Divining Paul Goodloe McIntire’s Intent

Rachana Dixit had a commendable story in the Daily Progress a couple of weeks ago that I was remiss in not mentioning at the time, “What did McIntire really want?” There have been a lot of efforts to divine the intent of Paul Goodloe McIntire in donating land and money to establish McIntire Park, but Dixit pulled the deed for a chunk of the land and checked it out. It says:

Said property shall be held and used in perpetuity by the said City for a public park and play ground for the white people of the City of Charlottesville but the authorities of the said City shall at all times have the right and power to control, regulate and restrict the use of said property.

“White people”? Awk-ward. That makes it a bit tough to adhere to McIntire’s (apparent) intent. That particular parcel of land is at the Rugby interchange. (The land that makes up the park is a patchwork of land acquired at different times.) One of the parcels where the parkway is going was condemned by Council “for use by white people as a park and playground.” Park opponents tell Dixit that McIntire surely didn’t have different intents for different chunks of the park—that in specifying that the land was to be “held and used in perpetuity…for a public park” he meant the whole shebang, and not a particular few acres. The city, obviously, disagrees.

37 Responses to “Divining Paul Goodloe McIntire’s Intent”


  • Waldo , This issue has been discussed at the Hook under the Norris/Szakos biking piece.

    http://www.readthehook.com/blog/index.php/2009/09/24/norris-and-szakos-we-like-bikes/

    I object, that those of us who have used the “in perpetuity clause” are being of accused of racism or not fit for public office, because of the mention of for “whites only” from a deed going back to the early 1900’s. I have quoted that deed to people as evidence that Mr. McIntire wanted the land to remain a park “in perpetuity”, as has The Sierra Club, and many many others who are trying to save McIntire Park . Of course, this has nothing to do with the exclusivity part of the deed, which none of us would support. We are fighting to save the park because public park land is where all people have the chance to be together, to find peace away from the bustle of our busy, stressful lives, and this is our major city park and should remain so for all races and economic groups to enjoy. I admire Mr. Fenwick, the Sierra Club, Colette Hall, Richard Collins, Daniel Bluestone, Maya Cummingham, John Cruickshank, Clara Bell Wheeler, and the many, many others that are fighting to keep this a refuge for us all.

    If we elect 2 Councilors that support this we will finally accomplish what former Mayor Maurice Cox said on Sunday at the Hands Across McIntire Demonstration, that he most regrets about his tenure on Council–not being able to put this road to rest.

    Ms Szakos made it very clear at the last nights Fry’s Spring Candidate Forum that she would do abide by the agreement with the County and allow the road to be built through the park. Mr. Fenwick and Mr. Norris made it clear they would not.

    If we want to finally fulfill Maurice’s dream we need to elect Fenwick and Norris and save our park for all citizens to enjoy.

  • sorry for my early morning typo –meant to say

    Ms Szakos made it very clear at last nights Fry’s Spring Candidate Forum that she would abide by the agreement with the County and allow the road to be built through the park. Mr. Fenwick and Mr. Norris made it clear they would not.

  • I’m all for saving the park, but if folks are going to quote the deed don’t they need to look at the second part “but the authorities of the said City shall at all times have the right and power to control, regulate and restrict the use of said property”. Seems like the city has the power to do what they please with the land.

  • As I said in the Hook forum, Fenwick has continually misrepresented this issue to the public (and btw, I never called him a racist). I’m opposed to the parkway, but I seriously question putting someone on council that has a history of misrepresenting facts.

    With all due respect Betty, you also continue to muisrepresent the deed. Mcintire’s “perpetuity deed restriction” only extended to white people. Expanding the restriction to everyone else goes beyond the intent specified in that sentence, and yet, because segregation was struck down, the whites-only part cannot stand. So you cannot have “in perpetuity by the said City for a public park and play ground for the xxxxx people of the City of Charlottesville”. My understanding is that when bad laws are struck down, they don’t just selectively remove words. Often they have to rewrite the whole law, or at least the sentence in question. Therefore, while you may want to stop the parkway, using this deed to justify your claims is wrong. If you don’t think so, then I dare Save Mcintire to quote the entire sentence wherever it is cited.

    Likewise, I’ve yet to hear a single person in Save McIntire acknowledge that Meadowcreek was built as the replacement for the McInitire course (even though one golf supporter acknowledges that it’s been scheduled for removal since the 1970’s). If that’s the case, then Save McIntire is fighting to save a course when huge sums of tax money have already been spent building the replacement. If the replacement is too expensive and not sustainable, then why is there no movement to redesign that course in a more inclusive and sustainable way?

