To whom it may concern,
Since the Industrial Revolution, our mark on this earth and nation has been tainted. We have moved away from stewardship to destruction, albeit loosely unintended. As part of our move to become more green, we must break down this old industrial infrastructure. To that effect, what is your intention with the Klamath River Restoration proposal? We must simultaneously restore salmon runs across the West, conserve water, restore rivers, protect culture, and even farms.
GUNNAR HAND, AICP
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
Reform in Zimbabwe
To whom it may concern,
The news reports coming out of Zimbabwe have deteriorated over the course of this administration. Public servants have been on strike since last September, resulting in civil unrest and a cholera outbreak. Government sponsored intimidation against the Movement for Democratic Change persists even after a power sharing deal was signed. White farmers continue to be forced off their lands while an international tribunal found the practice inexcusable. What was once the bread basket of Africa has devolved into a failed economy and currency. Of all the problems in Africa, this country is experiencing a real democratic revolution, and America has been virtually absent from this rare opportunity. This grassroots political movement is the first occasion in a long time for the US to assist in a real democratic process in Africa. The United States should at least be encouraging political reconciliation so that the country can move past its current impasse, and then we can aid this power sharing government with logistical and ideological support to change its course. So, what policies will this administration pursue with Zimbabwe and its nascent political movements?
GUNNAR HAND, AICP
The news reports coming out of Zimbabwe have deteriorated over the course of this administration. Public servants have been on strike since last September, resulting in civil unrest and a cholera outbreak. Government sponsored intimidation against the Movement for Democratic Change persists even after a power sharing deal was signed. White farmers continue to be forced off their lands while an international tribunal found the practice inexcusable. What was once the bread basket of Africa has devolved into a failed economy and currency. Of all the problems in Africa, this country is experiencing a real democratic revolution, and America has been virtually absent from this rare opportunity. This grassroots political movement is the first occasion in a long time for the US to assist in a real democratic process in Africa. The United States should at least be encouraging political reconciliation so that the country can move past its current impasse, and then we can aid this power sharing government with logistical and ideological support to change its course. So, what policies will this administration pursue with Zimbabwe and its nascent political movements?
GUNNAR HAND, AICP
Thursday, January 29, 2009
On-Site Renewable Energy Production
To whom it may concern,
With the recent push for renewable energy production, I am concerned about the unbalanced approach that favors large, commercial production operations over the on-site production of wind and solar power. While on-site production cannot yet generate the entire amount of energy needed to run a house, business, or industrial building, it can go a long way to reduce demand and forego the needs for additional commercial facilities from being built. While I understand the need to create these large facilities in order to someday replace those power plants that run on non-renewable resources, the rush to approve solar thermal plants and wind farms across the country still rely on the logic that the best way to meet our energy needs are to increase supply, when I believe that we should be reducing demand. These on-site alternatives are less intrusive, easier to construct and maintain, directly benefit the home owner or business, and do not require the loss of open space or agricultural lands. There are thousands of square miles of roofs in this country that should be utilized as our new, decentralized power plants. Solar thermal plants produce clean energy, but they burn through large amounts of water in usually arid climates and require vast tracts of land, disturbing natural habitat. Producing on-site sources of renewable energy also reduces the burden on the electrical grid, loses less energy over transmission lines, and prevents costly investment in new energy plants. Considering the stimulus bills push for renewable energy production, a continuance of the tax break for photovoltaic solar arrays, and the upgrade of our electrical grid, how does this administration intend to expand and further its support of on-site renewable energy production across the country?
