative types of kids who aren't into organized activities.
Opponents of the skatepark point out that it might attract people from other communities. Schmidt said that she investigated the Banksville tennis courts and found a lot of users were non-residents. The same is true for Dormont Pool, which sells non-resident season passes.
Pitcher said opponents try to label her as an outsider because she now lives in Scott Township, even though she raised her sons in Dormont, their father still lives in the borough and she owns an antique shop on West Liberty Avenue. She's been met with harassment, verbal attacks and has been made to jump through hoops as she has tried to donate the skatepark to the community.
The controversy has gone beyond the objecting to the park—to where Pitcher said people have attacked the character of all four of her sons, including the two who died, on Patch posts and verbally in the community. She said it even happened at public meetings, which is why she began to videotape all council sessions.
The Save Dormont Park group posted photos of McKinley Park's skateboard park to show graffiti as a potential issue. But former Dormont resident Andrew Fetzko, owner of the Head Board Shop, a skateboard shop on the South Side, said some of that graffiti was part of a contest at the Pittsburgh park sponsored by Hater Magnet, a hip-hop clothing company.
McKinley Park is in an urban area prone to issues such as graffiti—and he points out that graffiti occurs everywhere. Because paint ruins skating surfaces, it's not something done by skateboarders.
"To say this brings graffiti is absurd," Fetzko said. "It's a few absurd people putting forth this proposition that juvenile delinquent gangs will move in to Dormont. I just do not understand how a community that has so much like Dormont doesn't see the opportunity. It would benefit everything."
Hungry and thirsty skateboarders would patronize the shops in the adjacent shopping center, he said. So might their parents. And Dormont Pool would sell more passes as more people gravitate to the skatepark.
In fact, not having a skatepark might actually lead to more problems. Without an outlet that teens enjoy, the community might well find them "over the hill smoking weed and drinking beer" out of boredom, Fetzko said.
"I understand some of these people want their private little park," Fetzko continued. "It's time that we wake up. To think that every kid in America today wants to play baseball, basketball or football is jejune. There has to be some type of facility that's safe for the other 80 to 90 percent who don't excel in or play organized sports."
Zandy Dudiak
7:19 pm on Friday, November 11, 2011
Chris Blackwell, the principal planner for Penn Hills, who helped facilitate the skatepark facility there, will be attending Dormont Council's meeting on Monday, Nov. 14, at 7 p.m.
cassie gillen
10:39 pm on Friday, November 11, 2011
Zandy, I really enjoyed your articles. Very informative & I hope it helps the cause. Thanks for being fair and doing a great job. I'm really looking forward to the meeting for many reasons but it will be very inserting to talk w/Chris and hear what he has to say :D
Cynthia Reynolds
12:38 am on Saturday, November 12, 2011
I am shocked and sad to learn of the hurdles Ms. Shea and the committee has had to endure in an effort to get Pitcher Park built. I have watched from afar as I live in southern California and am also a Social worker who works with troubled youth. We have an abundance of skateboard parks many of which are sponsored or endorsed by local police. Why? because it has been proven time and again the role skateboarding has played by giving youth who don't enjoy team sports an option to do something they enjoy and excel in!!! As a result whole new "communities" are built - an unexpected trend - which has led to numerous successes at both a social and cognitive level. To those who oppose the Park, please take the time to research and learn the true value of having this option.- don't be afraid!! And to Mary Shea I say "you are a visionary and the people of Dormont are lucky that you "walk the walk"!
Zandy Dudiak
5:23 pm on Saturday, November 12, 2011
I just saw this story about a boy who was injured while skateboarding in the street. Thought I'd throw it out there for discussion. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/westmoreland/s_766973.html
dormont987
2:09 pm on Sunday, November 13, 2011
Skate park dismantled as police arrest three for theft of equipment
Monday, 31 October 2011 14:30
Ann Richardson
E-mail Print PDF
2 Comments and 2 Reactions
No plan on whether park will be relocated
OCEAN CITY – Heavily lobbied and long-awaited, the Ocean City Skateboard Park opened in April, 2002.
Last week, the beleaguered park quietly closed before being dismantled and hauled away, but not before a trio of suspects were accused of stealing equipment.