    Futhermore the current entrance will be removed when the interchange is built. Please explain how people will access the wading pool if the MCP is built and the golf course is kept? Also, how would we restrict access to the golf course, so that people using the new pedestrian trails dont walk on the course? Kleeman and Bluestone have advocated rerouting these trails to Park Street, and presumably there’d be a big fence keeping people off the course on the side of the MCP.

    Fenwicks complete inability to speak honestly to his own supporters is reason enough that he shouldn’t be in public office.

  • I agree, that’s why we need 3 Councilors that will carry out Maurice Cox’s wishes and put this road to rest. There are still votes that will come before Council, and if the votes are there the park can be saved.

  • Will we allow only white people to drive on the new road?

  • Two very important parkway opponents that I failed to mention and have been at almost every Council meeting for years speaking out are Stratton Salidis and Peter Kleeman.

  • Hmm… tried to respond but maybe Waldo deemed it too long or something?

    Anyway, suffice it to say that I’ve never called Fenwick a racist. My point is, and always has been, that “Save McIntire” isn’t telling the whole story, not even to their own supporters, neither about the deed or many other issues. In fact, the whole concept of “Save McIntire” is rather vague and undefined (i.e. Save what for whom?) I’d dare say that there’s some hidden agendas there that even many of their supporters don’t know about.

    Fenwick and Save McIntire are against the master planning process. So this isn’t just about the parkway, it also extends to what happens if the parkway is built. They have plans that they’ve not been terribly open about and which they are reluctant to discuss publically.

    My agenda is clear, I support an open and democratic process to decide the future of the park if the parkway is built. My preference is for there to be a botanical garden or natural area there, but it’s far more important to me that the will of the public is represented and not any special interest. If the public really wants (and will use) a golf course, then I’d actually support that option. Keep in mind though, it won’t be the same course. There’s no way it could be, since the current access won’t exist anymore. Also, you would probably lose the wading pool in the bargain and have a big fence all across the western side of the MCP to keep everyone but golfers out of that side of the park.

    And, yes, I can back all this up… but it’d take a much longer post.

  • Dirt Worshiper, Let’s all stop the parkway first, by electing Fenwick and Norris. Then we will have many more park friendly options to allow the public to plan for.

  • Stopping the parkway it priority number one. Then we can have a discussion about what exactly the future hold for it. Little point in discussing that without even know what shape the park will take.

    Well, It looks like electing Fenwick is then really priority number one. My guess is that Norris is a shoe in, so casting a single vote for Fenwick is the way to go if you want him on Council.

  • Hmm…tried to respond but maybe Waldo deemed it too long or something?

    I’m sorry about that—WordPress’ spam filter thought it might be spam. Which makes no logical sense, since you’ve posted dozens of messages to cvillenews.com and they’ve never been spam before. I released it from the spam filter, which means you’re now writing the same (conceptual) thing twice, but it’d be rude not to. :)

    If any of y’all ever write something and it doesn’t show up, the blog just thinks it’s spam. You’re welcome to e-mail me, and I’ll make your comment visible ASAP. It only happens every couple of weeks, but I know it’s really frustrating to have your comment not show. The good news is that we never have any spam to deal with here!

  • On the top of the election, I have to point out that Blake Caravati was elected to council on the platform of opposing the parkway. And then he got on council and changed his mind. Voting for somebody on a single issue can be a recipe for heartbreak.

  • Betty, when we had lunch, it sounded like that was really the major difference in our opinions. This deed thing aside, I do appreciate your position.

    Absolutely, I want to defeat the parkway, but not at any cost. That said, other people I really respect, like Peter Kleeman, see this the same way you do. Nonetheless, I believe that stopping the parkway by “any means necessary” could lead to situations that we may very well regret later (like an exceptionally bad park design).

    I know you are influential in Save McIntire. If you can get Fenwick to say that he, and Save McInitire, support an open, transparent and democratic process to decide the future of the park (with no preconditions) then you’d be much closer to getting my support. I also would like to see Fenwick stop quoting this offensive deed, and start issuing statements on broader issues of planning and zoning beyond parks. (For example, would he support renegotiating revenue sharing to stop penalizing conservation in Albemarle?) In short, I want to know what Fenwick and Save McIntire are for not just what they are against.

