|From:||Emery Graham <"egraham"@ci.wilmington.de.us>|
|Date:||Wed, 5 May 1999 12:32:00 -0700 (PDT)|
|Subject:||Re: brownfields could save forest|
Pat, If corporations are willing to spend large sums of money, why not negotiate for the preservation solutions as part of the project design? Is the problem one of money, design, or power? Emery Pat Mattson wrote: > On my website, the Manchester, NH Urban Open Space > Website, I have posted information which concerns the recent > acquisition by the city of an urban forest, the Hackett Hill > property, and the EPA-sanctioned plans by the city to develop this > property. The URL for this website is: > http://www.mv.com/ipusers/env/ > The information is of interest for the following reasons: > 1. It describes a deal between the city and the EPA concerning > a solution to CSO problems - an arrangement that is apparently > the first of its kind; 2. It tells how sensitive forested wetlands, namely > Atlantic white cedar/ swamps and a black gum swamp, as well as the > biodiversity of the entire property, will be put at risk by the planned > development; 3. It indicates that the public has been deceived > about the degree of protection that the final EPA mandate > requires; 4. It describes how city officials plan to market > certain parts of the property by using the fragile forested wetlands as > an inducement for corporations who are willing to pay large > sums of money to have these natural amenities adjacent > to their buildings; 5.The deal has received the support > of NHUs governor and regional EPA administrator, John > DeVillars, who has indicated that Al Gore is also a supporter > of the arrangements. > > I have proposed a moratorium on development while > the city considers a brownfields program which could > move development into the Manchester millyards, > and thus save the urban forest.
Prev by Date: Brownfields & Petroleum|
Next by Date: Re: Brownfields & Petroleum
Prev by Thread: brownfields could save forest|
Next by Thread: Brownfields & Petroleum