Sorry, I meant to paste in the link to the statute: Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > I regret to inform Mr. Snyder that he is, unfortunately, indeed incorrect. > In his own words he stated: "It's actually a use restriction (not a complete > ban because there are exceptions for new lawns, etc.)." > > My specific point on phosphorus lawn chemicals has been that there is no ban > on them, just a use restriction & ban on city sales -- which can be avoided > by those who wish to. But we do digress...my intention was never to get > caught up in the details of examples, but to express that Mayor R.T. Rybak > has simply not been the "people's champion" he campaigned as. [...]
So it isn't a ban because the use restrictions "can be avoided by those who wish to" (1) syphon all of the nutrients from their soil, so that "the level of available phosphorus in the soil is insufficient to support healthy turf growth"; (2) dig up their yard, and replant or lay new sod; or (3) build a golf course on their property? Is this likely? (http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/18C/60.html) I have to admit, I thought I'd beaten the system by building a mini-golf course on my front yard. It was going to be a phosphorrific summer -- and the neighbor kids would have loved the windmill I've been building in the basement -- but the Pulse of the Twin Cities has seen right through this ruse. Dang. Mike Skoglund // New York NY // Bancroft MPLS REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
