|From:||trevor burrowes <email@example.com>|
|Date:||Fri, 21 May 1999 13:20:34 -0700 (PDT)|
|Subject:||Re: "The Economic Benefits of Open Space"|
Emery Graham wrote: > > Trevor, > Its seems like the poor are in somewhat of a pinch. We can't develop the > countryside because we need to preserve the natural environment and we > don't want > high density housing too near the park because it harms the natural > environment. We *shouldn't* (although we do) develop the countryside, because this drains resources from urban areas, devastatingly to its poor residents, while duplicating costly, tax-financed infrastructure to do so. And high density housing near the park? I merely cautioned that the usual contradictions between housing and the natural environment can often be bypassed through ecologically/place sensitive design and planning, as epitomized by Village Homes. For many years, I have labored to promote open space-based development in (demographically) "inner city" communities, often as a voice in the wilderness. It has always been my position that justice is ultimately based on ownership and control of land by such communities. Furthermore, I have some notion of how physical design and planning can eliminate contradictions -- dense vs. rustic, for the rich vs. for the poor, natural vs. urban, neighborhood character vs. new development, etc., etc.. I also think that the issue is often how to do physical development in such a way as not to destroy, but to enhance, the natural environment which, often, *already exists* in close proximity to the poor. First of all, we've got to be able to *see* and *appreciate* these resources. Otherwise, the poor have little if any means of protecting or benefitting from them. I'm here hoping and praying that the brownfields "establishment" can increasingly open up to the possiblity of eclogically based development (such as the connective trails Lenny mentioned, at the very least!). There is no ultimate reason why people of different income levels can't live side by side in close proximity to nature. It tends not to happen because of the economics of land use. Maybe the government needs to do something to tip the balance in favor of more land ownership/subsidies for EJ communities. Any thoughts on this? > Are we at the point where we're being forced to choose between the natural > environment and affording the poor families in our nation a decent, safe, and > sanitary living environment? I hope the above makes it clear that *I* at least don't think so. What is your opinion? Trevor
Prev by Date: Re: All Open Space Is Not Equal -Reply|
Next by Date: Re: "The Economic Benefits of Open Space"
Prev by Thread: Re: "The Economic Benefits of Open Space"|
Next by Thread: Re: "The Economic Benefits of Open Space"