This letter is excellent, and I thank you...it says everything I could
not put into words. (Re: public/private sector)
-cm
P.S. Not sure about the poison ivy reference at the end?
On Jul 1, 2011, at 12:27 AM, Kimm Tynan wrote:
Tony,
I also noted Roundup's continuous availability to private
customers, at a neighborhood supply store for your next-door
neighbors' yards. You haven't yet written about how concerned you
are about this bigger, ongoing use of Roundup in your neighborhood.
Is it really Roundup you're concerned about, or something else?
Are you arguing your private-sector neighbors should be free to use
this chemical whenever they want, but the City of Philadelphia
never should even once? You seem to have one rule for the public
sector, another for the private.
Why is it necessary to look for hidden agendas and conspiracies?
Why isn’t the obvious answer enough? Why the insistence on
complicating this issue so? Why the hostility to what seems to me a
very reasonable, valid concern for Park users?
My four-year-old does not dig in the dirt in my next-door neighbors’
yards. He DOES dig in the dirt of Clark Park at least once a week.
Along with hundreds of other children. I kid you not, one of my
son’s absolute favorite past-times is digging in the dirt. So,
what’s in that dirt is of great concern to me. Tony, if you want to
soak your backyard in gallons of Roundup, knock yourself out. My
kid is not playing in your yard. Nor are most members of the public.
But a public park is by definition a public space where many people,
especially children, play. Do I have one rule for the public sector
and one for the private? Hell, yeah! Damn right I do. If what you
are doing in your backyard does not affect me or anyone else, then
it’s none of my business. But it seems glaringly obvious to me that
the caretakers of a PUBLIC PARK should not be using chemicals on the
grounds of said park that are known or suspected health hazards.
Since becoming a mom I tend to view most issues first and foremost
from that perspective, but pet owners and park users who are simply
concerned about their own personal health may well have equally
valid concerns, without necessarily needing to launch a wholesale
effort to ban Roundup globally. To this extent Glenn is right –
this is a straw man tactic. When I was an activist in the
antiapartheid movement in college, opponents screamed - “Why aren’t
you opposing the oppression in the Soviet Union/China/Cuba???!!!”
When I organized for affordable housing, people screamed, “Why
aren’t you doing anything about those lazy deadbeat tenants/
homeowners who don’t take care of their properties?” (Interestingly,
no one ever blamed the lazy deadbeat landlords, but that is another
discussion.) It’s an effective tactic – anyone who advocates on any
issue is a hypocrite unless they advocate on every issue. It works
to maintain the status quo – be quiet, stop trying to change things
or be subject to attack as a hypocrite for not trying to change
everything.
Then there is the fact that my next-door neighbors have not, to my
knowledge, trumpeted their desire to have the “Greenest” yard on the
block, as opposed to the Nutter administration, which claims it
wants a public initiative to make Philadelphia a model Green city.
That includes urging private individuals and corporations to do
things like install green roofs and water gardens, bike to work,
etc. The green roofs on the bus stops are definitely very cool, but
I think a better place to start would be stop unnecessarily dumping
toxic chemicals on public play spaces. But maybe that’s just me.
But if my next-door neighbors were promoting themselves as models of
Greenness, and then I learned they were using Roundup – well, I
would have a chat with them about it.
Then there is the question of who is paying for the Roundup. Both
Glenn and Wilma have made the point that this morass of Rec
Department-UCD-FOCP responsibility has made it very difficult for
the casual observer to figure out whom to hold accountable. And I
don’t believe that that is completely accidental. As a community
organizer I trained the folks I worked with to follow the money if
they wanted to understand where the power lies (I also, BTW, trained
them to distinguish between public and private issues). Mostly due
to laziness I’m a bit confused about who paid for the Roundup. For
the sake of discussion I’ll approach it both ways.
I think, from what I’ve read, FOCP raised the money for the Park A
renovations. In which case, that money paid for the Roundup. So,
it seems to me that that is an issue of public relevance – if
community members/park users contributed donations for the
renovations, and those contributors don’t approve of spending their
contributions on Roundup, then that is a proper public issue. It
sounds to me that maybe even FOCP isn’t thrilled by the news. If my
next-door neighbor takes his/her own money and spends it on Roundup
to dump in his/her yard – it’s less a public concern.
If the City paid for the Roundup, then it is absolutely the business
of any taxpayer. And even if Tony West paid for the Roundup, unless
Glenn is right and the parks were privatized while I slept – Clark
Park is still publicly-owned property, owned by the citizens and
taxpayers, and what goes on there is a valid concern of any citizen
taxpayer.
Yes. I have one rule for the public sector and one for the private,
and I’m not at all ashamed to say so.
I am frankly astounded that I need to educate someone who promotes
himself as a journalist, community organizer and civic leader on the
distinction between public and private issues. I’m also rather
baffled – do you truly view FOCP’s proper role as defending the Rec
Department against the community?
It is a given that it is much easier to affect issues at a local
level. If people feel that they can influence policy at Clark Park,
but maybe don’t feel up to the battle of persuading the EPA to ban
Roundup nationwide – that’s fine. All politics are local. If
citizens throughout the world advocated locally for Roundup bans in
our local parks – that could be enough to make change. Probably
not. My impression is Roundup is mostly used agriculturally. But
that’s another battle.
Finally, I really, truly, was not going to bring this up, I was
going to leave it be. But now that my Irish is up, I leave you all
with this – the irony is just too much :-) -
http://www.philadelphiaspeaks.com/forum/west-philadelphia-university-city/23369-poison-ivy-clark-park.html
Kimm
On 6/29/11 11:25 PM, "Anthony West" <[email protected]>
wrote:
This is inaccurate, Mary. Neither Frank nor I "vouched for
Roundup's harmlessness." We noted the circumstances of its
government-approved application in Clark Park, which is a
government property -- a small-scale, one-time application.
I also noted Roundup's continuous availability to private
customers, at a neighborhood supply store for your next-door
neighbors' yards. You haven't yet written about how concerned you
are about this bigger, ongoing use of Roundup in your neighborhood.
Is it really Roundup you're concerned about, or something else?
Are you arguing your private-sector neighbors should be free to
use this chemical whenever they want, but the City of Philadelphia
never should even once? You seem to have one rule for the public
sector, another for the private.
-- Tony West
On 6/24/2011 1:26 PM, [email protected] wrote:
In fairness to Tony and to Frank Chance, who vouched for
Roundup's harmlessness...
