Kimm,
Back in town ... I wanted to address your concern.
I have always respected your input, but you need to define your focus.
Are you concerned about Roundup use in your neighborhood, or Roundup use
by the government? If the former, focus on changing the behavior of
local private-sector lawn-care people around you, because they're
applying most of the Roundup around you. (Campuses are the major
groundskeepers in University City.) If the latter, focus on the citywide
decision-making level; that's where this sort of procurement goes on.
If you think that a chemical which was applied on occasion by a
government contractor during a construction project poses an ongoing
hazard, you must address your concern to the government in question.
Since the product decays fairly rapidly, even judged by your own
research, there should be no risk to your child after about 180 days
past application, right? So keep your child from playing in the park
this summer. (Make sure, however, that he also never visits a neighbor
child's backyard unless you know that neighbor's lawn-care regimen. And
never let your dog sniff a neighbor's bush, unless ditto.)
Since, however, Roundup's use is legally sanctioned by the federal
government, as it was applied -- your mission is to persuade your local
government that your research trumps the federal findings. By all means
go for it! This is the situation you must seek to change, if you wish to
be a change agent: the city's contracting specs for such jobs. There is
nothing in Clark Park for you to change. You will need to be dialoguing
with engineers who are responsible for public construction projects
citywide. They are operating under one set of rules; you wish them to
change their rules for future operations. You'll need to present your
case to them. If you'd like any help in this quest, I'll be glad to
assist you off line.
FoCP lobbied -- successfully -- to get public grants for a public
project. It did not get the money, spend the money, hire the contractor,
set the specs for this job, or research the materials used in the
landscape architects' industry. FoCP has no advance mission to research
the chemicals used in construction projects, beyond consulting the
professionals in charge. You can bring up the subject at the next
Members' Meeting, though. Cheers,
-- Tony West
On 7/1/2011 12:27 AM, Kimm Tynan wrote:
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...