GUNNAR HAND, AICP
With the recent push for renewable energy production, I am concerned about the unbalanced approach that favors large, commercial production operations over the on-site production of wind and solar power. While on-site production cannot yet generate the entire amount of energy needed to run a house, business, or industrial building, it can go a long way to reduce demand and forego the needs for additional commercial facilities from being built. While I understand the need to create these large facilities in order to someday replace those power plants that run on non-renewable resources, the rush to approve solar thermal plants and wind farms across the country still rely on the logic that the best way to meet our energy needs are to increase supply, when I believe that we should be reducing demand. These on-site alternatives are less intrusive, easier to construct and maintain, directly benefit the home owner or business, and do not require the loss of open space or agricultural lands. There are thousands of square miles of roofs in this country that should be utilized as our new, decentralized power plants. Solar thermal plants produce clean energy, but they burn through large amounts of water in usually arid climates and require vast tracts of land, disturbing natural habitat. Producing on-site sources of renewable energy also reduces the burden on the electrical grid, loses less energy over transmission lines, and prevents costly investment in new energy plants. Considering the stimulus bills push for renewable energy production, a continuance of the tax break for photovoltaic solar arrays, and the upgrade of our electrical grid, how does this administration intend to expand and further its support of on-site renewable energy production across the country?
GUNNAR HAND, AICP
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
An End to Gas Mowers
To whom it may concern,
Push and ride lawn mowers emit 11 and 34 times the amount of pollution as a moving car, respectively. With recent performance improvements to the electrical mower in conjunction with the ability to cap point-source air pollutants at power plants, this is the low hanging fruit for improving air quality. Like a mandatory shift from incandescent to compact fluorescent lights, and considering the vast number of lawn mowers used and sold in this country, a shift to electric mowers could quickly produce a significant improvement in the nation’s air quality. A mandatory switch to electrical or push mowers could easily be offset by rebates for consumers and tax breaks for manufacturers. Pushing a technological revolution in the lawn mowing industry would spur the development of more advanced battery powered mowers, which would offset the decline in regular mowers. Will this administration move on these simple technological advancements to help improve energy efficiency and air quality in this country?
GUNNAR HAND, AICP
Push and ride lawn mowers emit 11 and 34 times the amount of pollution as a moving car, respectively. With recent performance improvements to the electrical mower in conjunction with the ability to cap point-source air pollutants at power plants, this is the low hanging fruit for improving air quality. Like a mandatory shift from incandescent to compact fluorescent lights, and considering the vast number of lawn mowers used and sold in this country, a shift to electric mowers could quickly produce a significant improvement in the nation’s air quality. A mandatory switch to electrical or push mowers could easily be offset by rebates for consumers and tax breaks for manufacturers. Pushing a technological revolution in the lawn mowing industry would spur the development of more advanced battery powered mowers, which would offset the decline in regular mowers. Will this administration move on these simple technological advancements to help improve energy efficiency and air quality in this country?
GUNNAR HAND, AICP
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Dark Skies
To whom it may concern,
It has been a long time since I have seen the full spectrum of stars in the night sky. As America and the rest of the world becomes more urbanized, whole generations will grow up without knowing what it is to see and appreciate its beauty and be dwarfed by it immensity. Unfortunately, it was a federal program that tied funding for security services to the proliferation of street lights that largely contributed to light pollution in this country. Additionally, there is a misperception that street lights and security lighting make communities safer at night when they actually cast more shadows and create more opportunities for criminal activity. Light pollution disturbs the natural sleep patterns of both human and animals, increases security risks, and above all is a huge waste of energy. While technology and design could curtail much of this light intrusion, and I would encourage your administration to promote local dark skies ordinances across the country, there is a much simpler solution. To reduce greenhouse gases, conserve energy, and bring back the night sky, we should just turn the lights off. It was not 50 years ago that the lights of entire nations were turned off to defend against enemy submarines and night bomb raids during World War II. I believe that we are at a point that requires significant action, so will this administration take charge of this strategic initiative and turn off the lights?
GUNNAR HAND, AICP
It has been a long time since I have seen the full spectrum of stars in the night sky. As America and the rest of the world becomes more urbanized, whole generations will grow up without knowing what it is to see and appreciate its beauty and be dwarfed by it immensity. Unfortunately, it was a federal program that tied funding for security services to the proliferation of street lights that largely contributed to light pollution in this country. Additionally, there is a misperception that street lights and security lighting make communities safer at night when they actually cast more shadows and create more opportunities for criminal activity. Light pollution disturbs the natural sleep patterns of both human and animals, increases security risks, and above all is a huge waste of energy. While technology and design could curtail much of this light intrusion, and I would encourage your administration to promote local dark skies ordinances across the country, there is a much simpler solution. To reduce greenhouse gases, conserve energy, and bring back the night sky, we should just turn the lights off. It was not 50 years ago that the lights of entire nations were turned off to defend against enemy submarines and night bomb raids during World War II. I believe that we are at a point that requires significant action, so will this administration take charge of this strategic initiative and turn off the lights?
