Democracy Is Pagan

Apparently in the Bible the word "Lord" appears 6678 times, "King" appears 2565 times, the word "Slave" 65 times, and the word "Queen" 56 times.

In the Bible the word "Vote" only appears once, the word "Democracy" doesn't appear at all, nor the word "Republic", nor the word "Senate". The odd part is that all those concepts existed way before the New Testament was even written...

So... As you celebrate the birth of our nation this weekend, I invite you to join me in praise of the Goddess Athena, and Athenian Democracy, without which, we'd probably still be living in a monarchy!

WHAT Real Estate Market Crash?

Okay, we have heard a bunch on the news about a crash in the real estate market but I'm just not seeing it...

Take this property for sale near Batesville on Craigs Store Road for example (MLS 464941). It's selling for $169,000, even though the owner bought it for $105,000 on 11/27/2007. To put this in perspective, the DOW was about 13300 then, and now the DOW is at 8300...

Add to that the fact of limited access to the property due to a stream crossing the front of the property and the mandated buffer requirements, and critical slope requirements that would render the vast majority undevelopable.

So, where did that extra $69,000 dollars come from? If the stock market is at 2002 levels then why aren't we seeing 2002 prices?

What's in the Milk?

I made a weird discovery. For some reason 2% organic milk doesn't foam up nearly as well as conventional 2% Shenandoah's Pride when steamed. I tried both the Whole Foods generic brand and Horizon, and both seem to just not foam very well.

It really makes you wonder... just what is in that conventional milk that foams so well? Here's a photo of my experiment with the organic milk on the left. In the name of science I'd be interested to see if anyone else out there has replicated my results or has a working theory on this important matter of concern to latte drinkers everywhere.

Are Environmentalists Missing An Opportunity?

As an environmentalist, I feel that some of my peers in their zeal about issues like the Meadowcreek Parkway can lose their perspective on the larger issues. After all, what is the main goal? Is it preserving green space and habitat? Or, maybe it is about stopping sprawl and promoting walkable communities? Could it be protection of historical resources? Whatever the issues that motivate, it is vitally important not to forsake those larger issues for the sake fighting a single project. By doing that, you lose sight of any potential compromises that could be made which would move the community forward on important issues.

For example, the Meadowcreek Parkway has been identified as priority number one for the Chamber of Commerce. That's a pretty huge bargaining chip. Why not use it to your advantage? For example, what if environmentalists could get the chamber of commerce to commit to more sustainable design and walkable communities in exchange for removing objections to the parkway? Or, if the concern is the damage to wetlands and habitat, then why not use federal law to our advantage and create twice as much quality wetland habitat to replace the impaired habitat choked with invasive species that will be lost to the parkway?

Compromising doesn't need to mean that you surrender an ounce of your idealism and values. On the contrary, failure to compromise can mean surrendering your ideals and community objectives for the sake of fighting a single project. A good example was the recent meeting with the Army Corp of Engineers. This was an important opportunity for the environmental community to propose solid suggestions for reducing the impacts of this road on environmental resources. Instead, it was used as an opportunity to slow the process and fight the road. What's the end result of that? If the road is built then we can expect the substandard wetland mitigation that we've all come to expect from developers and VDOT elsewhere.

In short, yes, fight the parkway, but keep in mind that this road very well could still be built, and we do ourselves a disservice by not having a plan "b" and neglecting to be open to negotiation with those on the other side of the table.

When Natives Attack (Plants that is...)

Recently, in helping to plan a garden at church I managed to horrify a friend of mine who is a gardener by suggesting that we could plant a native rose like Rosa virginica.

"Those are a vector for "rose rosette disease", she exclaimed. "You know what they have to do when an ornamental rose gets infected with that? Dig it up and burn it"

While I could definitely appreciate her comments as a fellow gardener, it left me wondering... Is it a wise policy to exterminate native species when they create a threat to introduced ones? After all, as it turns out, one of the species of rose that may be affected most by rose rosette disease is Multiflora Rose, a horribly invasive exotic (that nonetheless contributed genes to many of our cultivated roses.)

It's not just roses either, there have been campaigns to destroy every last American Current since they can be a disease vector for blister rust, a disease infecting white pines. Although white pines and currents (Ribes sp.) are both native, the disease was introduced from a European white pine. This has led to the peculiar situation where some species of American currents have the unusual status of being both endangered and listed as noxious weeds at the same time.

I've also heard of eastern red ceders being cut down across a wide area because they can infect apple trees (and I've seen the fungus on the cedar too, which looks like some kind of weird space alien).

So, what should we do when natives are capable of spreading diseases to other more commercially valuable plants? Would it be acceptable to let a species of American current go extinct in order to save white pines? What about eliminating native roses to avoid contamination of cultivated European ones? It's an interesting dilemma...

For now though, I'm going to keep my Rosa virginiana and my Rosa carolina. If they end up killing my grandmother's roses, then I suppose it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make (but maybe if I'm lucky I'll infect the multiflora rose creeping up the hillside towards our property...)

Urban Growth and Ecological Density

An often neglected part of how we develop urban areas in our the quest for infill and density is the importance of green space. Not only do green spaces provide vital place for recreation, but they also help improve water quality, air quality, and reduce the heat island effect. In addition, they can create important refuges and corridors for wildlife.

