Environmentalists are giving Canada’s new prime minister strong marks for his plans for the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:
Transcript
Canadian environmentalists are giving Canada’s new prime minister strong marks for his plans
for the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:
Environmental groups see promise in the plans laid out by Canadian prime minister Paul Martin.
Martin has pledged an investment in new technology to meet Canada’s commitment to the Kyoto
Protocol. And he’s put a new emphasis on funding for cities.
Elizabeth May is Executive Director of the Sierra Club of Canada. She says a new deal for cities
could be a good deal for the environment.
“We hope to see better funding for mass transportation, better and smarter urban planning to
urban sprawl, reinvestments in a number of things that we really feel are environmental priorities,
but are seen through the lens of municipalities.”
Paul Martin has strong ties in the business community. May expects he’ll have a good rapport
with environmentalists, as well.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly.
If you compare a ten-year-old map of any urban city in North America with a recent one, you’ll notice that almost all of our major cities are getting bigger. That means more suburbs, more cars, and according to traditional ways of thinking, the need for more roads. But is road building the solution? Or is it part of the problem? The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Victoria Fenner takes us to a place where the debate has been going on for half a century. As she reports, not everybody agrees that the debate is settled:
Transcript
If you compare a ten year old map of any urban city in North America with a recent one,
you’ll notice that almost all of our major cities are getting bigger. That means more
suburbs, more cars, and according to traditional ways of thinking, the need for more roads.
But is road building the solution? Or is it part of the problem? Victoria Fenner takes us to
a place where the debate has been going on for half a century. As she reports, not everybody
agrees that the debate is settled:
On this sunny morning, a hawk sits in watch high atop a power line in the Red Hill Valley in
Hamilton. It gazes down over the valley – 1600 acres in the middle of this gritty industrial
steel town on the western tip of Lake Ontario. And soon, if the current city council has its
way, the hawk will be looking down on an expressway.
This is a story that happens over and over again in communities throughout North America.
This expressway plan in Hamilton has been on and off again for fifty years. It has polarized
the community, and with a municipal election happening soon, decision day for the valley is
looming. If a pro-expressway council is elected, it will go ahead.
Don McLean is with the Friends of Red Hill Valley, an organization that has been mobilizing
opposition to the freeway plan since 1991. He explains why he doesn’t want the expressway.
“The Red Hill Valley is potentially the largest urban park in Canada, and the expressway proposal
comes right down the middle of it, takes down twenty five percent of its forest and so on. There is
a large creek running through it that drains half the urban area of Hamilton. It has twenty four
species of fish that have been recorded since 1995. It’s quite an interesting place because it’s
completely surrounded, really, by urban area.”
But other people say there are also good arguments why the freeway should be built. Larry
Dianni is running for mayor and is building his whole campaign around this single issue. He
says he sees no other options, especially since parts of the freeway have already been built.
“This has been a project that has been fifty plus years in the making, and of course people have
now turned it around to say this is a fifty year old solution to current problems. Wrong. This is an
overdue solution to problems that manifested themselves fifty-four years ago, and by virtue of
ignoring them, the problems have gotten worse.”
The problems Larry Dianni is referring to are all about economic growth. His arguments for
the expressway are not a lot different from other cities across North America. He says as
more people and businesses move into the area, the road is necessary to accommodate
increasing traffic.
But Don McLean says this is outmoded thinking.
“There are good studies now in the U.S., and this has been understood in Europe for a long time,
that building more roads mainly results in generating more traffic. It does not address congestion
issues, it actually increases them because it encourages more driving and it encourages people to
move further and further away from their destinations.”
Don McLean’s position is one shared by the Sierra Club of Canada. The Sierra Club
recently published a major report called “Sprawl Hurts Us All.” Janet Pelley, the report’s
author, has heard the full range of the debate on both sides of the border. She is an
environmental journalist who recently moved to Canada from the U.S.
“The fact that you see on both sides of the border that there are these battles over freeways that
have been going on for fifty years just shows it’s an outmoded way of thinking, that the
government hasn’t caught up with the new smart growth initiatives and the new ways people are
looking at cities.”
The bottom line, Janet Pelley says, is we’re too dependent on motorized traffic. She says we
have to find ways of reducing our dependency on our cars.
“If you’re assuming people have to have cars, then you’re going to be sucked into that whole “car
junkie” habit of “we have to have more freeways to get people to move around. It’s really key
how you build your city. If you build your city for pedestrians and for public transit then you don’t
have to worry about the car traffic.”
