Counter Argument: Park Planning

Criteria for Good Thesis Statements

1. Arguable – Reasonable people could disagree
2. Supportable – Can be backed up with evidence, reasons
3. Specific – Not vague, not too general, not too broad
4. “Maps out” the paper – Gives the reader a guide to the organization of the argument
5. Third person – No “I” or “me” in the paper



Park Planning for River’s Edge Park

Tucked away among neighboring houses along the Willamette River is a small pocket of nature: Blackberries ripen under the great trees; ivy runs down the bank, obscuring the remnants of trails down to the gravel bar; an osprey lifts off from its nest in a dying treetop. This is River’s Edge Park, a small parcel of mostly overgrown land, forgotten for decades by most of the city. Now, plans are being made to develop this corner as part of a master planning process for all of the city parks. The question is, What kind of development should take place? Taking into consideration the size and natural features of the park and the interests of the immediate neighbors, it is clear that the best plan is for a relatively undeveloped, mostly naturalized park with limited amenities and parking.

The size and physical features of the park are the most limiting factor. Barely 10 acres, only the top half of the park is flat and well above the annual winter high water. Only this area is suitable for siting any permanent structures, and its small size argues for the simplest of amenities: A picnic table or two, benches, a viewing platform, a play structure, and a small lawn will fill the area. Some may insist on adding more parking spaces here. However, to do so would require either removing the spreading maples that give the park its character and beauty or eliminating the lawn and picnic area.

Down a steep and unstable bank lies the other half of the park. This is gravel bar, flooded each winter and overgrown with young willows. This part is best left to nature. Some may argue that this is the jewel of the park and should be cleared and made more accessible. However, while a trail may be cleared to the water each spring, any attempts at developing this part will be thwarted each year by the high water. A winter channel cutting close to the bank creates an island of the lower half. Each year’s flood chokes the area with massive debris. Since heavy equipment is not allowed in such a riparian area, the effort and expense of clearing it each year would exhaust the Park Department’s maintenance budget – as well as its personnel.

Finally, the park is currently and will continue to be designated a neighborhood park – not a city or regional park. So, the interests of the neighbors should weigh most heavily in any decisions. Their preferences range from leaving it exactly as it is to adding small improvements. They favor one or two tables, a play structure, and clearing back the brush on the upper level. Any grand ideas for changing this park aren’t coming from the people who actually use it.

In conclusion, River’s Edge Park is already very close to what it should become: A natural area where people can picnic in view of the river, neighborhood children can play, and the adventurous can traipse down the bank and skip stones or wade. And perhaps we can help nature along a bit by adding a nesting pole for the osprey against the day that the winter storms take down that dying fir tree.

DIRECTIONS:
In a Google Doc, highlight the thesis. Underline the counter-arguments.

ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS:
1. How does the writer support his position? Explain.
2. How is each counter-argument answered or refuted? Explain.