To the editor:

Unfortunately, Robert McColl (LJW letter to the editor, March 2) is somewhat disingenuous when he indicates that the ECO2 proposal would result in “some very restrictive land use in the future.” What he failed to mention was that participation by any landowner in the open space portion of the proposed plan would be strictly voluntary. Any restrictions placed on land use would be at the behest of the landowner.

Never has there been any suggestion that ECO2 itself would simply take land and place restrictions on it all on its own, as Mr. McColl’s statement would imply. This issue was discussed at length at the March 5 ECO2 meeting. Unfortunately, even though there was a Journal-World reporter at that meeting, there was no reporting of that meeting in your paper this week.

Also discussed at that meeting was the question of whether or not land would be removed from the tax rolls as a result of this program. Neither conservation easements nor the purchase of development rights remove land from the tax rolls. However, if that is not reported, then it’s hard for the general public to get a clear picture of how open space preservation tools actually work.

I commend the members of ECO2 for having worked for nearly two years to try to develop an innovative plan to address the issues of industrial development and open space preservation. I look forward to a healthy community discussion of the ECO2 proposal soon and hope that any misperceptions about how it works can be addressed and laid to rest at that time.

Melinda Henderson,

Lawrence