<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:"Courier New";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Sue – <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I would respectfully disagree with the outlook presented that the parkland will eventually be eaten up by development. I do understand that one can take the Cafritz or the Riverdale Plaza examples and extrapolate the logic to arrive at the conclusion presented, but it would be an erroneous analogy. A better example would be to evaluate Riversdale and the block of land surrounding the mansion and what has happened there if anything over the last 60 years. Cafritz and the plaza were private land holdings that were developed as would be expected, not publicly-held park land like Riversdale (since 1949). It might also help assuage concerns by taking a look or providing input towards the M-NCPPC Department of Parks and Recreation’s draft plan for parks and open space for the next 30 years found here: <a href="http://www.mncppcapps.org/pgparks/formula2040/narrated_pres.pptx">http://www.mncppcapps.org/pgparks/formula2040/narrated_pres.pptx</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>It is entirely normal for private land to be developed upon and the public should hold a general expectation of that – i.e. what happened at Riverdale Plaza and now Cafritz is not the exception but the rule. It is entirely atypical and abnormal for land dedicated as public park land to be developed upon and the public should hold a general expectation of that. If you look at the Formula 2040 they recommend developer contribution to the Park System through ‘land dedication’ and the expansion/addition of 200+ miles of trails in the County, and most importantly maintaining the facilities they have. The general strategy of M-NCPPC is to expand, not contract its land holdings, we’ve seen this locally and throughout the County in recent history. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I may be one of those indicated that is kidding themselves, but I see no will by developers, the County, or locally to ever touch the public land holdings in Riverdale Park. Ignoring public policy though, from a purely economic POV (and this is my own analysis), there is so much other prime real estate on our true commercial corridors along Route 1 and Kenilworth that needs to be absorbed and would be developed prior to interior parcels like our regional parks ever coming under consideration for the next 100+ years. Additionally, the area has nowhere near the residential density to support that kind of scenario even if all parties did actually desire that, which we don’t. It has been difficult enough getting our existing commercial framework viable, to ever contemplate adding significant land parcels to our already under-utilized corridors. Such contemplation would undermine not only the County’s Health and Wellness but basic Economic Development goals.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Unfortunately we will all shuffle off this mortal coil long before either opinion can be vetted against what future generations contemplate but the non-development of public parkland is one area where I think most if not all of us agree upon.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Best,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Jonathan<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New"'>Jonathan W. Ebbeler | Councilmember - Ward One<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>