GUNNAR HAND, AICP
Monday, January 26, 2009
Bio-Fuels in America
To whom it may concern,
Last year Brazil announced that they had produced enough bio-fuels from sugar cane that they were completely energy independent. The recent trend in America has been to produce bio-fuels from corn and other agricultural products. These agro-fuels are a serious detriment to the world's food supply and does little to provide a viable alternative to other fossil fuels. Perhaps only algae, which is inedible and has high vegetable oil content, could offset the production of some petroleum with relatively few environmental impacts by creating a reliable source of biodiesel. Bio-fuels from sugar cane produces ten times the amount of energy as that from corn, and there are few places in America to grow this crop. In fact, more energy would be consumed during the production and distribution of this corn than would be generated as ethanol. Instead of viewing bio-fuels as a way out of our dependence on foreign oil, it should be viewed as a secondary use for waste. Vegetable oil could be recycled, yard waste could be processed into cellulosic ethanol, and natural gas can be reclaimed instead of burned off from our landfills. Cellulosic ethanol shows the most promise for capturing energy that would otherwise be discarded. Instead of looking at bio-fuels as the silver bullet that will save us, it needs to be recognized as a practical source of local energy that is literally being thrown away. How will this administration assist local communities and governments with generating more cellulosic ethanol, reclaiming gas from landfills, and spurring private development of sustainable ethanol sources like algae?
GUNNAR HAND, AICP
Last year Brazil announced that they had produced enough bio-fuels from sugar cane that they were completely energy independent. The recent trend in America has been to produce bio-fuels from corn and other agricultural products. These agro-fuels are a serious detriment to the world's food supply and does little to provide a viable alternative to other fossil fuels. Perhaps only algae, which is inedible and has high vegetable oil content, could offset the production of some petroleum with relatively few environmental impacts by creating a reliable source of biodiesel. Bio-fuels from sugar cane produces ten times the amount of energy as that from corn, and there are few places in America to grow this crop. In fact, more energy would be consumed during the production and distribution of this corn than would be generated as ethanol. Instead of viewing bio-fuels as a way out of our dependence on foreign oil, it should be viewed as a secondary use for waste. Vegetable oil could be recycled, yard waste could be processed into cellulosic ethanol, and natural gas can be reclaimed instead of burned off from our landfills. Cellulosic ethanol shows the most promise for capturing energy that would otherwise be discarded. Instead of looking at bio-fuels as the silver bullet that will save us, it needs to be recognized as a practical source of local energy that is literally being thrown away. How will this administration assist local communities and governments with generating more cellulosic ethanol, reclaiming gas from landfills, and spurring private development of sustainable ethanol sources like algae?
GUNNAR HAND, AICP
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Canada's Oil Sands
To whom it may concern,
The Canadian oil sands mines in Alberta province are an absolute environmental disaster. It is a clear indication of what not just this country, but the entire world’s thirst for oil will eventually mean for our global environment. When it become economically viable to devastate vast tracts of land to continue to produce a non-renewable resource, we must begin to rethink not just our transportation sector, but our priorities. Canada is the largest importer of oil to America, and 50 percent of the oil produced at the oil sands mines goes to the United States. We are very much responsible for these operations and their continued expansion and remediation. The complicated process of extracting and then producing oil from oil sands emits three times as much greenhouse gases as it does from pumping it out of an oil derrick. A huge amount of natural gas (not to mention water), the world’s cleanest and most plentiful non-renewable resource, is consumed to create the world’s most expensive and dirtiest fuel. My greatest fear is that the success of the oil sands mines will lead to the mining of oil shale in the Rocky Mountains. It is widely believed that we have reached peak oil, and that demand will continue to outrun supply, creating scenarios where these types of extraction techniques will become not only viable, but necessary. How will this administration change the way that our transportation sector is powered, and how will you protect the oil shale mountains of Colorado and prevent further degradation of the oil sands in Canada?