In the rural area, species diversity is an important sign of ecological health. Nonetheless a healthy forest may contain only a handful of different tree species over ten acres. In a city, the pressures from pollution and use are much higher, and there may only be a half acre of green space. As we densify neighborhoods, we can create ecological density to offset these pressures (to borrow a phrase coined by Lucia Phinney). Having artificially higher species diversity intentionally designed habitats is a way that we could create more resilient green space. In addition, someone hiking in the national forest may cover several miles. In an urban area where that experience may not always be possible, creating ecological density can create a greater feeling of experiencing nature in a smaller place. In many ways, this is the same thing zoos and wildlife centers do for urban residents. It makes it possible for people who may not have the opportunity to go to Africa or hike through Yellowstone to have an encounter with wildlife in an urban setting. So where someone might hike for an hour in the national forest to come to a location with trilliums, in an urban area potential trillium habitat could be identified and created within a smaller area.

By no means is ecological density meant to replace natural ecosystems. In fact, Natural ecosystems are the blueprint that we need to create quality green space and urban habitat. By understanding the concepts that make habitats work in rural areas, we can then apply those concepts in new ways in urban areas. For example, we might observe that a rooftop is a similar habitat in many ways to a granite rock outcrop, and then use that knowledge in our design of green roofs and in our selection of species. By extrapolating these concepts, we can create more diverse habitats in smaller spaces, and by doing this we can make growth areas more livable for urban residents.

In short, as our community continues to push for greater residential and commercial density in our growth areas, we should put an equivalent effort into pursuing ecological density and creating high quality green spaces.

Everyone's Planning For McIntire

Recently as it becomes clear that the parkway is imminent, the vultures have started circling. It seems clear that all kinds of groups have their own ideas about what McIntire Park should be and who it should serve. There are those that charaterize the area as a pristine haven for wildlife in the middle of our city, that should be preserved "as is". The point I've made to them is that the area currently choked with many invasive species, and just "letting things go" is not a viable option. Even if the park is to be returned to greenspace with trails and trees, then that has to happen through a process of active management (which will require funds and resources, just like any other project). Whatever the primary use, I do agree that any use should include improved and expanded greenspace.

Then there are those that champion keeping the golf course even if it is reduced in size. To me this makes no sense. The Meadowcreek course at Pen Park was created as the replacement for McIntire years ago. When that happened, huge areas of greenspace were destroyed including a significant number of trails. At the time there was a great deal of citizen protest, including myself, who ran cross country on that course. In response, it was promised that this course was the replacement for the aging course at McIntire, and McIntire would be redeveloped as trails. It has been a very long time since I first heard that promise, and it has been RTF, not the parks that have made any progress towards that goal whatsoever. There are also those who propose that we should build a new golf course somewhere else. While that's not completely unreasonable, especially if the land was donated, golf courses in general are still a very intensive and exclusive use of property. At least a soccor field can be used for something else when people aren't playing soccor. They don't even let people walk on a golf course who aren't playing golf, not even sometimes. With so many private courses, it seems a bit hard to justify such an exclusive use of a very large space; plus, if a new course is built then it would probably, by necessity, be more expensive than the one at Penn Park is now.

Then, you have the folks who are demanding that the wading pool be preserved. Don't get me wrong, I have a toddler myself and will probably be seeking out good places to take her this summer, but even if this pool was renovated it would not be my first option. The new water features at several Albemarle and City parks seem to me to be far superior. Futhermore, this pool is evidently leaking a significant amount of water. The Daily Progress suggested that they put over a million gallons per year into that pool. In this age of water conservation, that really doesn't seem very responsible. If a community wading pool is needed, then we should make the investment to build a new one, not dump money and resources down the drain of an old one.

While I've never been for the parkway, I think that it does provide an opportunity for us as a community to really rethink this whole space. While I do feel that history is important, and people have a connection to things like the wading pool they played in as a kid, or their favorite golf course, there is a larger public interest here that should be considered. Currently this is a very large space right in the middle of the city that is underutilized. While I am part of a group that has proposed that a botanical garden be located at McIntire, we're not committed to that site at all. I'd be delighted to get an offer to do it at Moven instead, and it then UVa would benefit from the educational programs it could offer it's students and the many research opportunities, and the Botanical Garden would benefit from the expertise of UVa including biologists, landscape architects, and ecologists. In many ways, a site like Moven would be far better suited to a botanical garden than McIntire would. That said, many people in the community have championed that location, so I'm willing to explore it until there is a better option. Besides, I'd like to see the city benefit from the increased revenue and tourism.

For me, what is critical for McIntire is that we, as a community, bring some vision into the process so that we can all see beyond our own pet projects and interests and do something with the park that will be used by a wide spectrum of the public, and will enhance our community. I can easily make the argument that the best use is a botanical garden, but I could easily argue other options as well (like restored green space, picnic areas, and trails). I'm no where near as committed to my own vision and the botanical garden, than I am to the idea that this should be a community space we can all be proud of, and that really will be the jewel of our city parks. To me, preserving an ancient leaking pool and small underused golf course is lacking in vision.