The Post's readers might conclude that my vote on transferable development rights means I either support Montgomery County's seven-year-old TDR program or I have contradicted myself {"Montgomery Restores Development Transfer Rights," Metro, June 2}.

The fact is, I do not support the TDR program. However, I didn't think it was fair for government to ignore the plight of the many homeowners who found the titles to their homes in legal ambiguity after a recent court decision. (We must remember that the court decision didn't focus on the TDR program but rather on how it was being administered.)

Even if the council were to do away with TDRs -- and I have introduced a zoning amendment that would do that very thing -- surely nobody would agree to tearing down the homes that were built because of transfers. Nor would it be ethical to renege on those projects already approved but not yet completed.

I have always been for preserving open space, but never for a minute did I think the TDR program would work fairly -- and it hasn't. Furthermore, no one really thinks there is any assurance of longtime preservation of the open space through this program. I voted against the program seven years ago, and I will do everything I can to either kill or modify it as we take up the issue in the near future.

Sarah Greening, quoted in The Post's article, surely knows the council vote was not for or against TDRs. Rather, it was to correct a most unfortunate inequity precipitated by government action. Rather than curse darkness, I invite all who are less than enthusiastic about the TDR program to testify on my pending amendments. While on paper TDRs sound good, the fact is very few people live on paper. ROSE CRENCA President, Montgomery County Council Rockville