Re: [UC] Poison alert, Clark Park Who payed for this?

[Glenn moyer]

laid down on the park is a granular organic 
>fertilizer that contains no herbicides or pesticides. "We have always 
>been very clear with Moon that we don't want anything like that used in 
>the park," said Bergheiser.


Neighbors, I explained to KC not to ever expect a straight answer from UCD! 

Does everyone notice what is conspicuously missing from this cleaner safer 
message?  What is the name of the product???  (Hahaha-Dexter checked the 
"organic" ingredients but forgot the name, which would allow us to verify the 
safety claims in the literature.)


Also, the Moon worker is being Fentonized in this false answer.  He was driving 
a contraption that sprays a liquid out the front, which has been discussed on 
this list before.  The worker placed the plaque on Baltimore, which accompanies 
the liquid product, and it tells people to stay off the grass until dry. (Now 
the product warning is dismissed and UCD is going to order that even this 
completely inadequate 2" x 2" warning won't be used to frighten us.)


Lew, from FOCP, also described this liquid a few years ago on the list.  Lew 
explained that he confronted a Moon worker.  The worker told Lew, it was "safe 
enough to drink"  When Lew asked him to take a swig, the worker declined. 

Do folks remember that story? It's the same warning plaque and the same liquid 
as that time.


UCD has treated us like idiots with its crap many times before.  Everyone 
should take the time and look for dandelions in Clark Park!  Were the 
dandelions wiped out by the swine flu?  (Dandelion are the hardy edible plants 
with yellow flowers.  Considered weeds, dandelions have been a primary target 
for weed killing agents used for decades on suburban lawns.  Poison is the 
honest word to describe these chemicals, no matter how much the corporations 
use words like "organic" and "safe" in their marketing.)


UCD could have told us what chemicals are used and at what times of year 
different chemicals are used, if they had any intention of being honest!  
(Manufactured fertilizers also pollute the water ways.  I believe, that it is 
the fertilizers that have been linked to dead zones in water systems like the 
Chesapeake.)  If one of the liquids placed on Clark park is a fertilizer, I 
doubt that many unsuspecting Clark park visitors want the liquid on their kids 
and dogs!


This evasive condescending answer to the legitimate concerns, expressed by many 
of us over the course of several years, is classic UCD.  We still don't know 
anything other than that we are "cleaner and safer".  UCD experts have 
everything under control, and we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads.  
Anyone like Glenn, who questions the secret liquid, is a paranoid wanker just 
as Tony has said for years!

Please check the park and see for yourselves that the dandelions have been 
wiped out by these secret chemicals!  This UCD answer should be considered, and 
it should finally convince folks about the total lack of credibility and 
condescending arrogance of UCD, as it dismisses the people of this 
community!!

Very sincerely,
Glenn




-Original Message-----
>From: Anthony West 
>Sent: Sep 30, 2009 4:43 PM
>To: univcity serv 
>Subject: Re: [UC] Poison alert, Clark Park Who payed for this?
>
>Kimm,
>
>I talked with UCD Executive Director Matt Bergheiser, who in turn 
>checked with his Director of Operations Dexter Bryant. Bryant told him 
>what Moon Site Mgmt. laid down on the park is a granular organic 
>fertilizer that contains no herbicides or pesticides. "We have always 
>been very clear with Moon that we don't want anything like that used in 
>the park," said Bergheiser.
>
>Why the signs, then? "We suspect it's a kind of historical accident," 
>Bergheiser said. They may be part of the Moon grounds crew's standard 
>toolkit. In general, having laid down material like this, groundskeepers 
>want it to rest undisturbed for a while and encourage the public not to 
>trample across it. After even a light rain like this morning's, it 
>should have settled enough, though. Bergheiser said no one should be 
>concerned about safety issues in contacting the material now, or in 
>disturbing its efficacy now. The job is done.
>
>"We apologize if these signs were misleading or scary," said Bergheiser, 
>"and we will work with the contractor to avoid this sort of mistake in 
>the future."
>
>-- Tony West
>
>
>Kimm Tynan wrote:
>>> I don't think it's nonsense, Tony.  In this day and age, chemical
>>> fertilizers and pesticides are pretty widely viewed as pretty backwards.
>>> Given Mayor Nutter's emphasis on being green, I think the issue of what
>>> chemicals are being pumped into Clar

Re: [UC] Poison alert, Clark Park Who payed for this?

[Kimm Tynan]

Wow.  That's great news.  Thanks for looking into that Tony.