    The real shame here though is that, honestly, if it were Kevin Lynch and not Fenwick running then there’d be little question at all about my support. Another problem is that the City is not waiting to complete the parkway to begin planning. Things like pedestrian and bike routes, and wetland mitigation, are being planned right now and it’s critical that people provide meaningful input to that process (and I’ve tried to do what little I can in that regard). Kleeman is doing a better job now commenting on the RSWA easements and other issues that I feel were really being negelcted before and we need more of that.

  • >>>Said property shall be held and used in perpetuity by the said City for a public park and play ground for the white people of the City of Charlottesville but the authorities of the said City shall at all times have the right and power to control, regulate and restrict the use of said property.

  • “My understanding is that when bad laws are struck down, they don’t just selectively remove words.” Betty Mooney, I am surprised, with your experience on the Planning Commission, that you let this past you. The City often uses the strike-through method of changing its code. For example, the code dealing with the minimum amount of land that can be used for a Planned Unit Development went from 3 acres to 0 acres to now 2 acres without re-writing the whole sentence.
    As for “white” white people are still using the park. They are just not using it exclusively by federal law. It would be a different matter if McIntire had used the term “exclusively by.” Evem of one infers that he meant exclusivity, it doesn’t negate the intent of the entire deed, just as removing race from the by-laws of a country club did not negate the rest of its components.
    “I’d dare say that there’s some hidden agendas there that even many of their supporters don’t know about.” And you chastise me for saying the same thing about other people.

  • I’m not going to argue this anymore. If Save Mcintire wants to continue to quote this offensive deed then so be it. Frankly, it’s not my problem.

    As for hidden Agendas, Well at least one of them is not so hidden anymore. They want to get a Republican on City Council and hope this one issue will get him in, and convince well-meaning Democrats and liberals that he’ll serve their interests when he’s in office. Maybe he will, but I’m not convinced.

    As for the other hidden agendas, I’ve provided evidence, and it would be easy for them to prove my claims wrong. I’ll gladly be the first to admit I was wrong if they do. In fact, I honestly hope I’m wrong about the whole thing, I hope they can stop the parkway, and I hope if Fenwick is elected that he’ll be support an open and democratic process to decide the future of McIntire, and honestly try to represent the majority of citizens in Charlottesville as best he can. Lastly, I hope that his words about how important the environment and sustainability are to him are not just talk.

    Suffice it to say though, I’m not convinced just yet. In fact, I think the Sierra Club is making a huge mistake.

  • “I hope if Fenwick is elected that he’ll be support an open and democratic process to decide the future of McIntire” The process is already not democratic. The botanical garden people have had considerable access to the park committee that has been denied to the golfers. The golfing group requested several weeks ago to meet with the committee and was told they’d have to wait until the “public” process begins next year. In Charlottesville, our government is run by a bunch of committees that meet mainly in private, write up their opinions, and have Council, which usually has a voting member on the committee, votes along with the committee and its colleague.
    Bob Fenwick said he has voted for both Democrats and Republicans in the past, so are you trying to influence people against him in this Berkeley East by labeling him Republican?
    I guess you don’t plan to reveal your role in the matter of McIntire Park by naming the city committees of which you are a member, or at least tell how many city committees you are a member of.

  • According to the Daily Progress, Fenwick called himself an “avowed Republican”. So that’s his own label for himself, not mine. While there are certainly moderate Republicans, generally there’s little I’ve seen that party do that I support. I think it’s fair that if he sees himself that way that other Democrats know his real affiliation since it may inform his policy decisions if he were elected.

    C-ville Eye, as far as I know, there have been no secret meetings with any park committee. If you know different, then you know more than I do. I can honestly and definitively say the same for me (but I won’t promise that I’ll never meet about the issue, just as any of you are also free to met with elected representatives). I can also say that botanical garden advocates have been told the same thing as golfers, that they too will have to wait for the master planning process, and I support that.

    Besides, this isn’t about me, so if people think I’m worng then they can feel free to ignore me. I’ve already said what my agenda is (see above) and that’s the truth. It’s really quite irrelevant if I’m on the school board or whatnot. In fact, saying “I’m a member of the School board, and I support ___” would be inappropriate unless it related directly to that appointment. That’s really the last thing I’ve got to say about that.