It’s a story that is repeated over and over again as communities such as Hamilton try to
balance economic growth with environmental responsibility. In Hamilton, it’s still not a
foregone conclusion whether or not the freeway will proceed. November’s municipal
election is shaping up to be a single issue campaign, with pro-expressway and anti-
expressway candidates staking their political future on the issue. Whether or not this will
settle the matter is another question. With many sides to this story, this is an issue that
many communities will be wrestling with for a long time to come.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Victoria Fenner.
For almost 20 years, the federal government has paid farmers to convert some of their land to natural habitat for plants and animals. The Conservation Reserve Program is designed to protect the creeks and rivers that border farms. This year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is expanding the program to take on an additional two million acres, including 132,000 acres in Illinois. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:
Transcript
For almost 20 years, the Federal Government has paid farmers to convert some of their land to
natural habitat for plants and animals. The Conservation Reserve Program is designed to protect
the creeks and rivers that border farms. This year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is
expanding the program to take on an additional 2 million acres, including 132,000 acres in
Illinois. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:
Ted Gilles farms about a thousand acres along the Spoon River in Central Illinois. But the land
closest to the river doesn’t look much like a farm at all. This land was once planted with rows of
corn and soybeans and contained an area for his cattle to graze. Now it has rolling hills with
trees, and an assortment of prairie grasses.
“This here is probably, it’s not in flower now, but this is what they call the grey-headed
coneflower, which is a yellow one. There’s some blooming up there if you see that yellow one
there.”
Gilles is proud to show off the 300 acres of his land that is in the Conservation Reserve
Program. Before it was converted to a natural prairie, the soil, herbicides, and fertilizer from
Gilles’ farm would flow nearly uninhibited into the Spoon River, down to the Illinois, and
eventually to the Mississippi River. Now this land acts as a buffer and a filter. Gilles says he sets
aside time every day to visit his natural preserve.
“Like yesterday morning, I probably saw twenty pheasants in this half a mile, out along the edges,
catching grasshoppers. It’s really nice. It makes you think it’s really worth for it for doing all
this.”
It’s situations like Gilles’ that led to the U.S. Department of Agriculture adding to the
Conservation Reserve Program this year. Paul Gutierrez is the Assistant Deputy Administrator
for Farm Programs at the USDA. He says the CRP is meeting the goals of finding a voluntary
way to get farmers to protect land that is at risk. Guiterrez says the biggest obstacle to getting
farmers to act in a more environmentally friendly manner is finances. He says that’s why CRP
works.
“They still have their mortgage payments out there. They still have operating costs, property
taxes, and if they can look at a way to look at these lands that may not be as well-suited for
farming, and a way to partner up and save the environment, then they are definitely going to look
to help the environment out while still being able to feed their families.”
Environmental groups are generally supportive of the program, but they caution it might not
always be the right way to help rivers and streams. Ken Midkiff is the Director of the Clean
Water Campaign for the Sierra Club. He says while the Sierra Club supports the CRP, they
would like to see something that lasts longer. Midkiff says the program’s biggest weakness is
that farmers only have to protect the land for ten years.
“There’s nothing that prevents a farmer from resigning. But basically the Conservation Reserve
Program is for a set period of time. These are marginal lands, lands that aren’t very productive
for typical corn and soybeans. So we would like to see those set aside for longer periods of time.”
Midkiff says in terms of protecting bodies of water, ten years is barely enough time to undo the
damage that can happen in just one or two years. He also worries that if crop prices go up,
farmers will be quick to pull up native prairie grasses and replant crops.
(sound of nature)
Ted Gilles says low crop prices did get him into the program, and may be why he stays. He is
also a fan of seeing more acres brought into the CRP.
“I think that’s great. I really think that’s the way it should be. I think we have an abundance of
grain and the prices is low. So why not helping everybody by doing it this way, you know?”
Gilles also says he has come to love this portion of his farm, and crop prices would have to be
very high for him to give up on his flowers and pheasants.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.
The federal government is expanding a program to take farmland out of production and temporarily convert it to conservation areas. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:
Transcript
The Federal Government is expanding a program to take farmland out of production and
temporarily convert it to conservation areas. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl
reports:
The Conservation Reserve Program is designed to protect rivers and streams by paying farmers to
create buffers between farm fields and the bodies of water. The U.S. Department of Agriculture
is adding two million acres to the project this year.