Kimm


On 9/30/09 4:43 PM, "Anthony West"  wrote:

> Kimm,
> 
> I talked with UCD Executive Director Matt Bergheiser, who in turn
> checked with his Director of Operations Dexter Bryant. Bryant told him
> what Moon Site Mgmt. laid down on the park is a granular organic
> fertilizer that contains no herbicides or pesticides. "We have always
> been very clear with Moon that we don't want anything like that used in
> the park," said Bergheiser.
> 
> Why the signs, then? "We suspect it's a kind of historical accident,"
> Bergheiser said. They may be part of the Moon grounds crew's standard
> toolkit. In general, having laid down material like this, groundskeepers
> want it to rest undisturbed for a while and encourage the public not to
> trample across it. After even a light rain like this morning's, it
> should have settled enough, though. Bergheiser said no one should be
> concerned about safety issues in contacting the material now, or in
> disturbing its efficacy now. The job is done.
> 
> "We apologize if these signs were misleading or scary," said Bergheiser,
> "and we will work with the contractor to avoid this sort of mistake in
> the future."
> 
> -- Tony West
> 
> 
> Kimm Tynan wrote:
>>> I don't think it's nonsense, Tony.  In this day and age, chemical
>>> fertilizers and pesticides are pretty widely viewed as pretty backwards.
>>> Given Mayor Nutter's emphasis on being green, I think the issue of what
>>> chemicals are being pumped into Clark and other parks is an entirely valid
>>> one for public discussion - not just for safety of kids and pets but for
>>> broader ecological reasons.  And there's no need to be defensive -  I don't
>>> think anyone is accusing Moon Site Management of being evil people.  That
>>> doesn't mean folks can't raise issues with specific things they do that
>>> people might want changed.
>>> 
>>> I think Glenn has a point.  Does anyone care if there are dandelions in
>>> Clark Park?  We all want grass in our park, but is fertilizer really
>>> necessary?  If so could we find a greener alternative?  Let's call Mike
>>> McGrath (from the radio, not the neighborhood)!
> 
> 
> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
> list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
> .



You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] Poison alert, Clark Park Who payed for this?

[Anthony West]

Kimm,

I talked with UCD Executive Director Matt Bergheiser, who in turn 
checked with his Director of Operations Dexter Bryant. Bryant told him 
what Moon Site Mgmt. laid down on the park is a granular organic 
fertilizer that contains no herbicides or pesticides. "We have always 
been very clear with Moon that we don't want anything like that used in 
the park," said Bergheiser.


Why the signs, then? "We suspect it's a kind of historical accident," 
Bergheiser said. They may be part of the Moon grounds crew's standard 
toolkit. In general, having laid down material like this, groundskeepers 
want it to rest undisturbed for a while and encourage the public not to 
trample across it. After even a light rain like this morning's, it 
should have settled enough, though. Bergheiser said no one should be 
concerned about safety issues in contacting the material now, or in 
disturbing its efficacy now. The job is done.


"We apologize if these signs were misleading or scary," said Bergheiser, 
"and we will work with the contractor to avoid this sort of mistake in 
the future."


-- Tony West


Kimm Tynan wrote:

I don't think it's nonsense, Tony.  In this day and age, chemical
fertilizers and pesticides are pretty widely viewed as pretty backwards.
Given Mayor Nutter's emphasis on being green, I think the issue of what
chemicals are being pumped into Clark and other parks is an entirely valid
one for public discussion - not just for safety of kids and pets but for
broader ecological reasons.  And there's no need to be defensive -  I don't
think anyone is accusing Moon Site Management of being evil people.  That
doesn't mean folks can't raise issues with specific things they do that
people might want changed.

I think Glenn has a point.  Does anyone care if there are dandelions in
Clark Park?  We all want grass in our park, but is fertilizer really
necessary?  If so could we find a greener alternative?  Let's call Mike
McGrath (from the radio, not the neighborhood)!



You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] Poison alert, Clark Park Who payed for this?

[Brian Siano]

Glenn moyer wrote:

The only answer we will get to your questions has been given by Tony West, UCD 
committeeman.  If you give FOCP money, maybe just maybe, they will allow you to ask your 
question to them in a private secret setting.  What actually happens is that you will be 
badly treated if you actually meet with them for a private "coffee meeting."
  
That reminds me. The next Private Secret Setting Meeting for the Friends 
of Clark Park will be on October 21, at Rosenberg Hall at USP, starting 
at 7 p.m.


We'll be electing officers, so keep this a Double Secret.



You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] Poison alert, Clark Park Who payed for this?