  • By the way, I did enjoy our conversation and look forward to another soon. I agree with you on many issues, but feel national party affiliation has little to do with City Council. I have always preferred that all the candidates would run as independents. I have never voted for a Republican, but even if Mr. Fenwick has that affiliation, I am voting in the City election on the person and the issues and I believe he, and Mayor Norris, are the most qualified to serve. We certainly could use someone with Mr. Fenwick’s background in infrastructure matters, in which our present Council is not well versed. He has served in the Army Corp of Engineers and run a construction business for many years. If he could stop the parkway and the dam from being built and save hundreds of millions of dollars for our community and manage to sustain our largest water supply Reservoir by dredging, well that would be a legacy I feel anyone could be proud of. Oh, and I have complete confidence that he, of all the Councilors, will hold the City Manager accountable if he does not follow the will of Council and we will see consequences as a result.

  • I Googled and found that Dirt Worshipper is correct about Bob Fenwicks party affliation http://www.c-ville.com/index.php?cat=1991704080566501&act=post&pid=12031505090792954 . I found it interesting that the reason he’s running as an independent is because his opinions are too out of sync with the local Republicans. Frankly, don’t give a rat’s behind what party he’s affliated with. There are things he wants done that I want done.

  • The anti parkway people appear to be trying out for a job as an editor/writer for Fox News. They are taking selected portions of the statement that push there agenda and formatting it as if it were the complete text. Shame on them, but hell, it works for Fox, so why not

  • And BTW, according to city staff, all of the city’s golf courses have been self-supporting.

  • “So far, city leaders are enthusiastic about the idea. The city’s parks and recreation advisory committee gave it glowing reviews last week and city staff has lauded the proposal.” http://www2.dailyprogress.com/cdp/news/local/article/idea_blooms_for_mcintire_botanical_garden/23872/#

  • I took that to mean that when the McIntire Botanical Garden folks had their own public meeting on the matter, that the people on the parks committee spoke positively about the idea when asked about it. As far as I know (and I’m not omniscient) there have been no direct talks between the parks committee and the McIntire Botanical Garden (but if there were, the they should show up in that committee’s minutes). Svetz said about what I’ve heard from staff so far which is basically, “it’s consistent with the existing master plan” but that’s pretty different from actually endorsing the idea. It’s also a very far cry from anything approaching actual planning.

    I suspect even Norris’ support is probably overstated. As I said, I’ve never sat down to talk with him about the issue in detail, but I get the feeling that he basically would just like to see that side of the park used by more people, and more effectively than it currently is. While he’s basically said that a botanical garden could be a good potential use, I’m pretty sure he’s still open to other ideas. in fact, on his blog he listed a set of criteria any use should meet (“family recreation, youth enrichment, community-building and appreciation of nature”). Lot’s of uses could fit that criteria. Of course, he reads this blog sometimes and I’m sure he can speak for himself! ;-)

    Also, I should note that really the Botanical Garden proposal has ,nothing to do whatsoever with the Golf Course. The golf course has been planned for replacement since the 1970’s, long before there was ever a botanical garden proposal. The question is simple, should they finish relocating the course to Pen Park as planned, and if so then how should they use that space? As I’ve said before, there’s all kinds of potential uses that would be neither a golf course, nor a botanical garden.

  • I took the statements literally. I would hate to believe that a bunch of people are supportive of something that they haven’t been presented information on, be it a government-sanctioned committee or an elected offficial. But, then, again, this IS Charlottesville.
    As for the golf courses, yes, in the 70’s there was talk of shutting down the McIntire golf course. Later, the City decided not to shut down the golf course because it was self-supporting and hundreds of people were using it frequently. People lobbied that it was great for older people because it was shorter and they weren’t getting in the way of more experience golfers, it was great for newbies because it was shorter and they weren’t getting in the way of more experience golfers, and it was great for those who wanted to practice tee-ing off. All discussion of shutting it down ceased.
    No, these statements were not made after this summer’s public meeting sponsored by McIntire Botanical Garden; the date of the aritcle was June 22, 2008.

  • There was another public meeting prior to that one, and those comments followed that, as I understand.

    As for the golf course, there’s never been a resolution to keep the golf course that I’m aware of, merely decisions to put off moving it to McIntire until the parkway is built. If you look at the current msater plan, it references the decision to finish relocating the Golf Course, and retire the current one. That master plan was also created prior to any proposal for a botanical garden. It’s also interesting to note that Rob Schilling participated in the creation of that plan, so it was very much a bipartisan effort.

