<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;}
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";}
.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 Maureen –<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The fundamental difference is that what you presented is a straw man argument – i.e. my post did not specifically present nor purport the premise you are suggesting. My post specifically addressed an individual posting a semantic fallacy – i.e. calling the property ‘undeveloped’ to garner support for a position. Attracting support for the opposition of this project by characterizing the plot as a virgin forest being destroyed by greedy developers is intellectually dishonest when factually it is the redevelopment of a long-held piece of private land that historically had been developed and could have been fenced in or trees cut down long ago. I presented that the site is not a virgin greenfield as it has consistently been misrepresented by the opposition to this project. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The town spends over 5 times what is required to obtain or maintain a Tree City USA designation because we understand the importance of trees. We have increased the budget over the last two years for plantings etc. so I don’t think you will find a tree-hater up on the dais in the town leadership.<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><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Jonathan <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>