GUNNAR HAND, AICP
The Canadian oil sands mines in Alberta province are an absolute environmental disaster. It is a clear indication of what not just this country, but the entire world’s thirst for oil will eventually mean for our global environment. When it become economically viable to devastate vast tracts of land to continue to produce a non-renewable resource, we must begin to rethink not just our transportation sector, but our priorities. Canada is the largest importer of oil to America, and 50 percent of the oil produced at the oil sands mines goes to the United States. We are very much responsible for these operations and their continued expansion and remediation. The complicated process of extracting and then producing oil from oil sands emits three times as much greenhouse gases as it does from pumping it out of an oil derrick. A huge amount of natural gas (not to mention water), the world’s cleanest and most plentiful non-renewable resource, is consumed to create the world’s most expensive and dirtiest fuel. My greatest fear is that the success of the oil sands mines will lead to the mining of oil shale in the Rocky Mountains. It is widely believed that we have reached peak oil, and that demand will continue to outrun supply, creating scenarios where these types of extraction techniques will become not only viable, but necessary. How will this administration change the way that our transportation sector is powered, and how will you protect the oil shale mountains of Colorado and prevent further degradation of the oil sands in Canada?
GUNNAR HAND, AICP
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Parks and Open Space Funding
To whom it may concern,
A significant amount of funding for local and regional parkland is derived or leveraged from federal grants. Moreover, the federal government is the largest land holder in the country, and much of this area is leased for natural resource production. While this follows a reasonable management approach of balancing conservation and preservation, it is administered in a way that poorly reflects the real and intrinsic value of these natural resources and open space areas. Many of these leases could be used to fund not just federal parks and recreation activities, but actual environmental restoration and park acquisition. These funds could become a boon for urban parkland, especially for park poor areas of the many needy cities across the country. As a resident of Los Angeles, I deal with this reality daily. While the mountains and the ocean are within view, there is not a single park in my neighborhood of 40,000 people. We rely solely on our private roof-top patios and a single, ill-conceived central plaza. What is needed is a funding mechanism that connects park poor areas with federal monies. What will this administration do to promote parks in urban areas and open space conservation across the country, and will you directly tie funding for park acquisition to persons served and/or environmental need?
GUNNAR HAND, AICP
A significant amount of funding for local and regional parkland is derived or leveraged from federal grants. Moreover, the federal government is the largest land holder in the country, and much of this area is leased for natural resource production. While this follows a reasonable management approach of balancing conservation and preservation, it is administered in a way that poorly reflects the real and intrinsic value of these natural resources and open space areas. Many of these leases could be used to fund not just federal parks and recreation activities, but actual environmental restoration and park acquisition. These funds could become a boon for urban parkland, especially for park poor areas of the many needy cities across the country. As a resident of Los Angeles, I deal with this reality daily. While the mountains and the ocean are within view, there is not a single park in my neighborhood of 40,000 people. We rely solely on our private roof-top patios and a single, ill-conceived central plaza. What is needed is a funding mechanism that connects park poor areas with federal monies. What will this administration do to promote parks in urban areas and open space conservation across the country, and will you directly tie funding for park acquisition to persons served and/or environmental need?
GUNNAR HAND, AICP
Friday, January 23, 2009
Highway Expansion
To whom it may concern,
There is a very popular belief that we can build our way out of congestion. It is this same faulty logic that believes the cure to our energy problem is simply to produce more energy. In both cases, it is a matter of reducing demand and consumption, not creating a larger supply. While there is admittedly some chicken versus egg issues on this matter, clearly the creation of the automobile spurred the development of roads, which led to the proliferation of the Interstate Highway system. A vicious cycle of building more and more roads for more and more cars has now evolved into a land use, sustainability and national security issue. It goes like this; a highway becomes congested so more lanes are added to improve its level of service. These lanes quickly fill up with more cars and the highway quickly returns to its previous low level of service. What happened were those additional lanes made it much easier for everyone to continue their bad habit of driving to work, school, home, errands, entertainment, etc... Once the highway was expanded and "improved", travel times eased and development began to occur farther and farther away, generating more vehicle trips and miles traveled. These new trips quickly filled the space of the expanded highway. Adding more lanes to highways encourages development on the periphery, merely delays future congestion, and perpetuates a sedentary, automobile-oriented lifestyle. The car need not be vilified for it has brought a great many of advantages. However, there needs to be a balance between automobile, mass transit, bus, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure to provide the maximum amount of transportation options for all citizens to enjoy the freedom of mobility. Will this need for a balance in the transportation sector be reflected in your budget and/or the next transportation re-authorization bill?