Fred Guttierez is with the USDA. He says the program works because it’s voluntary.
“We look at it as a way to partner up with the private land owners to take those marginal lands
out of production and to really benefit the environment by doing that.”
Environmental groups are generally supportive of the program, but say it doesn’t go far enough.
Farmers can convert conservation areas back to farming after ten years in the program.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.
The Bush administration is making it easier for coal-burning power plants to avoid upgrading to modern pollution prevention equipment. But in some cases the power companies are bowing to public pressure to reduce pollution anyway. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Ann Alquist reports:
Transcript
The Bush administration is making it easier for coal-burning power plants to avoid upgrading to
modern pollution prevention equipment. But in some cases the power companies are bowing to
public pressure to reduce pollution anyway. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Ann Alquist
reports:
Elizabeth Dickinson didn’t get any kind of warning about air quality in her neighborhood. She
really didn’t need one. She says couldn’t avoid noticing the pollution in the air.
“A couple years ago, there was almost a week where the air quality in my neighborhood was so
bad that you literally couldn’t sleep. There was a burning back in my throat.”
Dickinson lives in Saint Paul, Minnesota, not too far from one of the oldest coal burning plants
operated by Minnesota’s leading supplier of electricity, Xcel Energy.
She and many other people have been actively working to pressure the company to address the air
quality problems they believe are caused by Xcel’s older plants.
And in a rare move among power companies, Xcel Energy is doing something. In May 2002, the
company put forth a voluntary proposal to convert its two oldest coal burning plants to natural
gas. The oldest plant, Riverside, lies in northeast Minneapolis.
(sound of power plant)
Since it opened in 1911, the Riverside plant has changed very little when it comes to emitting
pollutants. It was grandfathered in under the Clean Air Act of 1970 – which means the plant isn’t
subject to federal environmental mandates.
It didn’t have to install modern pollution control devices unless it upgraded the plant. And now,
under the Bush administration’s new rules, even upgrading it might not trigger the threshold that
would require it to reduce emissions.
“For a little bit over two years, one of the first things I was charged with was to look at all the
emissions in and around southeast Minneapolis and Riverside plant came back as a sore thumb
because of the glaring emissions.”
Justin Eibenholtz is the environmental coordinator for a Minneapolis neighborhood improvement
group. He says that’s why Excel’s decision to convert Riverside to natural gas is such a big deal.
Once it’s converted, the old plant will cut air pollutants by 99 percent. Mercury emissions will be
completely eliminated.
Neighborhood groups such as Eibenhotz’s and big environmental groups alike are praising
Excel’s decision. The Great Lakes Program Coordinator for the Sierra Club, Emily Green, says
the reduction in emissions will mean a better quality of life for residents who live in the Great
Lakes region. That’s because the mercury and other pollutants that were emitted from the plant
often ended up in the Great Lakes through a process called air deposition. That meant pollutants
got into the food chain and contaminated fish.
“The Great Lakes are like a giant bathtub with a very, very slow drain, so that what we put into
the Great Lakes stays there.”
Green says the pollutants don’t go away. They just end up contaminating the air and the water.
“We swim in them, we drink them, you know, the fish swim around in them, and so it’s very,
very important that we recognize, despite their size, how fragile the Great Lakes are.”
Besides polluting the lakes, the air pollution drifted for hundreds of miles, causing health
problems. The effects are already apparent. An independent report commissioned from the
Environmental Protection Agency says pollution from the oldest and dirtiest power plants kills
more than thirty thousand Americans each year – almost twice the number of people killed by
drunk driving and homicide combined.
While the natural gas conversion won’t reduce the level of mercury in the Great Lakes
immediately, it will mean it won’t add to the problem. It also means a more efficient use of a
fossil fuel.
Ron Ellsner is the project manager for Xcel’s proposal.
“The new combined cycles that we’re going to install are on the order of 30 percent more
efficient than what our current coal cycle is. They do that much better a job converting that
energy into fuel into electricity.”
It comes at a cost, though. Xcel estimates converting its Minneapolis and Saint Paul plants will
amount to one billion dollars. By Xcel’s estimate, it’ll be the most expensive power plant
conversion in the history of the United States, and the cost of the conversion will be passed on to
its customers.