[Glenn moyer]

Think of the kids kicking around in the  
>dust at the fair this past week. Breathing poison dirt. The long range  
>risks involve destroying our watershed. This practice  is  
>irresponsible and must be stopped

Hi KC,

First, I want to give you a heads-up about another danger coming up, that won't 
be publicly announced.  Shortly before the Spruce Hill Halloween parade, the 
Moon company will use hand held "leaf blowers" in the park.  These machines 
look like chain saws, and are known to have very dirty running engines like 
lawn mowers.

Last year, an enormous dust cloud was produced over the park which impacted 
several blocks.  I was choking for two blocks as I walked to my house on 4300 
Baltimore.  (You are right to question the accumulated chemicals in that dirt). 
 I reported the entire incident on this public list.


This gets to your other question:  I called UCD and Moon last year.  Moon works 
for UCD and "the community."  UCD said the community wants the work done, which 
is spin, that means FOCP/SHCA leaders rubber stamp the UCD agenda.

As has happened so many times before, the public won't get a straight answer to 
your question!  UCD is a quasi-government.  They have implanted themselves 
between the community and the real government, but they are only accountable to 
the University of Penn. real estate power brokers.  From past experience, I 
know they will never answer your question.


UCD copies models from other places.  They don't do individual research into 
all of their crap that they impose on us.  This landscaping model, dumping a 
range of chemicals on suburban lawns, has been marketed for decades.  It is a 
huge part of the reason our waterways are polluted.  UCD wouldn't have a real 
answer if they were accountable!  The only reason for this ridiculous war with 
dandelion is that upscale suburban communities have been doing it for years.

The only answer we will get to your questions has been given by Tony West, UCD 
committeeman.  If you give FOCP money, maybe just maybe, they will allow you to 
ask your question to them in a private secret setting.  What actually happens 
is that you will be badly treated if you actually meet with them for a private 
"coffee meeting."

Nothing will stop these terrible practises except a groundswell of public 
objection from the community. The only thing that effects UCD actions is the 
fear of bad publicity! 

Keep a dust mask handy before Halloween,
Glenn


-Original Message-
>From: K C Hibbard 
>Sent: Sep 29, 2009 6:21 PM
>To: univcity serv 
>Subject: [UC] Poison alert, Clark Park Who payed for this?
>
>Does anyone know who actually contracted the ground poisoning? Seems  
>that that party should be targeted. The most immediate at risk part of  
>the population from herbicide and pesticide use is children and pets.  
>They have a faster metabolism. Think of the kids kicking around in the  
>dust at the fair this past week. Breathing poison dirt. The long range  
>risks involve destroying our watershed. This practice  is  
>irresponsible and must be stopped.
>
>It's funny that Penn is touting it's committment to environmental  
>causes, creating more green space all the while dumping herbicides all  
>summer and wacking the grass with weed wackers so it dies at the edges  
>of the lawns so they repeat the grass- seed -poison cycle.
>
>Is it UCD, FOCP or Fairmount Park? Who hired these guys?
>
>
>You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
>list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
><http://www.purple.com/list.html>.


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.

Re: [UC] Poison alert, Clark Park Who payed for this?

[Glenn moyer]

Think of the kids kicking around in the  
>dust at the fair this past week. Breathing poison dirt. The long range  
>risks involve destroying our watershed. This practice  is  
>irresponsible and must be stopped

Hi KC,

First, I want to give you a heads-up about another danger coming up, that won't 
be publicly announced.  Shortly before the Spruce Hill Halloween parade, the 
Moon company will use hand held "leaf blowers" in the park.  These machines 
look like chain saws, and are known to have very dirty running engines like 
lawn mowers.

Last year, an enormous dust cloud was produced over the park which impacted 
several blocks.  I was choking for two blocks as I walked to my house on 4300 
Baltimore.  (You are right to question the accumulated chemicals in that dirt). 
 I reported the entire incident on this public list.


This gets to your other question:  I called UCD and Moon last year.  Moon works 
for UCD and "the community."  UCD said the community wants the work done, which 
is spin, that means FOCP/SHCA leaders rubber stamp the UCD agenda.

As has happened so many times before, the public won't get a straight answer to 
your question!  UCD is a quasi-government.  They have implanted themselves 
between the community and the real government, but they are only accountable to 
the University of Penn. real estate power brokers.  From past experience, I 
know they will never answer your question.


UCD copies models from other places.  They don't do individual research into 
all of their crap that they impose on us.  This landscaping model, dumping a 
range of chemicals on suburban lawns, has been marketed for decades.  It is a 
huge part of the reason our waterways are polluted.  UCD wouldn't have a real 
answer if they were accountable!  The only reason for this ridiculous war with 
dandelion is that upscale suburban communities have been doing it for years.

