<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18904"></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=role_body bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7><FONT id=role_document color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV>Some thoughts, based on numbers I have gathered...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>1. I'm not convinced there IS a pervasive "problem". By Public
Works own count, they stated that there were about 23 lawns that needed town
"remediation". If that represents separate lawns and not repeat offenders,
that is only 1 or 2% of all RP households (using Wikipedia
numbers). And of that small number, how many of those are
abandoned properties as opposed to the average homeowner? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>2. I have also heard from the mayor and others that the law is NOT
acted upon at 10", but when it is a bit higher. I ask that we start
enforcing the law AT 10" --as currently written-- before we think about
lowering it.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>3. I like a higher lawn as opposed to giving my lawn a crew
cut. I know many people like to cut their lawn VERY short
to increase time between cutting. OK, personal preference. I cut
higher, at about 4". I love the fact that the robins flock to my yard
because the grass is a little higher and there are yummy worms and other little
bugs they feast upon. The shorter height regulations will force me to cut
about twice a week instead of once a week. I'll be contributing to global
warming doubly by doubling the weekly mows. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>4. I am concerned this new proposal starts to legislate personal
preference. As a resident of Riverdale Park, I have always hoped our town
representatives would not start regulating personal preference. I believe
there have been adequate changes made to the law already, that decrease the
amount of time a homeowner is given to remediate a high grass situation.
Let's go with that, leave the height the way it is at a max of 10", and see what
happens. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Adrianne Lefkowitz</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>Nina, your arguments are strong, but your response doesn't do much in
the<BR>way of directly offering up alternate plans for resolving the very
societal<BR>problems that this proposed amendment in code would attempt to
rectify. I<BR>may be missing your point - and in all likelihood I am - but can
you please<BR>clarify your suggestions? <BR><BR><BR><BR>Very best,<BR>Zach on
Sheridan St</FONT></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>