My Nonprofit Reviews

In Defense of Open Space

I would like to rebut the criticism of the vote to maintain the Concord Land Fill as a natural open space, which was posted on April 10, 2013. I am not a resident of the area, so I cannot address all of the points brought forth.

However, I believe that the need for natural open space is greatly underestimated and misunderstood in the United States today. Because an area contains grasses, weeds and wildflowers does not mean that it is useless and should be developed.

Americans seem to have a conception that trees are the only useful flora. This idea was unintentionally created. By the beginning of the twentieth century, the country was quite deforested. The intensive focus and extensive and somewhat successful campaign for reforestation has caused open spaces to be forgotten.

Although construction still occurs by removing trees, a somewhat limited psychological barrier seems to exist (except among developers) against cutting them down. However, no such inhibition occurs in regard to open fields, which are frequently perceived as wasted land, simply sitting there, and encouraging unwanted pests. Plus, they are cheaper to develop.

However, a healthy ecosystem cannot exist without such areas. Meadows are an integral part of the food chain. By providing food, shelter, and areas for nesting and courtship, this habitat attracts a multitude of wildlife. Most of which is not seen (insects and microbes) or is disdained by humans (mice and ticks).

An even more neglected place is edge habitat, which has been lost by the destruction of meadows and trees. As Aldo Leopold notes, “The variety and density of life is often the greatest along edges.” Hence, this habitat provides more benefits than forest and grassland alone, creating a complex community. Some species specialize and thrive in this area, including endangered and rare ones.

Next, the idea of NOT preserving land associated with Thoreau, because it was clear cut in his lifetime is simply flawed. It is still a historic place, associated with the writer, and can be used as an example of a bad use of land, now being rectified.

To focus specifically on the individual's comments regarding the bus depot, I disagree with the statement, "There won't be any runoff from the buses to the pond." The only major method to stop runoff would be if the proposed parking lot and the roofs of any buildings would be permeable surfaces. Most average builders do not understand the concept of permeable asphalt and green roofs. Most likely, the town of Concord (like other governments) would select the lowest possible bidder on the contract for the project, which would mean the use of oil based asphalt, which does not absorb water. Hence, rain could run from the developed area to the pond or to the road, where it would flow to the nearest storm drain and into a probably overloaded water treatment system. Storm water rolls across land and streets, picking up contaminants, such as chemicals from coal tar pavement sealants, that are environmentally dangerous and harmful to humans.

Also, the bus depot would bring another environmental hazard to the area, the much revered suburban monoculture known as the lawn. Currently planted turf grasses have shallow roots, in comparison to meadow plants and grasses. Hence, the creation of a lawn ends soil stablization and water absorption, causes runoff and erosion, and creates a lack of biodiversity, as well as the need to mow with polluting lawnmowers.

The writer states that "the buses will have to be kept in another town, at great expensive and much larger *local* gas emissions and pollution." A closer examination should be made of this situation. For maximum benefit, the buses would have to operate on natural gas or propane or be flex fuel vehicles. Routes would have to be carefully planned; bus sizes carefully selected. Pickups would be for multiple students, not stopping at adjacent homes. Furthermore, a more forward looking plan should be discussed. Due to the increase of cyber schools and home schooled students, the need for buses for may be reduced fairly soon.

While no charity is perfect, the Walden Woods Project has maintained its focus on land preservation and purchased property to that end. Once land is developed, it remains so, especially on the densely populated East Coast. I have never seen anyone tear down a housing development to build a forest.

More Feedback