  • “It’s also interesting to note that Rob Schilling participated in the creation of that plan” I wouldn’t call that bi-partisan. Also, why does every issue have to be embroiled in party politics? I have personally grown tired of what the various party packs say or do. Also, putting a person on a committee where he can be out-voted every time is hardly participation. it was a ploy used a great deal by Maurice Cox. Oh, that’s right, these committees no longer vote, they just reach some kind of “concensus.” That way there’s no record of who supported what. It’s a dumb way of conducting government policy, if you ask me. That’s why nobody can say what decisions have been made about the golf course at McIntire. Question: how were they planning to move the golf course?

  • “That master plan was also created prior to any proposal for a botanical garden.” Is that the same Master Plan that addresses the wading pool and the ball fields? Does it change every three months or so?

  • Regarding the Wading pool, yes. It called for it to be replaced with more modern features including a sprayground. Personally, I have a toddler and we use the spraygrounds all the time and have never used the wading pool. Apparently the wading pool also requires three lifeguards because it has one of the highest rescue rates of all the pools.

    There’s a seperate master plan for the Eastern versus the Western side, and I believe the plan for the western side was rewritten via a public process in 2008 to accomodate the YMCA.

    Speaking of the YMCA, and Mcintire’s intent… Dave Norris posted an interesting piece of information on his blog… Apparently, Paul McIntire was not only a big fan of having a YMCA in Charlottesville, but actually said “to not support a YMCA would be a disgrace to Charlottesville”. Didn’t I say that it was a mistake for Save McIntire to dwell too much on McIntire’s intent?

  • I can not see a connection between McIntire desire for a YMCA facility “in Charlottesville” having anything with his wanting the facility in McIntire Park which was on the northern edge of the City in his day. In his time, YMCA’s were urban facilities that provided housing, recreation usually in the form of gymnasiums and counseling to its temporary tenants. It was an urban facility where sober gentleman could have easy access to urban amenities, jobs and churches. Having the Y facility built in a suburban-styled park would hardly be ideal. If it had been, he probably would have encouraged the building of apartments in the pak to accommodate the Y’s housing function. If he had wanted to have the Y in a park, I’m sure he would have found Washing Park a more suitable location sense it is in walking distance of centers of employement during his time, downtown, W. Main, the hospital and the grounds.
    As for Kurt Krueger, suffice it to say I put not stock in anything he or his blokes at either of the Rivannas have to say and will not bother to take the time to verify his quotation. However, I would not be surprised if he was paid $515/hr to peruse the minutes. Who’s looking?
    Actually, if he were that concerned about establishing a branch here in the City, why didn’t he?

  • build it and they will whine

    Cville Eye, when they made Meadowcreek an 18 hole golf course they did so with the explicit intent of getting rid of the McIntire course. I remember it clearly because it’s one of the reasons the city council allowed the elimination of park land that is basically in the flood plan at Pen Park.

    The course at McIntire is substandard and this may be the only time I have every heard anyone who loves the environment defend an existing golf course. This is a classic straw-man defense. I really think that golfers in this area are doing just fine. It may be the most transparent of all the reason to not build the Parkway.

  • “Cville Eye, when they made Meadowcreek an 18 hole golf course they did so with the explicit intent of getting rid of the McIntire course.” Then “they” should gone ahead and done it. Future Councils are not bound to honor the wishes of previous Councils. The MCP started out with plans for a four lane highway with a speed limit of 45 MPH and truck traffic. Subsequent Councils changed that and added an interchange. If the interchange is not built future Councils do not have to build it either. In other words, as with most reasonable people, everything is up for continuous discussion until it is done. That is why the State requires each locality to write new comprehensive plans every 10 years and update them every five.
    “The course at McIntire is substandard…” I have no idea what a substandard golf course is.
    “…this may be the only time I have every heard anyone who loves the environment defend an existing golf course.” What does a golf course have to do with the environment?
    ” I really think that golfers in this area are doing just fine.” So, I guess you think they have nothing to do with their time but whine?
    “It may be the most transparent of all the reason to not build the Parkway.” The MCP on the county’s side is a curving road. On the city’s side it is the shortest distance between two points, a straight line. Why? Why wasn’t the city’s section designed to travel near the periphery of the golf course, especially since the speed limit was lowered? I’m sure most of the golfers wouldn’t have minded losing a small strip of the course. BTW, if you would like to see how obnoxious a 45 MPH highway can be, take a walk out 5th ST SW EXT. You’ll understand why no road with a speed limit greater than 25 MPH is compatible with the park.

