Residents urge council to keep Orchard Park amid land‑banking and developer interest

Several residents and neighborhood group leaders urged the Altoona City Council at Monday’s meeting to keep Orchard Park as public parkland rather than transfer it for housing or development.

Shasta Langenbacher, president of the Booker T. Washington Revitalization Corporation, told the council she had helped gather a petition that, as of the morning of the meeting, showed 1,038 signatures and that 65% of those signers lived in Altoona zip codes 16601, 16602 and 16603. “All children deserve a park. All of our residents deserve to have a park that they can walk to,” Langenbacher said.

The petition and turnout at the meeting reflected broad concern about a study and ensuing actions by the Cambria County Redevelopment Authority that residents interpret as prioritizing housing over maintaining the park. “Interpreting that study that we need more housing in our community — yes we do — but please the next time that it’s considered to take land from a park and turn it into housing please do not table the motion, discuss it and then kill that motion,” Langenbacher said.

Timothy Smith, a veteran and local resident, said he believes the city’s transfer of Orchard Park was unlawful and cited state law and constitutional protections. “There’s a law passed in 1957 called the donated and dedicated property act,” Smith said, and he referenced Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which he described as protecting the public’s right to natural resources. “The park belongs to everybody, all the residents, including generations yet to come,” he said, adding that he has given city solicitor Mike Wagner copies of paperwork and that he may pursue the matter in court if the council does not reverse the transfer.

Speakers emphasized the role of neighborhood parks for families and people with limited mobility. Langenbacher said nearby playgrounds and small parks support child development and neighbor-to-neighbor connections and recounted hosting six block parties to build local relationships.

Council members did not take a vote on Orchard Park during the meeting. Mayor Matt Pacifico and other council members acknowledged receiving petitions and public comment; council discussion returned to whether the Cambria County Redevelopment Authority or the Redevelopment Authority’s designated developer had communicated plans or timelines, but no formal action to change the status of Orchard Park was recorded.

The city solicitor and council were asked to review the legal questions raised by speakers; a resident told the council he had already shared legal materials with the solicitor. Residents asked the council to pause any transfer or sale while the legal status and public notice process are reviewed.