That’s fine by Elizabeth Dickinson. She says she, and her neighbors, were paying for it in other
ways already, such as additional healthcare costs. Dickinson says the estimated extra 15 cents a
day for her power bill will be worth it.
“You know, these are the hidden costs of coal burning and they’re huge, and you know, they’re
usually left out of these equations and we’re saying they can’t be left out any longer, they just
can’t be, because it’s too high a cost for us as a society.”
Government regulators still have to approve the plan. Minnesota’s utilities commission is
holding a final round of public hearings before voting for or against Xcel’s proposal to convert to
natural gas.
If the conversion is approved, it will likely put pressure on other power companies in the Great
Lakes region to do the same.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Ann Alquist.
A power company in the Great Lakes region is dramatically reducing pollution at two of its power plants. The move could prompt other power companies to do the same. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Ann Alquist reports:
Transcript
A power company in the Great Lakes region is dramatically reducing pollution at two of
its power plants. The move could prompt other power companies to do the same. The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Ann Alquist reports:
Minnesota’s largest supplier of electricity, Xcel Energy, has submitted a voluntary
proposal to convert its two oldest, and dirtiest, coal burning plants to natural gas. The
cost of the conversion – one billion dollars – will be passed on to Xcel’s customers.
It will mean a 99 percent reduction in emissions – and mercury emissions will be
eliminated. The plant itself will undergo some changes, with some of the taller structures
no longer marring the skyline.
Ron Ellsner is the project manager for Xcel’s proposal.
“Cleaning up some of the older equipment that will be abandoned, we hope it has a
positive impact on the landscape for our city and for our neighbors.”
If government regulators approve the proposal, it will likely put pressure on other power
companies in the Great Lakes region to do the same.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Ann Alquist.
Some environmentalists are calling for a moratorium on growing genetically altered trees in orchards and forests. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Some environmentalists are calling for a moratorium on growing genetically altered trees in
orchards and forests. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Genetically modified crops have been in the fields for a number of years. Now, genetically
altered trees are being introduced. Fruit trees with genes spliced in to protect them from pests or
disease are becoming more common. And some forest trees are being genetically altered to make
them easier to process for paper.
Jim Diamond is with the Sierra Club. He says if these genetic traits are transferred into the wild,
it could mean biological contamination…
“When you put corporate-patented hacked genetic code out into the out-of-doors where it can
travel around, that genetic code can get into other related species and the way in which they can
interact and change nature is not understood at all.”
Orchards and paper companies say use of the genetically modified trees is safe. In some cases,
genetically modified trees have prevented the loss of entire fruit industries… and might be used
to restore some valuable trees back to the forests.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
Few U.S. Senators in the region supported stricter fuel standards in the most recent vote on the issue on Capitol Hill. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett has more:
Transcript
Few U.S. Senators from the region wanted stricter fuel standards in the most recent vote on the issue on Capitol Hill. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:
The legislation called on domestic car makers to produce fleets of vehicles that get
better gas mileage. The standard called for an average fuel economy of 40 miles per gallon by 2015. The current standard is 27-and-a-half miles per gallon. Three of the region’s senators opposed the measure for every one senator who supported it.
Anne Woiwode is with the Sierra Club. She says foreign automakers are producing
more fuel-efficient cars. Woiwode says that competition will hopefully spur lawmakers from
car-producing states to push for stricter fuel standards in the future.
“It’s going to be harder for the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Illinois – the whole Great
Lakes region – to compete.”
Critics of higher fuel economy standards say they would force domestic automakers to
produce smaller, less safe cars. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Sarah Hulett.
Loggers and environmentalists fight continually
over the use of national forests. Managers at many national forests
around the country are developing new long-range plans.
(Photo by Stephanie Hemphill)
Jerry Birchem says the price of his raw material,
timber, has tripled in the last ten years, partly because of
time-consuming environmental reviews of timber sales on federal land.
(Photo
by Stephanie Hemphill)
Sierra Club member Clyde Hanson says the new
plan doesn't provide enough protection for old growth and
wilderness areas. And he worries the 90 miles
of new ATV trails in each forest could ruin the peace and quiet.
(Photo by Stephanie Hemphill).
