Randal wrote -
"...I just think our leaders are being disingenuous..."
"...Yet, at the same time city staff are editing the Minneapolis Sustanability Plan - just before it comes to the council to be ammended into the Minneapolis Plan. Here are some highlights of the changes..."
Peter Vevang writes- I am not an expert in the EIS, but I think your assertions as shown need more explanation before you accuse our leaders of being "disingenuous". The document calls for official action I presume. As such the language must be precise, clear and unambiguous. You give the following example as evidence of a strong statement:
"...a sustainable community is one that improves and enhances its natural, social and economic resources in a way that allows current and future members of the community to lead healthy, productive, and satisfying lives..."
That statement is impossible to implement as a law, regulation or clear standard of action. It is ambiguous and has a wide range of interpretations. The problem with this phrase is that you need to then define how sustainability enhances 'natural, social and economic resources...'. Strictly speaking, "sustainable community" can't do anything, it isn't a government body, it can't levy taxes or write regulations, it is a description of a condition. How do you define "healthy, productive, and satisfying lives". In a court of law, those words wouldn't hold up that well. An extremely low standard could satisfy many of those requirements, and as a matter of policy, "a productive and satisfying" action could be unfriendly to the environment. The revised statement is better:
"...A city that meets the social and economic needs of all its residents while maintaining the quality of its environment is practicing sustainability..."
The implicit reasoning included in this statement, includes all of the relevant issues of the first draft, but does away with imprecise language. It is shorter, too the point and in English. The authority and responsibility is given to the city, rather than a generic "sustainable community". I have written a specification or two in my time, the language has to be strong, accurate, sufficiently broad, flexible, realistic, implementable and cost effective or it will be undermined, ignored or cut down in court. I don't think our leaders are being "disingenuous" looking at your examples, they don't seem callouse, extreme or imprudent enough to merit that designation based on your evidence. That isn't fair.
Peter Vevang Audubon
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
