hello all- as i've been offline due to some unfortunate family events i've
just seen this and, as i'm the person that made the comments relative to
safety, feel that i should try and correct whatever impression i must have
left with at least one selectman and maybe others.

as i sat at the meeting i felt there were two issues being overstated.

1) i never suggested that safety was a "code word" for anything and a view
of the tape will bear that out.  what i was concerned about was that this
open space not be held to a different STANDARD for safety/liability than
others that the town has acquired or now owns.  for instance, while involved
with witt. woods i stated that i had never heard anyone express concerns
about safety/liability(maybe i missed it)  i understand that each project
has different issues.  in witt woods the neighbors worry about illegal
hunting and there are concerns with this open space-apparently one being the
granite curbing referred to.  i was concerned that the standards for this
parcel not be different than those for parks,
beaches, playgrounds, etc. and other parcels framingham had acquired or
manages.

2) owning land in a diffent town under the supervision of a conservation
comm. - i am aware,because of my work with witt woods and other
developments, that the town of sudbury owns conservation land in framingham
that is managed by their conservation commission.  i was surprised to hear
that this practice might be considered not possible.

my remarks were not meant to be "inflammatory".  my understanding was that
it was a public  hearing to get input from the public.  as someone with a
longtime interest in conservation and open space matters and an elected town
meeting member in a pct whose residents value open space, i thought it was
the appropriate place to bring my concerns regarding the safety/liability
standards and the management of this open space.  it was an informative
meeting and i learned a great deal about the issues.  thank you to all those
who are working on maintaining some safe open space in all parts of town.
kathy vassar


----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: another thought--Re: Last Night re. Arthur St parcel


> A different view of the discussion about the Arthur Street open space and
the
> emails the Board meeting of last Thursday has prompted is attached.
>


[ To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=unsubscribe
Archives available at http://www.mail-archive.com/
For help send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web interface at http://frambors.syslang.net]

Reply via email to