Letter: 'Open' space does not mean having no trees

In a letter July 5, a writer complained that CA planned to plant trees in open space to reduce mowing. He viewed this as a reduction of open space and a violation of his right to live near grass maintained by CA.

I disagree. Getting rid of grass to plant trees will: a) reduce maintenance costs, b) lower the use of greenhouse gases required to mow, c) reduce the use of herbicides and pesticides required to keep that monoculture looking like a golf course, d) reduce runoff into streams and the Chesapeake Bay (including runoff of those chemicals), e) create habitat for native plants and creatures, and f) sequester more carbon.

The writer is also under the misimpression that "open" means having no trees. Open space areas are those that are not owned privately and consist of lakes, tot lots, active and passive parks, footbridges, pathways for jogging, walking and biking, and grassy and tree-covered areas. Although the writer might have paid more to reside near open space, he has no more right to determine what happens in that area than the rest of Columbia's residents, all of whom pay the CPRA in part to manage these areas.

Elisabeth Hoffman

Clarksville