Angry skateboarders have started a Facebook page, Rebuild Ocean City NJ Skatepark, which helped police catch the suspects, according to Ocean City police Capt. Steve Ang.
According to Ang, crews from the city’s public works department had begun the process of dismantling the ramps and jumps that once entertained large groups of skaters when police were alerted that Facebook postings revealed many skaters admitting to and bragging about illegal activity at the park, including drug use and recent thefts and damage.
http://www.shorenewstoday.com/snt/news/index.php/ocean-city-general-news/17799-skate-park-dismantled-as-police-arrest-three-for-theft-of-equipment.html
Zandy Dudiak
4:50 pm on Sunday, November 13, 2011
Thanks for posting this Dormont987. However, the part you posted didn't tell the whole story and is a bit misleading—and I'm a stickler for trying to keep the information here accurate.
The park was shut for safety reasons: the ocean had deteriorated the equipment, as had bikers who were not permitted in the skatepark. And actually, the skateboarders were the ones who helped police apprehend the suspects. The Ocean City official also said that they were considering the possibility of rebuilding or relocating the park.
Also from the story: When the park opened, it was fully staffed. Over time, it became more and more difficult to keep the park staffed and open. People would often cut holes in the fence and utilize the park when no one was around, Mallon said.
“It was difficult to keep it staffed and to enforce the rules,” Mallon said. “We locked it up and they cut it open at night. Bikes are clearly not permitted. You can post the rules but if you don’t staff it folks don’t adhere to the rules. We worry about an eight year-old following the rules in there with a 16-year-old not following the rules on a bicycle. It’s an accident waiting to happen.” “We are not against bikers or skateboarders, safety is our utmost concern,” said Mallon. “We don’t want to see anyone injured. It’s really no different than in any other playground. When the equipment in a playground becomes unsafe we take it down and fix it. We evaluate it.”
Zandy Dudiak
5:12 pm on Sunday, November 13, 2011
Truth of the matter is we can all search the Internet for incidents of skatepark crimes and incidents. But try doing it for swimming pools, tennis courts, playgrounds, basketball courts and parks. You'll find just as many if not more incidents than for skateparks. These problems don't appear to have plagued those facilities in Dormont, even with non-residents using the recreational opportunities. Instead of waging a battle of Internet stories from distant communities, there should be an open conversation here about how people feel about the skatepark here.
Zandy Dudiak
7:51 pm on Sunday, November 13, 2011
Debby, That's a fantastic idea!
Zandy Dudiak
3:44 am on Monday, November 14, 2011
Dormont987, I have deleted your post. I did a very thorough background check on what you referred to and it does not rise to the level of being a concern in this issue, except as a character attack. I ask everyone to please just stick to the issues and not start with personal attacks again.
dormont987
6:27 am on Monday, November 14, 2011
of course you deleted it, you have to please Mrs. Pitcher first, and then focus on the truth second.
Ed M
7:30 am on Monday, November 14, 2011
Well, dormont987, is that truth you speak of your truth or the actual truth?
Zandy Dudiak
9:32 am on Monday, November 14, 2011
Dormont987, It has nothing to do with pleasing Mrs. Pitcher at all. To put that up means to open a Pandora's box. First of all, there are three categories of offenses in the PA justice system—traffic, non-traffic and criminal. What you refer to did not rise to the level of criminal charges. It was non-traffic. Had they been criminal charges that were relevant to the story, then of course they would have been included. What you are suggesting would open a Pandora's box for every story on Patch. Would that also mean that kids who are cited for skateboarding on the streets because there is no skatepark then be accused of "unacceptable behavior?" One might view traffic violations as "unacceptable behavior" and relevant in a story where speeding or failure to stop at a stop sign might result in hitting a kid on a skateboard who has no other place to go. People who live in glass houses might not want to open that door. And certainly Patch is not in the business of trying to discredit otherwise good people who might mess up sometimes for the sake of embarrassing them. And that is all your post was trying to do.
Joey Solak
1:09 pm on Monday, November 14, 2011
After reading all three parts of this article I still feel the same about the whole situation. I support getting a skatepark in Dormont. However replacing the tennis courts on Banksville that are heavily used just does need seem like the ideal spot for it. Especially when what they are being replaced with is not equivalent. I wonder if there has been discussion about putting a skate park somewhere other than Banksville Rd, or Memorial Drive.
