Peter Vevang wrote: > 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.
Randall (with two L's) writes: I agree with Peter's points about the need to have clear, precise language and that the language needs to refer to Minneapolis rather than a hypothetical sustainable city. I'll also grant your point about "healthy, productive, and satisfying lives". However, in this example you state that the reworded language includes all of the relevant issues of the first draft. I disagree. There is a difference between the words "maintain" and "improve and enhance". The difference between the two drafts is more than simply language, I would have no complaint if the language were changed without watering down and undermining the environmental protection and improvement intent of the original document. The original document is bold. It invisions a city that continusously works to improve the environment in which we live. For example, when Xcel's Riverside plant converts to natural gas we will have a vast improvement in air quality. So if the city approved a facility next door to the Riverside plant that pollutes as much as Riverside used to, the net result would be to maintain our environment. To maintain the quality of our environment we wouldn't need to clean up brownfields or do any other restorative work. I would be more content if the sentence were written: "...A city that meets the social and economic needs of all its residents while improving the quality of its environment is practicing sustainability..." Randall Cutting Seward 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
