To whom it may concern,
Can someone please explain to me how Coeur d'Alene Mines Corp appealed their plan to dump mine tailings into a lake on federal land in Alaska all the way to the Supreme Court and win? Seriously, how can this possibly comply with the Clean Water Act? Now that another inane and asinine policy of the Bush era has doomed a lake in Alaska, can we please overturn this policy that allows the US Army Corps of Engineers to make such rulings? With 1.5 million ounces of proven gold deposits, I think that the mining company can afford to dump the waste elsewhere.
GUNNAR HAND, AICP
Monday, June 22, 2009
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Where is the Federal Land Use Policy?
To whom it may concern,
Land use policy and control is an inherently localized manner. But the federal government has had an increasing impact on local decision through court cases, tax structures, and transportation projects. Land use and transportation are inextricable interconnected, and the Federal Highway Reauthorization Acts always impact the way cities across the country continue to develop. While local leadership in many parts of the country has successfully guided these funds into mass transportation and alternatives to the automobile, the vast majority of the funds go to the expansion of our highways. And it is these subsidized highways more than any other factors that induce sprawl in America. Sprawl that devastates our farmland, our environment, our social network, and out economic efficiency. We should shift subsidies from single family homes to transit oriented development. Or even reward those who live without a car. If this administration wants to seriously alter the economy and our carbon footprint, then they will have to change the way that this country develops. We must focus on mass transportation, infill development and the revitalization of our existing infrastructure. You see these connections being made in places like California where greenhouse gas emissions laws are starting to encourage more compact, walkable neighborhoods and open space preservation. How will the federal government support and influence the private sector to shift into this new focus on the city?
GUNNAR HAND, AICP
Land use policy and control is an inherently localized manner. But the federal government has had an increasing impact on local decision through court cases, tax structures, and transportation projects. Land use and transportation are inextricable interconnected, and the Federal Highway Reauthorization Acts always impact the way cities across the country continue to develop. While local leadership in many parts of the country has successfully guided these funds into mass transportation and alternatives to the automobile, the vast majority of the funds go to the expansion of our highways. And it is these subsidized highways more than any other factors that induce sprawl in America. Sprawl that devastates our farmland, our environment, our social network, and out economic efficiency. We should shift subsidies from single family homes to transit oriented development. Or even reward those who live without a car. If this administration wants to seriously alter the economy and our carbon footprint, then they will have to change the way that this country develops. We must focus on mass transportation, infill development and the revitalization of our existing infrastructure. You see these connections being made in places like California where greenhouse gas emissions laws are starting to encourage more compact, walkable neighborhoods and open space preservation. How will the federal government support and influence the private sector to shift into this new focus on the city?
GUNNAR HAND, AICP
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Israeli Settlements
To whom it may concern,
The Israeli-Palestinian Road Map to peace is a very complicated process that requires both peoples to embark on simultaneous courses of action. From the very beginning, this Road Map has been riddled by false starts, false promises, and political upheaval. The process is inherently flawed in that it requires a diplomatic quid pro quo between two groups that have never worked hand in hand. And diplomacy never works when forced. Unfortunately, this universally accepted approach is very susceptible to failure because it removes the opportunity for compromise by setting a rigid path to peace. Unless you lose a war, peace is very much an on-going process. In that sense, the Road Map only leads to frustration, resentment, and mistrust when neither side is willing to make the first step. Recently, the lynchpin of this process has been Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The Road Map calls for these settlements to be halted and removed in order for the peace process to move forward. But this is wholly unnecessary. If Jewish settlers choose to move into the West Bank, then they should be allowed that choice, within land use law and environmental constraints. When that land then becomes Palestine, they will have a new choice; to become exiles in their own “land” or to join the Palestinian government. These enclaves should be viewed as less of a roadblock to peace and more of an opportunity for social integration. Once incorporated, these Jewish settlers would be forced to work with and hopefully in their new government. In the end, both States must recognize that they will not and should not be all Jewish or all Muslim, but as the cradle of the three faiths of Abraham, they will be multi-cultural and multi-ethnic. Why are we now beholden to this Road Map, and will you forge a new peace process?
GUNNAR HAND, AICP
The Israeli-Palestinian Road Map to peace is a very complicated process that requires both peoples to embark on simultaneous courses of action. From the very beginning, this Road Map has been riddled by false starts, false promises, and political upheaval. The process is inherently flawed in that it requires a diplomatic quid pro quo between two groups that have never worked hand in hand. And diplomacy never works when forced. Unfortunately, this universally accepted approach is very susceptible to failure because it removes the opportunity for compromise by setting a rigid path to peace. Unless you lose a war, peace is very much an on-going process. In that sense, the Road Map only leads to frustration, resentment, and mistrust when neither side is willing to make the first step. Recently, the lynchpin of this process has been Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The Road Map calls for these settlements to be halted and removed in order for the peace process to move forward. But this is wholly unnecessary. If Jewish settlers choose to move into the West Bank, then they should be allowed that choice, within land use law and environmental constraints. When that land then becomes Palestine, they will have a new choice; to become exiles in their own “land” or to join the Palestinian government. These enclaves should be viewed as less of a roadblock to peace and more of an opportunity for social integration. Once incorporated, these Jewish settlers would be forced to work with and hopefully in their new government. In the end, both States must recognize that they will not and should not be all Jewish or all Muslim, but as the cradle of the three faiths of Abraham, they will be multi-cultural and multi-ethnic. Why are we now beholden to this Road Map, and will you forge a new peace process?
GUNNAR HAND, AICP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