Loggers and environmentalists are in a continual fight over the use of national forests. One of their battlegrounds is the long-range planning process. Every ten to fifteen years, the U.S. Forest Service designs a new plan for each national forest. Right now, several forests in the Northwoods are getting new plans. The Forest Service says it’s paying more attention to biodiversity, and wants to encourage more old growth forests. Critics on the environmental side say the new plans are just business as usual. Loggers say they still can’t cut enough trees. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Stephanie Hemphill reports:
Transcript
Loggers and environmentalists are in a continual fight over the use of
national forests. One of their battlegrounds is the long-range
planning process. Every ten to fifteen years, the U.S. Forest Service
designs a new plan for each national forest. Right now, several
forests in the Northwoods are getting new plans. The Forest Service
says it’s paying more attention to biodiversity, and wants to encourage
more old growth forests. Critics on the environmental side say the
new plans are just business as usual. Loggers say they still
can’t cut enough trees. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Stephanie
Hemphill reports:
(sound of car door closing, footsteps in woods)
Jerry Birchem is a logger. He’s visiting one of his harvest sites on
land owned by St. Louis County, in northeastern Minnesota. The highest
quality wood will be turned into wooden dowels… other logs will go to a
lumber mill… the poorest quality will be turned into paper.
Birchem tries to get the highest possible value from each tree. He says in the last ten
years, the price of trees has tripled.
“We have to pay more for timber and the mills want to pay less, and we’re caught in the
middle of trying to survive in this business climate.”
Birchem likes buying timber from the county, like at this logging site. He hardly ever
cuts trees from the national forest anymore. He’d like to, but the Forest Service doesn’t
make much of its land available for logging. The agency says it doesn’t have enough staff
to do the environmental studies required before trees can be cut on federal land.
Jerry Birchem says loggers need the Forest Service to change that.
“You know there needs to be processes set in place so you know, it doesn’t take
so long to set up these timber sales. I mean, they’ve got to go through so
many analyses and so many appeals processes.”
Birchem says it should be harder for environmental groups to get in the way of timber
sales. But not everybody agrees with Birchem.
Clyde Hanson lives in Grand Marais, on the edge of Lake Superior. He’s an active
member of the Sierra Club.
He says it’s true loggers are taking less timber off federal lands in recent
years. But he says the Forest Service still isn’t protecting the truly special
places that deserve to be saved.
He says a place like Hog Creek should be designated a wilderness area, where no trees
can be cut.
(sound of creek, birds)
“Very unique mixture, we must be right at the transition between two types of forest.”
Red pine thrive here, along with jackpine and tamarack. It’s rough and swampy country,
far from roads. So far, loggers have left these trees alone.
But with the value of trees skyrocketing, Hanson says the place will be logged eventually.
Forest Service planners made note of the fact that the Hog Creek area is relatively
untouched by humans. They could have protected it, but they decided not to.
“And we think that’s a mistake, because this is our last chance to protect wilderness and
provide more wilderness for future generations. If we don’t do it now, eventually there’ll
be enough roads or enough logging going on in these places that by the next forest plan
it’ll be too late.”
But the Forest Service says it is moving to create more diversity in the
woods. It wants a forest more like what nature would produce if left
to her own devices.
The agency says it will reduce the amount of aspen in the forest. Aspen has been
encouraged, because it grows fast. When it’s cut, it grows back quickly, so loggers and
paper companies can make more money.
The trouble is, an aspen forest only offers habitat for some kinds of animals,
such as deer and grouse. Other animals, especially songbirds, need older trees to
live in.
So the Forest Service wants to create more variety in the woods, with more old trees than
there are now. But how to get the forest from here to there, is the problem.
Duane Lula is one of the Forest Service planners. He says fires and windstorms are nature’s way of producing
diverse forests. They sweep the woods periodically, killing big stands of older trees, and
preparing the soil for pines and other conifers. Jackpines, for instance, used to be more
common in the northwoods. Lula says the only practical way for man to mimic nature is
by cutting trees down.
“We can’t have those fires anymore just because people live here, there are private
homes here. There’s no way that we could replicate those fires. Timber management is one way of regenerating those jackpine stands in
lieu of having major fires.”
But Lula says the main purpose of timber cutting in the new plan is to move the forest
toward the diversity the agency wants, not to produce wood. And he says that shows the
Forest Service is looking at the woods in a new way.
“The previous plan tended to be very focused on how many acres you were going to
clearcut, how much timber you were going to produce, how much wildlife habitat you
were going to produce, and this one is trying to say, if we have this kind of desired
condition on the ground that we’re shooting for, then these other things will come from
that.”
