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 isn¹t 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 neighbors¹ 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 son¹s absolute favorite past-times is digging in the dirt. So, what¹s 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 it¹s 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 - ³Why aren¹t you opposing the oppression in the Soviet Union/China/Cuba???!!!² When I organized for affordable housing, people screamed, ³Why aren¹t you doing anything about those lazy deadbeat tenants/homeowners who don¹t take care of their properties?² (Interestingly, no one ever blamed the lazy deadbeat landlords, but that is another discussion.) It¹s 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 ³Greenest² 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 that¹s 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 don¹t 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 I¹m a bit confused about who paid for the Roundup. For the sake of discussion I¹ll approach it both ways. I think, from what I¹ve 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 don¹t approve of spending their contributions on Roundup, then that is a proper public issue. It sounds to me that maybe even FOCP isn¹t 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 it¹s 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 I¹m 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. I¹m also rather baffled do you truly view FOCP¹s 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 don¹t feel up to the battle of persuading the EPA to ban Roundup nationwide that¹s 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 that¹s 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/23 369-poison-ivy-clark-park.html Kimm On 6/29/11 11:25 PM, "Anthony West" <anthony_w...@earthlink.net> 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, mcget...@aol.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> In fairness to Tony and to Frank Chance, who vouched for Roundup's >> harmlessness... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