  • I’ve never liked the Parkway, and I can’t argue for it as serving any good purpose; nonetheless, “build it and they will whine” is right on this one. For the city to destroy that huge area of greenspace along the flood plain of the rivanna at Penn Park to replace Mcintire, and then not actually ever decommission the course, would be very wrong, and a misuse of resources. Let’s be honest. It’s become an entitlement. I bet no sport out there would say, “Oh sure, we have enough space for our sport. You are welcome to redesign it for something else…”

    Here’s my challenge to anyone out there. Pick any week this month and look at the parking lot of McIntire at the same time every day during “peak hours” and I bet there aren’t more than an average of ten people there golfing at any given time (and that’s exceedingly generous). In fact, most days I drive past there, there’s only one or two cars there (or it’s totally empty). Compare that to any park of the same size and that should put things in perspective.

    So fine, if Golfers want McIntire, then they should be able to keep it… but only if they are willing to give up Penn Park.

  • I have to correct a statement I made earlier. I’d said that VDOT wanted to remove the current access to the eastern side of the park. Apparently, they’ve changed their minds… When I reviewed the new interchange plans for the upcoming meeting, they included the current access in contradiction to the master plan for the park. That means the wading pool and golf course could now coexist in the new design.

    That’s not all… Apparently, they’ve eliminated most trails on the western side of the road. Looks like the City may be preparing to keep the Golf Course after all, and thus setting up a way to limit access to the East side of the park.

    I could be wrong about all this, but I suppose it’ll be clarified at the interchange design meeting.

  • The controversy now centers around VDOT’s submission of incorrect interchange plans. The feds returned VDOT’s submitted plans as incomplete because they didn’t show any connection to 250-Bypass in the City. I’m not too sure if VDOT is on anybody’s page. They will probably clarify the disagreement at the interchange meeting. We have to remember that VDOT is accustomed to be in charge and is unaccustomed to following the directives of localities.

  • I was at that McInitire interchange design meeting recently and heard something kind of troubling. Apparently, Daniel Bluestone and the golfers are advocating to clear the forest in the northwest corner to make room for two replacement holes for the Golf Course if MCP is built. While at least one member of the Sierra Club told me privately they were not in favor of that, it still pretty concerning given that Bluestone plays an important role in “Save McIntire”. Also, oddly no one in Save Mcintire or the Sierra club spoke out publically against the idea.

    While some in Save McIntire, spoke about creating greater access to the East side, and welcomed news from parks of a pedestrian bridge, some golfers were decidedly not pleased about any trails or walkways through the course or greater access to the park. I suspect this will become a point of increased tension…

    One positive outcome seemed to be that everyone agreed that the Rock Creek gardens should be restored, and that may be one way that golf and the botanical gardens could coexist if the parkway is built.

    Lastly, the City reinforced that they are indeed waiting until the master planning process to make any decisions about park use. That may complicate matters though, since it seems any mitigation should really fit within the context of greater park planning.

  • I hope the City, County and State do not express a sense of loss over that forest, since they hope to do far greater damage to Ragged Mtn. They’ll do whatever is convenient at the time. It’s rare these days for any of them to make decisions according to principles.
    Mr. Huja is proposing that the City plan more trees: http://cvilletomorrow.typepad.com/charlottesville_tomorrow_/2009/10/council-work-session.html

    Councilor Huja challenges staff to plant more trees

    Another of Council’s objectives was to attain a tree canopy of at least 40%. That goal has already been reached, but the Charlottesville Planning Commission is looking at ways to go even further.
    Councilor Satyendra Huja challenged the parks department to plant 500 trees by this time next year. Daly said it would be difficult to make that goal.

    “We can plant 500 seedlings in the next three weeks, but you’re only going to have 20% to 25% survivability,” Daly said. He said tree plantings would be concentrated on the City’s entrance corridors and downtown.

    Councilor Brown said he would like to see a program developed where the City offers to plant trees on private property, particularly in areas of town where the tree canopy does not meet the City’s goals. He proposed a “tree commission” to determine evaluate applications from residents.

    They just sit around thinking of ways of spending money, rather than thinking of way to preserve what we have and saving it.

Comments are currently closed.

Sideblog