Parkland means more than profit: parks have the power to inspire, and should be defended against being sold as excess lands.

New Year's day, was glorious in the Washington, D.C. area. The temperature surpassed 70 degrees and the sky was cloudless--certainly not your typical mid-winter afternoon.

My wife and I decided to celebrate by hiking in Great Falls National Park. When we arrived, however, we were surprised by hundreds of others who apparently had the same idea. Hordes of hikers, bikers, kayakers and dog walkers were enjoying the outdoor atmosphere that was closer to a Fourth of July picnic than the day after New Year's Eve when the gloomy weather and the common hangover usually keep the masses indoors to watch football.

The mood and scene at the park was so inspiring that I wanted to share it with the NRPA staff at our monthly meeting. Wasn't it fantastic, I said, to be part of the park and recreation field that attracts so many people away from a sedentary afternoon? Wasn't it great to be advocating for funding to purchase more parkland that is in high demand?

Ironically, despite the high use of the park that day, The Washington Post was carrying two ongoing stories about efforts by local elected officials to "swap" or even sell parkland in our area.

The first article concerned a proposal by a developer in Leesburg, Va., (which is near NRPA's headquarters) who wanted to trade 400 acres of land designated for a county park, for land the developer owns elsewhere in the county.

Meanwhile, the Post also reported that Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich was proposing to sell 836 acres of woodlands in rural St. Mary's County to a construction company executive. Although the state bought the parcel of land from a conservation group in 2003 with the promise to keep it undeveloped, the parcel still ended up on a list of "excess lands" Maryland is trying to sell to close a $1.8 billion budget gap.

The good news is there has been considerable public outcry. Letter writers to the Post have railed against the Leesburg plan, noting that the parkland purchase was approved in a voter referendum. One letter writer said the plan would add 50,000 daily car trips to the area instead of providing badly needed open space.

The press articles and the resulting public outcry in Maryland caused the governor to back off the proposal, and, the state legislature is trying to pass a constitutional amendment to prevent similar sales in the future.

The bad news is that this phenomenon of selling parkland isn't limited to the Washington, D.C., area. As reported by Park & Recreation Associate Editor Maya Avrasin in her article "Paving Over Parkland" (in this issue on page 40) the trend of trading or selling parkland appears to be growing nationally. More and more county supervisors, mayors and governors see "excess" parkland as an asset to be sold in order to alleviate their budget problems.

Professionals and citizens involved in parks and recreation intuitively know this is a shortsighted idea. However, professionals and citizens often are at a loss when it comes to translating this intuition into tangible arguments that can help defeat these proposals.

Clearly, we need to gather and promote more research in this area and make it easily available to those willing to fight these initiatives. In addition, we need to mount a public awareness and advocacy campaign aimed at inspiring citizen activists to fight for parks and recreation.

In the meantime, professionals and citizens need to be fully aware of this trend and be ready to mobilize and oppose these measures. We already know that to most people, parkland means more than potential revenue to balance an annual budget. Parks are the places that bring a community together when the temperature reads 70 degrees in January, and are places that should be savored, not sold.