Lou Pietosi
1:53 pm on Monday, November 14, 2011
Zandy--it seems that no matter how fair you try to present the facts, SOME PEOPLE just want to argue. Thanks for bringing both sides of the story to our attention. I agree with Mr Solak - the skateboard park replacing the tennis courts is rediculous, in my opinion, especially when there are unused tennis courts and land in the upper park. I guess that was tried and some residents didn't like it. But replacing the much used tennis and basketball courts just doesn't make sense. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
Tom Davis
3:32 pm on Friday, November 18, 2011
I agree with Joey Solak. Your refurbishment of the sub-standard tennis courts on Memorial Drive amounts to "smoke and mirrors". If you're being honest, then you'd admit that they do not compare to the tennis courts that you wish to remove. If you want people to support you, you might start by not insulting their intelligence.
mary pitcher
4:19 pm on Friday, November 18, 2011
Mr. Davis, We did exactly what council asked us to do. When we approached council our intention was to donate a skatepark to Dormont not to refurbish tennis courts or add a collegiate size basketball court at our own cost. The original site chosen was Memorial Drive tennis courts.
"Smoke & mirrors", implying we are not being honest and trying to insult supporters intelligence is not in our mission statement!
Daniele Ventresca
4:45 pm on Friday, November 18, 2011
Now Mary, those of us who attended the meetings know exactly what you promised. You agree to replace the tennis courts. You say that you never promised to replace the tennis courts and I say that you did. You have tapes of all the meetings that you had posted on your website until people started to raise questions about what you were doing with the courts on Memorial Drive. Here is an idea, why don't you re-post all the videos and let people decide for themselves what was promised. If you are telling the truth about what was agreed to, then you should have no problem letting people see these videos.
Ed M
4:48 pm on Friday, November 18, 2011
If I not mistaken, the council transcripts read that the Memorial Drive courts would be replaced. And if I'm not mistaken, that's what happened.
erik_lynch
4:56 pm on Friday, November 18, 2011
strange how she keeps avoiding the questions and challenges to post the old video footage.
teresa caprio
8:22 am on Monday, November 28, 2011
What a mess..try focusing on the kids..they need a safe place to skatboard and BMX bike. That's what kids are into these days and it sounds like all communities, Dormont needs to look out for it's future; it's children.
rickchristy
7:02 pm on Tuesday, November 29, 2011
why focus on kids that do not live in the borough for a current fad? should the focus not be on the future of Dormont and what is best for the community and it's citizens? It's a good thing we did not build a "pog park" for the kids when that was popular.
Ed M
9:22 pm on Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Skate parks have been around for decades and aren't a fad like pog parks. And the youth of Dormont would benefit from this park.
teresa caprio
8:22 am on Monday, November 28, 2011
*skateboard
Lou Pietosi
6:41 pm on Monday, November 28, 2011
We've all shared our opinions on this but the truth is an agreement is in place. Although I think its a shame to replace a very active basketball and tennis facility when there is a perfect place on Memorial Drive for the skate park, enough residents voiced their objectons to make that not possible. My question is-where was all the dissent when this was being proposed? Now it seems, its too late. If they raise the necessary funds the skate park will get built. If not it won't. This is a good lesson that concerned residents need to get involved BEFORE its too late!
Daniele Ventresca
7:20 pm on Monday, November 28, 2011
We did raise concerns well before the project was approved. Council initally voted against having a skatepark at any location in Dormont (5-2 against) in Oct 2009. The Pitcher Park Group used the back door to get the matter re-voted on in April 2010. Council refused to advertise the issue or have any additional public meetings at this time despite the fact that most of the public thought the matter had been put to rest. I still run in to people who have no idea that the project was approved. Anyway, we did attend meetings, tried to stop the re-vote and tried to get the vote rescinded. Unfortunately, our concerns fell on deaf ears.
Lou Pietosi
7:25 pm on Monday, November 28, 2011
Interesting Daniele but apparently not enough people got involved. Even when I attended the meeting about the Mayor Lloyd flyers, there were only about 100 residents there. That's not nearly enough to cause a council member to be affected enough to "listen" to the public. I'm afraid that's a problem all over America today. There is strength in numbers and the numbers must be BIG! Thanks for responding!
