"George,

When I first started hearing about the MCP it was the road to save downtown.

Then it was the road to save Park Street.

Just a couple of weeks ago Butch Davies, transportation commissoner for our district, was quoted in the Daily Progress saying we needed to build the MCP to save 29 North.

Now we're hearing that we need to build the Meadowcreek Parkway to save the Democratic Party from itself.

Hooey.

Parkway opponents were peacefully awaiting the outcome of negotiations with the County and VDOT on the conditions spelled out in the December 11, 2000 letter from the Council to VDOT and County. No action was required on the parkway at all and the whole matter had dropped from public view as these negotiations went forward.

Then Richards, Caravati, and Schilling came up with their easement tactic and started off a whole new round of disagreements. That hasn't played very well, so now they've come up with a referendum. Nancy O'Brien is 100 percent right. Why don't these three explain what is wrong with the agreement that Richards and Caravati signed off on? Why are they pulling all these stunts now?

And by the way George, has any one heard what the Attorney General has said about the legality of the easement?

Mary E. MacNeil (electronic mail, February 6. 2004)