Such a thoughtful approach - would you please run for office? Any office. I tend to be a bit "religious" about being green but realize that no the government is not out to get us or the environment (then again look at what the big business Bush administration is doing - environmental issues? That's become passe.) The trick here is a thoughtful approach (which Bush doesn't have) and trying to deal with the oops factor. Mpls. needs to rise above it and take the right approach to city living, money, business and the environment that is sound and realistic in the end. Liz Greenbaum Longfellow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The question stands. How is our government trying to destroy the biosphere, > or on a smaller level, what are the city governments > anti-environmental policies? > > I appreciate some of the responses to the question. From what I've seen I > remain unconvinced that there is some nefarious city policy to destroy the > environment. I certainly do not accept there is anything close to a "mission > to destroy" anything environmental let alone the biosphere. I do believe the > city, government in general, corporations, and people are very capable of > making oops when its comes to making decisions. I do believe that money is > one of that factors in making decisions, and that citizens have to be > vigilant to preserve what is important to them, including the environment. > But I just can't see the black helicopters on this one. > > I also believe that I have chosen to live in a city, not a wilderness area. > RobertYorga feels "it comes naturally to remake our landscape." That's right, > it does. We have a multitude of varied individuals living in a concentrated > urban area who need to find ways to balance their needs and concerns, > including the environment. The natural environment before this area was > heavily settled lost its battle a long time ago. We need to learn from our > past mistakes and hopefully improve, but environmental oops will still happen > and disagreements on the correct environmental decision will continue. > > I also believe that some of the goals we have are the same in the long run. > Robert Yorga wrote "It just seems whenever I find a cool place to get away > from the stress of modern life, the first question that pops into my head is > "Will they take this place from me too?" I rely on a personal fix that I can > only find in my soul spot in the north woods, a few miles from Canada (Sorry > Dave, I left Mpls for a moment). Perhaps I have lived in the city too long > however, but I also find myself, along with several hundred others on a nice > day, walking the Lakes or Minnehaha Creek to get a piece of that feeling. The > scary thing is how in tune I am with my city, enjoying the environment found > walking on a warm summer night through the warehouse district, absorbing the > smells, sound and lights of the city. Of course when you're walking the lakes > you appreciate separate paths, and wide ones so you can get around oncoming > traffic. Yes, that means some trees are gone. I guess that is a compromise. I > can make that compromise, I realize others can't. > > This results in disagreement on how to proceed with environmental questions. > For example, should our parks be managed for recreation purposes, gamefields, > tot lots, pools, tennis courts, walking paths or should parts be left to grow > back to a "natural" state (who gets to decide what that "natural" state is at > this point). > > I find lately that a lot of people in their politics have become religious, > both left and right. If you do not have correct beliefs, then you are > morally, religiously wrong. There is no compromise. There is no discussion. > When there is an ooops, it becomes part of a sinister plot. As Robert says to > a decision he disagrees with "No one in their right mind would do such a > thing." I interpret that to mean that if you are "green" you always have a > right mind. But then I get confused. Holle listed as an anti-environenmtal > policy the "big expensive LRT system that is of dubious environmental and > social value." A second green response was that LRT was a good idea. A third > response was that LRT was a bad idea and that we should have "dedicated bus > paths and paint the busses to look like trains." Who has the right mind on > this one? > Evan must have some knowledge on this matter because his post refers to the > "real enviormentalists" who appreciate what LRT represents. > > I have always thought recycling was a major goal of the environmental > movement. I know our household works to do its small part. Yet Holle lists > the metal shredding plant as indicative of an anti-environmental policy of > Minneapolis. They don't shred the metal to bury it, they shred it to recycle > it. Yet Holle goes on in the same list to include a suggestion to improve the > City's environmental quality by "Expanding the recycling program to include > industrial waste." What kind of waste metal is being shredded? > Non-industrial? I personally believe our city government made a major oops on > this one, as has been well pointed out by others. I don't want that beast on > the river. But who does want that metal muncher in their backyard. I have to > admit I don't. Can you recycle industrial metals without such a device? Good > question. Hey, maybe Iowa will do it for us. > > I personally believe that environmental questions are crucial to decisions we > make today. One of the eleven goals of the City of Minneapolis listed as part > of our rating system on CLIC is "Preserve, enhance and create a sustainable > natural and historic environment citywide." I take that seriously. I am > frustrated with some in the development field who have a mindset that pays > lip service to the environment. I am also frustrated with some on the > environmental left however who believe that if you don't agree with their > interpretation of what "environmental" entails, that you do not have a "right > mind," you are not a "real" environmentalist, or you have a "mission" to > destroy the biosphere. I personally do not believe that there is an > environmental holy book, or holy person I can talk to that will always give > the one correct answer. > > Since LRT appears to be a forgone conclusion for at least the first run, and > since the 55 reroute is done (although I think it will be talked about for > some time), I think one of the interesting "environmental" questions coming > up concerns the future direction of the Park Board. They have a budget > submitted for $36,000,000 of park improvements over the next five years. The > CLIC approval process for capital improvements has started, there are Park > Board Elections heating up. Is the Park Board headed in the right direction? > Do we need more fields and bike paths, or more natural preserves? Do we need > a big water park? There is $3,000,000 requested for NE Water Park. Which way > do we go? > > Bob Gustafson > 13th __________________________________________________________________ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ _______________________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
