Roundup's poison ivy treating weed treatment is very effective and selective.
Tony and Glenn are are both making good points as well meaning men. Rc On Jul 1, 2011, at 8:27 AM, Cindy Miller wrote: > 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... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >
