[RP TownTalk] Let's keep Route 1 Cafritz property Forested. Protecting the Green Spaces within the Beltway.

Mon Jun 17 19:15:32 UTC 2013

Talking about preserving park land and how the town/county/state would never take it away....
Wow,  wasn't but a few years ago, the town tried to sell the "Field of Dreams" for a housing project.  Hmm...took the residents days to canvass and get petitions signed to stop it.  Took hours of working on letting people know what was going on.  And our officials just sat there, wanting more taxes without regard to what the public wanted.  Am I skeptical about what politicians say, you bet I am.
I bought my home here in Riverdale Park because I like the quaint small town atmosphere.  We are changing now and change always happens.  The wave of the future is density, which may be a political ploy to bring in more money.
I admire Maureen's comments.  We are like minded in preserving trees.  Doesn't matter how old they are or young they are, they do provide oxygen.  Just what Route 1 needs.  Less oxygen.  Hard to breathe in that area now.

Audrey Bragg,

-----Original Message-----
From: Sue Collins <wheadle at yahoo.com>
To: Maureen Farrington <maureen.farrington at gmail.com>; TownTalk <towntalk at riverdale-park.org>
Sent: Mon, Jun 17, 2013 11:50 am
Subject: Re: [RP TownTalk] Let's keep Route 1 Cafritz property Forested. Protecting the Green Spaces within the Beltway.

Very interesting arguments, esp. the analogy between the impending development and Route 410 (and yes, I remember the area before 410 was built; it IS a very convenient thoroughfare, but it DID literally divide the town; so we can look at it from both sides, I guess).

And as to whether our park land is vanishing.  I would think all one would have to do would be to look at town statistics, pictures, etc., for the past 20 years?  Just one instance, the area between what is now the College Park Metro and Kenilworth Avenue?  Can't say for certain if it was "officially" park land, but was definitely mostly a wooded area.  We all have our own opinions on this, but assuming I'm not taking my "dirt nap" in another 10-15 years, I'd be very interested to see how much of our lovely town and its surrounding parks/wooded areas remains. Can't imagine it will be much. I'd LOVE to be proven 100 percent wrong, but after living in the area for over 50 years, I have my doubts.

From: Maureen Farrington <maureen.farrington at gmail.com>
To: TownTalk <towntalk at riverdale-park.org> 
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: [RP TownTalk] Let's keep Route 1 Cafritz property Forested. Protecting the Green Spaces within the Beltway.

Jonathan,

I've heard your argument before that the Cafritz Property had previous uses, so returning it to what it was 50-60 years ago is a natural course of action.  By that logic, most of Ward 3 should be returned to Riversdale since 50-60 years ago it was undeveloped acreage for the mansion, or the 410 bridge should be torn down for the same reasons. What makes the decisions of that time period valid to today's reality? We already have the benefit of hindsight on what 410 did to our town.

There was recently an article in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine that was discussed on the PBS newshour saying that there is a correlation between human health and the trees around them:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/06/can-lack-of-trees-kill-you-faster.html

Granted these are not 100 year old trees in the Cafritz property, but clearing those acres may have some unintended consequences.

-Maureen

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:03 AM, Jonathan W. Ebbeler <jebbeler at efusionconsulting.com> wrote:

Mike – 

The representation of the site as ‘undeveloped’ is semantically false.  Undeveloped denotatively means ‘not having developed or been developed.’  The site has had many historic uses through 150+ years including a working farm, private housing, a private school for boys, multi-family housing (first for ERCO workers and later for GIs studying at UMD after WWII).  Factually speaking, the population of Riverdale Park (nee Riverdale) declined by over a thousand residents between the 1950 and 1960 census data sets due to the demolition of the ERCO multi-family housing that had existed previously on this land parcel.  

The site is greyfield not greenfield development as it had previously been developed and now stands underused.  Regardless of what has grown in since the demolition of the structures on-site, characterizing it as ‘undeveloped’ is intellectually dishonest and ignores the prior history and developmental lifecycle of the site.  

Best,

Jonathan W. Ebbeler | Councilmember – Ward One

_______________________________________________
TownTalk mailing list
To post to the list, send mail to TownTalk at riverdale-park.org
TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org is for automated subscription processing only
http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk

For more information about Riverdale Park, visit http://www.riverdaleparkmd.info/

_______________________________________________
TownTalk mailing list
To post to the list, send mail to TownTalk at riverdale-park.org
TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org is for automated subscription processing only
http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk

For more information about Riverdale Park, visit http://www.riverdaleparkmd.info/

_______________________________________________
TownTalk mailing list
To post to the list, send mail to TownTalk at riverdale-park.org
TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org is for automated subscription processing 
only
http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk

For more information about Riverdale Park, visit http://www.riverdaleparkmd.info

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20130617/aedcdece/attachment.html>