Ed M
10:31 pm on Monday, November 28, 2011
What is the back door you speak of Daniele?
Daniele Ventresca
6:03 am on Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Well for starters they had the item placed on the agenda for the 3/29/10 agenda meeting after the agenda was closed for the meeting. All registered comments need to be on the agenda by 3:30 pm on the Friday before the meeting and they admitted that they did not call until 3:45 pm. Not one person on council, the borough manager, or the mayor admitted to knowing that the item would be discussed at the meeting. The way that the community (and council members) found out about the meeting was when Channel 11 News ran a brief story on the evening news the night before. The matter was discussed at this agenda meeting. At the next voting meeting 4/5/10 they voted to approve the park (with a very vague and poorly worded motion). This entire re-vote took place within a one week period (which was also the week before a holiday - Easter) and no community outreach was done despite the fact that most of the public thought the matter had been put to rest. Since the matter had been previously voted down, the entire process (including public meetings) should have been revisited. And now look at what is going on, they are trying to get a one-year extension before the new council is seated...
Ed M
7:17 am on Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Ahh that back door! Looks like the only addition to the agenda was a registered public comment. There have been revised agenda's in the past. Is there something that specifically states updating the agenda is not allowed? Why did do you feel this all needed to be rehashed since that was already done once?
Daniele Ventresca
7:44 am on Tuesday, November 29, 2011
I have no idea about past agenda revisions. We were told at the meeting that the cut-off was 3:30 pm on the Friday before the meeting. This issue was a hot topic of debate for several months. Many people did not want this park and the matter was voted down soundly in October 2009 (vote was 5-2 against). Nothing changed in the plan from Oct. 2009 until April 2010. It is only fair to notify the public properly that the matter was up for reconsideration and also give the public a forum to express their views. They could have advertised the issue in the borough newsletter and given people an opportunity to bring their concerns to council especially given the fact that two of the council members were new to council and had not been there for most of the debate.
Ed M
8:57 am on Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Many people were for it as well, Daniele. How is the public notified of the agenda for the next council meeting? If it is via the borough web site, that is about as reliable as word of mouth! The web site is horribly out of date!
teresa caprio
10:51 pm on Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Shut The Front Door! Enough already! Seriously, this skatepark rehash is getting old. And I love the new spokeswoman for the Patch AND Dormont Council! Keep the animosity churning!
Lou Pietosi
11:03 pm on Tuesday, November 29, 2011
LOL Teresa! ILove it! It DOES seem like the same people are going round and round, (including me!!). I didn't know this was originally voted down however. Ed, I'm afraid I agree that having the vote just a week after a meeting in which this wasn't properly on the agenda at least raises questions. And as you know perception is reality. It could perceived as "back dooring" the matter to sneak a tea vote in! Kist trying to give my view. Again, for the record, I'm not really against the park. Only the location. And given thne choice I personally would vote no if the only location was replacing the current tennis and basketball courts, which is used by many more people of ALL ages. Sorry Teresa but its a slow TV night and I was bored! LOL.And I think an extention should be out of the question for such a hotly contested matter. You're either non profit or you're not. If you have to keep looking for partners that's a sign this could take much longer. And I can't stand the thought of posting on this in, say, 2020!!!
Lou Pietosi
11:05 pm on Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Oops I meant a quick vote and "kist" should have been JUST!
Ed M
7:39 am on Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Slow TV night!!!!! Rudolph was on!!!!!!
Tom Davis
6:38 pm on Monday, December 5, 2011
Okay Mary, let's simplify this. If there was an existing skate board park where the much used tennis courts currently sit...not a skate board park that you put your heart into...just a skate board park...and someone proposed ripping it out and replacing it with tennis courts...would you be in favor of that? Somehow, it seems impossible for you to see the other side of the coin. I'm not opposed to your skate board park, but I can't support your "bulldozer mentality". Think of others, like those who use the tennis courts, and you might just garner the support that you need. You are the one who chose a multi-use park as the proposed site. What made you think it would be easy?
DSA
9:08 pm on Monday, December 5, 2011
Tom: That is the most sensible comment I've seen regarding the skate park since I started reading about it here.