Can the community be locked out of the 26th Street Playground and Basketball Court?

I have located a copy (see below) of the "Conceptual Plan For School Grounds - Margaret Brent Elementary / Middle School" and should remind those who read this blog, that although it is called a "Conceptual Plan for School Grounds" the plan does not show "School Grounds".  The property is not part of "Margaret Brent Elementary / Middle School" .  Despite the fact that the proponents for this, the Charles Village Civic Association, Greater Homewood Community Corp., Central Baltimore and Homewood Community Partnership Inc. want to call it school property IT IS NOT..  The 26th Street playground sits on property owned by CSX Corporation and is leased to the City of Baltimore which has built a playground on it (that includes a basketball court and a play area with swings and other equipment).  Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke opened up this park under the name of the "26th Street Playground" in the 1970's.  This was, and is, a playground for the residents of Baltimore City.  The same playground is listed in the Charles Village Community Benefits District's Baseline Agreement with the City of Baltimore as "The 26th Street Playground" being serviced by the Department of Parks and Recreations and the Department of Public Works.

So, despite the pretty design, the plan as presented denies the Charles Village community a basketball court and playground by presumptively, and presumably illegally, annexing property to Margaret Brent Elementary/Middle School private property (owned by CSX Railroad) and leased by Baltimore City for use by the entire community.  Note the three "New Gates" (by the way, there are none of these gates there presently so the wording "New Gates" is misleading) which could close all concourse and entrance from 26th and St. Paul St. through to N. Calvert St.; (which is fenced off) during and after school is in session.  The public has a right to pass through this byway, to play basketball during the day even when school is in session, and to bring their children to utilize the swings and other children's play equipment at any time allowed under City playground rules.  This access simply should not be allowed to be closed to the community.

Are the proponents of this plan so desperate to increase the footprint of a small school, Margaret Brent, that they think they can merely fence off a public street/byway and public playground facilities?

Remember when considering this issue that this property is not property of Baltimore City Public Schools, but property that was dedicated to the community in the 1970's by Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke.  We question the legality of the proponents imposing their ideas on a community that demands access to their playground and byway.  And removes a large public sculpture from the community as evidenced by its absence in the "Conceptual Plan" below: