George,

Harry Tenney always asks good questions, and more often than not, supplies good answers, too. I think the Daily Progress article on the McIntire bequest was an attempt to "balance" the responses from the road's supporters and those opposed to it. But it was confusing because the "park" does include land that was not part of his original bequest.

I think the legal question is this: if opponents went to court in an attempt to show that the city's is not honoring the donor's intent, would they prevail? I think the answer is uncertain.

But the good sense answer is that Mr. McIntire wanted the land which he purchased or paid for to become and remain parkland. In my view, the City's legal advisors could have reasonably made this determination; but they didn't. That's the answer the City Council wanted to hear...at that time.

Rich Collins (Electronic mail, September 24, 2009)