I live in Lakewood, several miles East of the RooneyValley.As someone who values open space, I have been following the land exchange election closely.There is no question that the builder will build behind the existing houses in the valley, with or without the exchange.That development will either have an open space corridor or it will not.

Rita Bertolli writes frequently on this issue.I share her wish that we keep as much open space as we can. She says we should never trade city owned land for private land.I believe those trades should be rare, but I disagree that they should never happen. Land donated to a city is always deeded with the language "for use as park or other city use".But, I think trading city land is appropriate if, and only if, we in Lakewood benefit from the trade.So the question is do we benefit from the trade?Rita says the land we would get is virtually worthless.However, much of her argument is filled with exaggeration, name calling and outright misrepresentation.She is so obviously anti-government, anti-development and anti-progress that her arguments don't help in a reasoned debate.

Others, many of whom may live where the corridor will be created, also write frequently on the issue.Much of what they say seems factually correct.It is true that this exchange was proposed by the Rooney Valley Task Force in 1997.

But, obviously anyone who lives in the communities from Bear Creek and Morrison to Bear Creek and Alameda has a stake in this election.If the corridor is created out of private land, they will have open space behind them instead of houses. Access to the area they now use as open space (it is obviously private land now) will blocked by the development.They benefit financially as well.As one writer ( Allan Berger) points out, their home prices increase with the exchange.I don't think we should vote yes on this issue only because it benefits the people who live in GreenMountain- I and many others do not live there.

Thomas Glenn in his article posted yesterday really hits the nail on the head.He invited us to see the land for ourselves.As he and Allan Berger say, it really is a question of value.Which is USED more and which gives more VALUE to us as OPEN SPACE.With that in mind I grabbed a map and again visited the area. I have walked my dog in the area before but did not pay attention to which land was public and which was private.I tried to see which was the most desirable as open space.My trip gave me a very strong opinion on the matter.

The land we gain is far more valuable as open space than is the land we exchange.Clearly defined paths exist from the neighborhoods to the South extending all the way to Yale Blvd.More importantly, for someone like me who doesn't live in the area, similar well worn paths also are evident between the ForsbergPark parking lot and from GreenMountainPark to the site of the proposed corridor.Clearly each of those three paths would be blocked from public use without the exchange.It is obvious from the paths worn in the earth and from the use that I saw that many people use the part of ForsbergPark that will remain parkland to access the future open space.

The claim that the corridor is a "ditch" is absolutely false.Maybe 3 or 4 % of the new open space is a gully, the rest is moderately hilly grassland. Rita and others claim the "ditch" is not used by wildlife.The numerous deer droppings belie this claim.The trail from the top of the corridor South, and from Forsberg East and then South is beautiful, as is the view heading South to North.The corridor is also an obvious and desirable connection to GreenMountain and CoyoteGulchParks.And, much of the city land we would trade is cut in half by the new road, Indiana, which is being graded.This road diminishes the value of what we trade.Also, some of what we trade is flat, some is not.(I also understand that a road will be built with or without the exchange, is legal and permitted and has been approved since 1984.)The president of Lakewood Citizens for Open Space also wrote an article describing this land.His description was factually correct.The article written by the anti-government group is not.

In summary, my firsthand observations tell me that we benefit greatly form the exchange.The land we gain is MUCH more valuable as open space than what we lose.I am now a very strong supporter of the exchange and I will vote for the exchange and will encourage others to do the same.