A very biased and narrow minded approach is suggested here. Council sent back the plans based mainly on the reorientation of the field. The neighborhood representatives pushed for approval despite the objections of the most impacted neighbors. Why does the editor ignore this point? The original plans did not support a large enough park to satisfy the non baseball crowd. Its doubtful this problem will be resolved when the larger field is set back to its original position. The neighborhood reps know this and that's why they supported the re-orientation. Its "Screw the nearby residents, we want a larger park".

The neighborhood association has already tried taking away one or both fields and failed. Nothing wrong with getting input from the nearby residents but the fields have served thousands of residents over the years. Seems to me the field users should have the upper hand in designing the baseball fields? Suggesting a smaller baseball field reveals an incredible amount of ignorance from the editor about baseball field design.

What argument is there for suggesting the neighborhood should get priority in designing an area that has served all of Mtn. View residents. The neighborhood representatives were OK with putting children at risk by telling the baseball people to drop their kids off in the streets.

Why not suggest a level playing field for all input and not show prejudice for one group versus another?