Open Space Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2010 04 14

Home Browse Search

Sent: Monday, March 15,2010 8:39 PM To: 'malcolmf@louisvilleco.gov' Subject: Davidson Mesa Open Space Mr. Fleming, As a rather active user of this area, I would like to provide you with some input regarding the past direction and current status of this valuable and enjoyable asset. I have held off contacting you for several months now, but if the current trend continues, it will not be a good thing. So now is the time to speak up. For many years this area was generally little used. Several years ago, the parking area was 'beautified' with an inexplicable net loss in the number of available parking spaces. o Prettier, but smaller. o At the time, it made little sense. o Today it makes even less sense. o Why effectively reduce access when we live in a very physically active, outdoors setting? At the same time, a formal dog run was built. The predictable effect of this addition happened - more people visited the Open Space = more cars. o Recall that this expansion of usage was simultaneous with a net reduction in the available parking spaces. o It would have been better if you had left it alone. No improvements and continual low usage · But that would be counter to the spirit of Louisville. · Louisville is damn good at providing neat services - as the national rating agencies tell us. I have talked to several city employees that I have seen in the Davidson Mesa parking area and they 'think' that the demand will decrease once Superior, hopefully, builds their own dog run area. That, in my view, is long term wishful thinking. o They also 'think' there might be plans to improve the crossing between Harper Lake and Davidson Mesa? · If that rumor is true, my opinion is that would be a big, capital-intensive and ongoing, expensive mistake. Why don't we go back to the drawing board and make a one-time, dirt moving (fencing realignment) project that doubles or triples the number of parking spaces on the West side of McCaslin. o We certainly have the land o It would be a one time (not an on-going) expenditure.