GUNNAR HAND, AICP
There is a very popular belief that we can build our way out of congestion. It is this same faulty logic that believes the cure to our energy problem is simply to produce more energy. In both cases, it is a matter of reducing demand and consumption, not creating a larger supply. While there is admittedly some chicken versus egg issues on this matter, clearly the creation of the automobile spurred the development of roads, which led to the proliferation of the Interstate Highway system. A vicious cycle of building more and more roads for more and more cars has now evolved into a land use, sustainability and national security issue. It goes like this; a highway becomes congested so more lanes are added to improve its level of service. These lanes quickly fill up with more cars and the highway quickly returns to its previous low level of service. What happened were those additional lanes made it much easier for everyone to continue their bad habit of driving to work, school, home, errands, entertainment, etc... Once the highway was expanded and "improved", travel times eased and development began to occur farther and farther away, generating more vehicle trips and miles traveled. These new trips quickly filled the space of the expanded highway. Adding more lanes to highways encourages development on the periphery, merely delays future congestion, and perpetuates a sedentary, automobile-oriented lifestyle. The car need not be vilified for it has brought a great many of advantages. However, there needs to be a balance between automobile, mass transit, bus, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure to provide the maximum amount of transportation options for all citizens to enjoy the freedom of mobility. Will this need for a balance in the transportation sector be reflected in your budget and/or the next transportation re-authorization bill?
GUNNAR HAND, AICP
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Inclusionary Zoning
To whom it may concern,
Many local municipalities have begun to develop inclusionary zoning ordinances, also known as mixed-income or housing affordability ordinances, into their zoning and subdivision codes. The philosophy is that there is a need in all residential developments to create a range of both housing type and income level. The opposing theory is that by creating as many units as possible, supply will eventually meet demand, and prices will even out over a region. This philosophy, I fear, does not take into account the locational demands and constraints on housing nor the dignity of those left behind by the current system. Building more expensive homes in one neighborhood will not bring down the prices for the entire community, but in fact exacerbate its exclusivity. If a police officer or a teacher cannot afford to live in the city where they work, what does that say about the priorities of the community in which they serve? We learned early on in the 1960s during the Urban Renewal period, that bulldozing neighborhoods and consolidating low-income people into new, high rise towers only created vertical ghettos. In every residential development we must diversify housing types (apartments, condos, town homes, single family attached and detached, etc...) and costs (very low income, low income, workforce housing, market rate, etc..) to encourage not only interaction but upward mobility. A mix of incentives and requirements is imperative for such a program to succeed. How will the federal government support affordable housing in local communitites, and will you connect HUD monies to local governments with these inclusionary policies?
GUNNAR HAND, AICP
Many local municipalities have begun to develop inclusionary zoning ordinances, also known as mixed-income or housing affordability ordinances, into their zoning and subdivision codes. The philosophy is that there is a need in all residential developments to create a range of both housing type and income level. The opposing theory is that by creating as many units as possible, supply will eventually meet demand, and prices will even out over a region. This philosophy, I fear, does not take into account the locational demands and constraints on housing nor the dignity of those left behind by the current system. Building more expensive homes in one neighborhood will not bring down the prices for the entire community, but in fact exacerbate its exclusivity. If a police officer or a teacher cannot afford to live in the city where they work, what does that say about the priorities of the community in which they serve? We learned early on in the 1960s during the Urban Renewal period, that bulldozing neighborhoods and consolidating low-income people into new, high rise towers only created vertical ghettos. In every residential development we must diversify housing types (apartments, condos, town homes, single family attached and detached, etc...) and costs (very low income, low income, workforce housing, market rate, etc..) to encourage not only interaction but upward mobility. A mix of incentives and requirements is imperative for such a program to succeed. How will the federal government support affordable housing in local communitites, and will you connect HUD monies to local governments with these inclusionary policies?