The only answer we will get to your questions has been given by Tony West, UCD 
committeeman.  If you give FOCP money, maybe just maybe, they will allow you to 
ask your question to them in a private secret setting.  What actually happens 
is that you will be badly treated if you actually meet with them for a private 
"coffee meeting."

Keep a dust mask handy before Halloween,
Glenn






-Original Message-
>From: K C Hibbard 
>Sent: Sep 29, 2009 6:21 PM
>To: univcity serv 
>Subject: [UC] Poison alert, Clark Park Who payed for this?
>
>Does anyone know who actually contracted the ground poisoning? Seems  
>that that party should be targeted. The most immediate at risk part of  
>the population from herbicide and pesticide use is children and pets.  
>They have a faster metabolism. Think of the kids kicking around in the  
>dust at the fair this past week. Breathing poison dirt. The long range  
>risks involve destroying our watershed. This practice  is  
>irresponsible and must be stopped.
>
>It's funny that Penn is touting it's committment to environmental  
>causes, creating more green space all the while dumping herbicides all  
>summer and wacking the grass with weed wackers so it dies at the edges  
>of the lawns so they repeat the grass- seed -poison cycle.
>
>Is it UCD, FOCP or Fairmount Park? Who hired these guys?
>
>
>You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
>list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
><http://www.purple.com/list.html>.


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.

Re: [UC] Poison alert, Clark Park Who payed for this?

[Anthony West]

Kimm,

The larger point is not nonsense, Kimm. It's quite reasonable to 
investigate it and discuss it.


What is nonsense, is calling something "poison" without knowing what it 
is. You probably wouldn't send your child to build mudpies in your 
backyard compost heap either, but that doesn't warrant calling it 
"poison". That's a loaded word that is improperly and deceptively 
applied in this discussion.


Let's first find out what it is. I look forward to seeing you at the 
annual General Meeting of FoCP on Wednesday, Oct. 21. If you and others 
develop practical, fact-based information on groundskeeping that can be 
applied to an urban green space, there's no reason you can't work 
through FoCP.


-- Tony West


I don't think it's nonsense, Tony.  In this day and age, chemical
fertilizers and pesticides are pretty widely viewed as pretty backwards.
Given Mayor Nutter's emphasis on being green, I think the issue of what
chemicals are being pumped into Clark and other parks is an entirely valid
one for public discussion - not just for safety of kids and pets but for
broader ecological reasons.
If FOCP were to take up this battle, I might even be lured to get involved.

Really, I can't see why you're so dismissive of the issue.

Kimm




You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] Poison alert, Clark Park Who payed for this?

[Kimm Tynan]

http://www.restorewisconsin.com/media/Municipalbrochure.pdf


On 9/29/09 9:35 PM, "Kimm Tynan"  wrote:

> I don't think it's nonsense, Tony.  In this day and age, chemical
> fertilizers and pesticides are pretty widely viewed as pretty backwards.
> Given Mayor Nutter's emphasis on being green, I think the issue of what
> chemicals are being pumped into Clark and other parks is an entirely valid
> one for public discussion - not just for safety of kids and pets but for
> broader ecological reasons.  And there's no need to be defensive -  I don't
> think anyone is accusing Moon Site Management of being evil people.  That
> doesn't mean folks can't raise issues with specific things they do that
> people might want changed.
> 
> I think Glenn has a point.  Does anyone care if there are dandelions in
> Clark Park?  We all want grass in our park, but is fertilizer really
> necessary?  If so could we find a greener alternative?  Let's call Mike
> McGrath (from the radio, not the neighborhood)!
> 
> I imagine there would be a lot of popular support in the neighborhood for
> trying to make Clark Park a model of green, ecofriendly maintenance.  I
> would imagine that that is the sort of thing Mike Diberardinis would leap to
> support.  Given that "green" is hot, and that FOCP's job is theoretically to
> advocate for the desires and interests of park users and the surrounding
> community, this seems like an ideal campaign to take up.  I would guess
> there a lot of funding sources for this type of thing right now.
> 
> I mean, if the city can embark on this project:
> 
> http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/62007227.html
> 
> Why can't we eliminate chemicals from our parks?
> 
> If FOCP were to take up this battle, I might even be lured to get involved.
> 
> Really, I can't see why you're so dismissive of the issue.
> 
> Kimm
> 
> On 9/29/09 6:42 PM, "Anthony West"  wrote:
> 
>> It's all very well known, KC. It's been going on for 10 years now. Clark
>> Park is a part of the City of Philadelphia Dept. of Recreation and and
>> this is what the City welcomes to have done in this park. It spares the
>> City the cost of doing the job itself, which is appreciated when there
>> is a budget crisis, as there is now.
>> 
>> The guys who were hired are Moon Site Management. They are the reason
>> the trash is removed twice a week rather than once a week during the
>> peak season. They are the reason the grass in the park is mown more than
>> once every 2 months in the peak season. And they are the sole reason the
>> grass gets any maintenance at all; your tax dollars purchase ZERO lawn
>> care ever, for our neighborhood's most cherished and most heavily used
>> and abused lawn.
>> 
>> It isn't enough. But it's better than nothing. Neighbors who care about
>> Clark Park pitch in every spring to the 'Party for the Park' fundraiser
>> that supports this neighborhood green initiative. Maybe you'll join us
>> next year!
>> 
>> I can't tell you tonight precisely which ground-care treatment was
>> applied today. At this time of year, it's more likely to have been a
>> fertilizer than an herbicide. Some fertilizers are toxic to animals,
>> though, and require a certain amount of settling in before creatures
>> should walk across treated areas. That's why warning signs are placed by
>> Rec. When the risk has passed, the signs are removed.
>> 
>> For people who want the facts on this particular chemical, we'll round
>> that up and report back to you tomorrow.
>> 
>> In the meantime, please don't panic about this "poison" nonsense. People
>> who've lived in the neighborhood for a while have heard all Glenn's
>> stuff before. It is more of a personal problem than a public problem.
>> 
>> -- Tony West
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> KC Hibbard wrote:
>>> Does anyone know who actually contracted the ground poisoning? Seems
>>> that that party should be targeted. The most immediate at risk part of
>>> the population from herbicide and pesticide use is children and pets.
>>> They have a faster metabolism. Think of the kids kicking around in the
>>> dust at the fair this past week. Breathing poison dirt. The long range
>>> risks involve destroying our watershed. This practice  is
>>> irresponsible and must be stopped.
>>> 
>>> It's funny that Penn is touting it's committment to environmental
>>> causes, creating more green space all the while dumping herbicides all
>>> summer and wacking the grass with weed wackers so it dies at the edges
>>> of the lawns so they repeat the grass- seed -poison cycle.
>>> 
>>> Is it UCD, FOCP or Fairmount Park? Who hired these guys?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
>>> list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
>>> .
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
>> list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
>> .
> 
> 
> ---

Re: [UC] Poison alert, Clark Park Who payed for this?

[Kimm Tynan]

Just thinking out loud - maybe we need a rain garden in the bowl! (I know,
probably not practical, but these are the kinds of things we could think
about).


On 9/29/09 9:35 PM, "Kimm Tynan"  wrote:

> I don't think it's nonsense, Tony.  In this day and age, chemical fertilizers
> and pesticides are pretty widely viewed as pretty backwards.  Given Mayor
> Nutter's emphasis on being green, I think the issue of what chemicals are
> being pumped into Clark and other parks is an entirely valid one for public
> discussion - not just for safety of kids and pets but for broader ecological
> reasons.  And there's no need to be defensive -  I don't think anyone is
> accusing Moon Site Management of being evil people.  That doesn't mean folks
> can't raise issues with specific things they do that people might want
> changed.
> 
> I think Glenn has a point.  Does anyone care if there are dandelions in Clark
> Park?  We all want grass in our park, but is fertilizer really necessary?  If
> so could we find a greener alternative?  Let's call Mike McGrath (from the
> radio, not the neighborhood)!
> 
> I imagine there would be a lot of popular support in the neighborhood for
> trying to make Clark Park a model of green, ecofriendly maintenance.  I would
> imagine that that is the sort of thing Mike Diberardinis would leap to
> support.  Given that "green" is hot, and that FOCP's job is theoretically to
> advocate for the desires and interests of park users and the surrounding
> community, this seems like an ideal campaign to take up.  I would guess there
> a lot of funding sources for this type of thing right now.
> 
> I mean, if the city can embark on this project:
> 
> http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/62007227.html
> 
> Why can't we eliminate chemicals from our parks?
> 
> If FOCP were to take up this battle, I might even be lured to get involved.
> 
> Really, I can't see why you're so dismissive of the issue.
> 
> Kimm
> 
> On 9/29/09 6:42 PM, "Anthony West"  wrote:
> 
>> It's all very well known, KC. It's been going on for 10 years now. Clark
>> Park is a part of the City of Philadelphia Dept. of Recreation and and
>> this is what the City welcomes to have done in this park. It spares the
>> City the cost of doing the job itself, which is appreciated when there
>> is a budget crisis, as there is now.
>> 
>> The guys who were hired are Moon Site Management. They are the reason
>> the trash is removed twice a week rather than once a week during the
>> peak season. They are the reason the grass in the park is mown more than
>> once every 2 months in the peak season. And they are the sole reason the
>> grass gets any maintenance at all; your tax dollars purchase ZERO lawn
>> care ever, for our neighborhood's most cherished and most heavily used
>> and abused lawn.
>> 
>> It isn't enough. But it's better than nothing. Neighbors who care about
>> Clark Park pitch in every spring to the 'Party for the Park' fundraiser
>> that supports this neighborhood green initiative. Maybe you'll join us
>> next year!
>> 
>> I can't tell you tonight precisely which ground-care treatment was
>> applied today. At this time of year, it's more likely to have been a
>> fertilizer than an herbicide. Some fertilizers are toxic to animals,
>> though, and require a certain amount of settling in before creatures
>> should walk across treated areas. That's why warning signs are placed by
>> Rec. When the risk has passed, the signs are removed.
>> 
>> For people who want the facts on this particular chemical, we'll round
>> that up and report back to you tomorrow.
>> 
>> In the meantime, please don't panic about this "poison" nonsense. People
>> who've lived in the neighborhood for a while have heard all Glenn's
>> stuff before. It is more of a personal problem than a public problem.
>> 
>> -- Tony West
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> KC Hibbard wrote:
>>> Does anyone know who actually contracted the ground poisoning? Seems
>>> that that party should be targeted. The most immediate at risk part of
>>> the population from herbicide and pesticide use is children and pets.
>>> They have a faster metabolism. Think of the kids kicking around in the
>>> dust at the fair this past week. Breathing poison dirt. The long range
>>> risks involve destroying our watershed. This practice  is
>>> irresponsible and must be stopped.
>>> 
>>> It's funny that Penn is touting it's committment to environmental
>>> causes, creating more green space all the while dumping herbicides all
>>> summer and wacking the grass with weed wackers so it dies at the edges
>>> of the lawns so they repeat the grass- seed -poison cycle.
>>> 
>>> Is it UCD, FOCP or Fairmount Park? Who hired these guys?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
>>> list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
>>> .
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
>> list named "UnivCity."

Re: [UC] Poison alert, Clark Park Who payed for this?

[Kimm Tynan]

P.S.  Tony, I need to add - while I understand that Glenn's rants are
suspect, and I don't know what chemicals are being unloaded in the Park, as
the mother of an almost 3-year-old, that is a very real concern to me.  You
don't seem to know what is being spewed either, but unless you have hard
cold facts to suggest otherwise, I really don't think dismissing concerns
out-of-hand is the most constructive approach.

Kimm


On 9/29/09 9:35 PM, "Kimm Tynan"  wrote:

> I don't think it's nonsense, Tony.  In this day and age, chemical fertilizers
> and pesticides are pretty widely viewed as pretty backwards.  Given Mayor
> Nutter's emphasis on being green, I think the issue of what chemicals are
> being pumped into Clark and other parks is an entirely valid one for public
> discussion - not just for safety of kids and pets but for broader ecological
> reasons.  And there's no need to be defensive -  I don't think anyone is
> accusing Moon Site Management of being evil people.  That doesn't mean folks
> can't raise issues with specific things they do that people might want
> changed.
> 
> I think Glenn has a point.  Does anyone care if there are dandelions in Clark
> Park?  We all want grass in our park, but is fertilizer really necessary?  If
> so could we find a greener alternative?  Let's call Mike McGrath (from the
> radio, not the neighborhood)!
> 
> I imagine there would be a lot of popular support in the neighborhood for
> trying to make Clark Park a model of green, ecofriendly maintenance.  I would
> imagine that that is the sort of thing Mike Diberardinis would leap to
> support.  Given that "green" is hot, and that FOCP's job is theoretically to
> advocate for the desires and interests of park users and the surrounding
> community, this seems like an ideal campaign to take up.  I would guess there
> a lot of funding sources for this type of thing right now.
> 
> I mean, if the city can embark on this project:
> 
> http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/62007227.html
> 
> Why can't we eliminate chemicals from our parks?
> 
> If FOCP were to take up this battle, I might even be lured to get involved.
> 
> Really, I can't see why you're so dismissive of the issue.
> 
> Kimm
> 
> On 9/29/09 6:42 PM, "Anthony West"  wrote:
> 
>> It's all very well known, KC. It's been going on for 10 years now. Clark
>> Park is a part of the City of Philadelphia Dept. of Recreation and and
>> this is what the City welcomes to have done in this park. It spares the
>> City the cost of doing the job itself, which is appreciated when there
>> is a budget crisis, as there is now.
>> 
>> The guys who were hired are Moon Site Management. They are the reason
>> the trash is removed twice a week rather than once a week during the
>> peak season. They are the reason the grass in the park is mown more than
>> once every 2 months in the peak season. And they are the sole reason the
>> grass gets any maintenance at all; your tax dollars purchase ZERO lawn
>> care ever, for our neighborhood's most cherished and most heavily used
>> and abused lawn.
>> 
>> It isn't enough. But it's better than nothing. Neighbors who care about
>> Clark Park pitch in every spring to the 'Party for the Park' fundraiser
>> that supports this neighborhood green initiative. Maybe you'll join us
>> next year!
>> 
>> I can't tell you tonight precisely which ground-care treatment was
>> applied today. At this time of year, it's more likely to have been a
>> fertilizer than an herbicide. Some fertilizers are toxic to animals,
>> though, and require a certain amount of settling in before creatures
>> should walk across treated areas. That's why warning signs are placed by
>> Rec. When the risk has passed, the signs are removed.
>> 
>> For people who want the facts on this particular chemical, we'll round
>> that up and report back to you tomorrow.
>> 
>> In the meantime, please don't panic about this "poison" nonsense. People
>> who've lived in the neighborhood for a while have heard all Glenn's
>> stuff before. It is more of a personal problem than a public problem.
>> 
>> -- Tony West
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> KC Hibbard wrote:
>>> Does anyone know who actually contracted the ground poisoning? Seems
>>> that that party should be targeted. The most immediate at risk part of
>>> the population from herbicide and pesticide use is children and pets.
>>> They have a faster metabolism. Think of the kids kicking around in the
>>> dust at the fair this past week. Breathing poison dirt. The long range
>>> risks involve destroying our watershed. This practice  is
>>> irresponsible and must be stopped.
>>> 
>>> It's funny that Penn is touting it's committment to environmental
>>> causes, creating more green space all the while dumping herbicides all
>>> summer and wacking the grass with weed wackers so it dies at the edges
>>> of the lawns so they repeat the grass- seed -poison cycle.
>>> 
>>> Is it UCD, FOCP or Fairmount Park? Who hired these guys?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> You are receivi

Re: [UC] Poison alert, Clark Park Who payed for this?

[Kimm Tynan]

I don't think it's nonsense, Tony.  In this day and age, chemical
fertilizers and pesticides are pretty widely viewed as pretty backwards.
Given Mayor Nutter's emphasis on being green, I think the issue of what
chemicals are being pumped into Clark and other parks is an entirely valid
one for public discussion - not just for safety of kids and pets but for
broader ecological reasons.  And there's no need to be defensive -  I don't
think anyone is accusing Moon Site Management of being evil people.  That
doesn't mean folks can't raise issues with specific things they do that
people might want changed.

I think Glenn has a point.  Does anyone care if there are dandelions in
Clark Park?  We all want grass in our park, but is fertilizer really
necessary?  If so could we find a greener alternative?  Let's call Mike
McGrath (from the radio, not the neighborhood)!

I imagine there would be a lot of popular support in the neighborhood for
trying to make Clark Park a model of green, ecofriendly maintenance.  I
would imagine that that is the sort of thing Mike Diberardinis would leap to
support.  Given that "green" is hot, and that FOCP's job is theoretically to
advocate for the desires and interests of park users and the surrounding
community, this seems like an ideal campaign to take up.  I would guess
there a lot of funding sources for this type of thing right now.

I mean, if the city can embark on this project:

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/62007227.html

Why can't we eliminate chemicals from our parks?

If FOCP were to take up this battle, I might even be lured to get involved.

Really, I can't see why you're so dismissive of the issue.

Kimm

On 9/29/09 6:42 PM, "Anthony West"  wrote:

> It's all very well known, KC. It's been going on for 10 years now. Clark
> Park is a part of the City of Philadelphia Dept. of Recreation and and
> this is what the City welcomes to have done in this park. It spares the
> City the cost of doing the job itself, which is appreciated when there
> is a budget crisis, as there is now.
> 
> The guys who were hired are Moon Site Management. They are the reason
> the trash is removed twice a week rather than once a week during the
> peak season. They are the reason the grass in the park is mown more than
> once every 2 months in the peak season. And they are the sole reason the
> grass gets any maintenance at all; your tax dollars purchase ZERO lawn
> care ever, for our neighborhood's most cherished and most heavily used
> and abused lawn.
> 
> It isn't enough. But it's better than nothing. Neighbors who care about
> Clark Park pitch in every spring to the 'Party for the Park' fundraiser
> that supports this neighborhood green initiative. Maybe you'll join us
> next year!
> 
> I can't tell you tonight precisely which ground-care treatment was
> applied today. At this time of year, it's more likely to have been a
> fertilizer than an herbicide. Some fertilizers are toxic to animals,
> though, and require a certain amount of settling in before creatures
> should walk across treated areas. That's why warning signs are placed by
> Rec. When the risk has passed, the signs are removed.
> 
> For people who want the facts on this particular chemical, we'll round
> that up and report back to you tomorrow.
> 
> In the meantime, please don't panic about this "poison" nonsense. People
> who've lived in the neighborhood for a while have heard all Glenn's
> stuff before. It is more of a personal problem than a public problem.
> 
> -- Tony West
> 
> 
> 
> KC Hibbard wrote:
>> Does anyone know who actually contracted the ground poisoning? Seems
>> that that party should be targeted. The most immediate at risk part of
>> the population from herbicide and pesticide use is children and pets.
>> They have a faster metabolism. Think of the kids kicking around in the
>> dust at the fair this past week. Breathing poison dirt. The long range
>> risks involve destroying our watershed. This practice  is
>> irresponsible and must be stopped.
>> 
>> It's funny that Penn is touting it's committment to environmental
>> causes, creating more green space all the while dumping herbicides all
>> summer and wacking the grass with weed wackers so it dies at the edges
>> of the lawns so they repeat the grass- seed -poison cycle.
>> 
>> Is it UCD, FOCP or Fairmount Park? Who hired these guys?
>> 
>> 
>> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
>> list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
>> .
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
> list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
> .



You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] Poison alert, Clark Park Who payed for this?

[Anthony West]

It's all very well known, KC. It's been going on for 10 years now. Clark 
Park is a part of the City of Philadelphia Dept. of Recreation and and 
this is what the City welcomes to have done in this park. It spares the 
City the cost of doing the job itself, which is appreciated when there 
is a budget crisis, as there is now.


The guys who were hired are Moon Site Management. They are the reason 
the trash is removed twice a week rather than once a week during the 
peak season. They are the reason the grass in the park is mown more than 
once every 2 months in the peak season. And they are the sole reason the 
grass gets any maintenance at all; your tax dollars purchase ZERO lawn 
care ever, for our neighborhood's most cherished and most heavily used 
and abused lawn.


It isn't enough. But it's better than nothing. Neighbors who care about 
Clark Park pitch in every spring to the 'Party for the Park' fundraiser 
that supports this neighborhood green initiative. Maybe you'll join us 
next year!


I can't tell you tonight precisely which ground-care treatment was 
applied today. At this time of year, it's more likely to have been a 
fertilizer than an herbicide. Some fertilizers are toxic to animals, 
though, and require a certain amount of settling in before creatures 
should walk across treated areas. That's why warning signs are placed by 
Rec. When the risk has passed, the signs are removed.


For people who want the facts on this particular chemical, we'll round 
that up and report back to you tomorrow.


In the meantime, please don't panic about this "poison" nonsense. People 
who've lived in the neighborhood for a while have heard all Glenn's 
stuff before. It is more of a personal problem than a public problem.


-- Tony West



KC Hibbard wrote:
Does anyone know who actually contracted the ground poisoning? Seems 
that that party should be targeted. The most immediate at risk part of 
the population from herbicide and pesticide use is children and pets. 
They have a faster metabolism. Think of the kids kicking around in the 
dust at the fair this past week. Breathing poison dirt. The long range 
risks involve destroying our watershed. This practice  is 
irresponsible and must be stopped.


It's funny that Penn is touting it's committment to environmental 
causes, creating more green space all the while dumping herbicides all 
summer and wacking the grass with weed wackers so it dies at the edges 
of the lawns so they repeat the grass- seed -poison cycle.


Is it UCD, FOCP or Fairmount Park? Who hired these guys?


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.






You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

[UC] Poison alert, Clark Park Who payed for this?

[K C Hibbard]

Does anyone know who actually contracted the ground poisoning? Seems  
that that party should be targeted. The most immediate at risk part of  
the population from herbicide and pesticide use is children and pets.  
They have a faster metabolism. Think of the kids kicking around in the  
dust at the fair this past week. Breathing poison dirt. The long range  
risks involve destroying our watershed. This practice  is  
irresponsible and must be stopped.


It's funny that Penn is touting it's committment to environmental  
causes, creating more green space all the while dumping herbicides all  
summer and wacking the grass with weed wackers so it dies at the edges  
of the lawns so they repeat the grass- seed -poison cycle.


Is it UCD, FOCP or Fairmount Park? Who hired these guys?


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.