As it does in the planning process in other national forests around the Great Lakes, the
Forest Service will adjust the plan after hearing from the public. Loggers,
environmentalists, and everyone else will have a chance to have their say. A final version
will be submitted to the Regional Forester in Milwaukee early next year. It could then
face a challenge in court.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Stephanie Hemphill.
Governments are trying to figure out the best way to deal with urban sprawl. Legislators and planners are considering all kinds of approaches to manage the growth of cities, but some say government really has no business trying to stop the market forces that are driving the rapid growth. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports on the deeper debate between property rights and land use protection:
Transcript
Governments are trying to figure out the best way to deal with urban sprawl. Legislators and
planners are considering all kinds of approaches to manage the growth of cities. But, some say
government really has no business trying to stop the market forces that are driving the rapid
growth. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports on the deeper debate
between property rights and land use protection:
Through the public process, states that are grappling with urban sprawl end up hearing from everyone involved. While the media and environmental groups tend to look at the
problems of congestion and loss of green space and farmland due to the rapid growth at the edges
of cities, others see the growth as driven by what people want – it’s natural growth, even organic. In
fact, many property owners, builders and developers, see government interference as “un-
American,” as testimony from this public hearing in Michigan shows.
“As an American, I strongly believe in our citizens’ rights to pursue life, liberty and property.”
“Centralized planning did not work in Russia, Cuba, North Korea or anywhere else they’ve
attempted it.” “Are we gonna mandate where they’re going to live? Is this gonna be America?”
“The land should be controlled by the individual who has paid for the land and pays the taxes on the land and should be able to do with that property what he wants to do.” “Our Constitution tells
us about the preservation of private property rights.”
There’s something deeply rooted in the American cultural ethic that bonds people to the land – or
more precisely – to their land. It might be leftovers of the concept of Manifest Destiny where,
in the words of one essayist, land ownership was associated with wealth and tied to self-
sufficiency, political power, and independent “self-rule.” This seems to be especially true of
people who live in rural areas, or are only a generation or two removed from the farm.
Amy Liu is with the think-tank, the ‘Brookings Institution.’ She says when states start looking at
growth management techniques, commonly called “Smart Growth,” landowners and builders
become suspicious.
“There is a belief that the government needs to get out of the way of the market. And so the idea
of having government intervene in the real estate market and consumer choice is considered un-
American.”
And property rights advocates quickly become dogmatic about their beliefs and resist any kind of
restrictions on use of land.
In the same way, some environmentalists consider sprawl to merely be a matter of greedy
developers and builders wanting to make money no matter what the cost to the environment,
green space, or farmland. They sometimes ignore the fact that consumer demand for larger lots
and larger houses, as well as convenient shopping, is much of the driving force behind urban
sprawl.
Liu says many on each side of the urban sprawl debate are inflexible.
“You know, I think that there are definitely reasons why the environmentalists can be extreme
and why the property rights advocates can be extreme.”
And generally, the two sides are talking right past each other.
Ann Woiwode is with the environmental group, the Sierra Club. She says the opponents of
“Smart Growth” say they don’t want government interference, but she says they don’t talk that
way when they’re in need of roads, fire protection, good schools, and other government services.
Woiwode says “Smart Growth” doesn’t mean unreasonable restrictions.
“I’m not trying to take anybody’s rights away and I don’t think that’s the appropriate approach.
What in any society part of being a society is that we collectively decide how we’re going to
make decisions that affect the entirety of the community.”
And while Woiwode and other environmentalists are in favor of making sure green space is
preserved, most of them acknowledge that growth is inevitable. They say they just want to make
sure it’s the right kind of growth.
Amy Liu at the Brookings Institution says not every growth management plan makes sense.
Some of them only look at benefiting the environment and ignore market forces, the desire that
many people have for a bit of land and a home to call their own.
“There are certainly growth management policies that don’t work, that strictly limit development-
growth boundaries and are therefore anti-growth. I think the growth management policies, the
Smart Growth policies that do work are those that really do try to anticipate and accommodate
growth in a metropolitan area in a way that is going to promote economic development, that is
fiscally sustainable, that is environmentally sustainable, and that actually allows low-income
working families and middle-class and upper-income families to enjoy that growth.”
And finding that balance in a world where politics and competing interests sometimes muddy the
best intentions will be the real trick, as states try to define what “Smart Growth” will mean for
people pursuing the American dream of owning their own home.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