GUNNAR HAND, AICP
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Gentrification
To whom it may concern,
The term gentrification, which was once a good thing, has become somewhat vilified in recent years by grassroots community organizations and activists. A term that was once used to explain the overall revitalization of a neighborhood now holds the connotation of all the negative consequences of such prosperity. My problem is not with the term, but with the end result. Simply put, gentrification is when a low-income neighborhood for one reason or another begins to undergo a revitalization, raising property values, and subsequently rents, taxes, and even the price of goods as new businesses move in to support a new demographic. Gentrification can make life hard for those who remain poor and retain their homes in these improving areas. They are driven out of their communities by increased costs. Usually, and unfortunately, this occurs when white people move into minority neighborhoods. From a larger perspective, what I see is the movement of white people back into the cities from the suburbs. A "white flight" back into urban neighborhoods that were sometimes originally built for the white elite or middle class. What this brings back to our inner cities is exactly what was taken out of them when suburban expansion began; a larger tax base, more political clout, and an improvement in basic services (fire, water, safety, schools, parks, transportation, and general maintenance). The one thing that is missing in this equation is income. As prices rise in an area and existing residents maintain their generally lower incomes, they are pushed out. If gentrification could also produce a mix of housing types for a mix of income levels and/or bring high paying jobs for existing residents with it, then many issues surrounding it would be mitigated. The only problem is that most gentrification has occured solely around high-end, market rate residential real estate development. So, how will your administration balance the continued growth and revitalization of our inner-cities and metropolitan areas with diverging incomes, housing affordability, and community displacement?
GUNNAR HAND, AICP
The term gentrification, which was once a good thing, has become somewhat vilified in recent years by grassroots community organizations and activists. A term that was once used to explain the overall revitalization of a neighborhood now holds the connotation of all the negative consequences of such prosperity. My problem is not with the term, but with the end result. Simply put, gentrification is when a low-income neighborhood for one reason or another begins to undergo a revitalization, raising property values, and subsequently rents, taxes, and even the price of goods as new businesses move in to support a new demographic. Gentrification can make life hard for those who remain poor and retain their homes in these improving areas. They are driven out of their communities by increased costs. Usually, and unfortunately, this occurs when white people move into minority neighborhoods. From a larger perspective, what I see is the movement of white people back into the cities from the suburbs. A "white flight" back into urban neighborhoods that were sometimes originally built for the white elite or middle class. What this brings back to our inner cities is exactly what was taken out of them when suburban expansion began; a larger tax base, more political clout, and an improvement in basic services (fire, water, safety, schools, parks, transportation, and general maintenance). The one thing that is missing in this equation is income. As prices rise in an area and existing residents maintain their generally lower incomes, they are pushed out. If gentrification could also produce a mix of housing types for a mix of income levels and/or bring high paying jobs for existing residents with it, then many issues surrounding it would be mitigated. The only problem is that most gentrification has occured solely around high-end, market rate residential real estate development. So, how will your administration balance the continued growth and revitalization of our inner-cities and metropolitan areas with diverging incomes, housing affordability, and community displacement?
GUNNAR HAND, AICP
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Inauguration Day
To whom it may concern,
Welcome to the White House President Barack Hussein Obama! It has been a very long time since I have been inspired by or whole heartedly agreed with everything the President said in any public speech. This will probably change throughout your presidency, but as of today, it is a great feeling of relief and, yes, hope. My first question for you; Are you ready to change the world?
GUNNAR HAND, AICP
Welcome to the White House President Barack Hussein Obama! It has been a very long time since I have been inspired by or whole heartedly agreed with everything the President said in any public speech. This will probably change throughout your presidency, but as of today, it is a great feeling of relief and, yes, hope. My first question for you; Are you ready to change the world?
GUNNAR HAND, AICP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
