“Science” or Fashion?
Jun 28th, 2008 by haroldhomeowner
Anna and I viewed the Town of Southold / Trustee 30 minute video on cable and on the SoutholdVOICE website. We found it visually gratifying, quite informative, and reasonably effective in presenting an appearance of balance between the various factors [factions?] involved.
While I would not expect otherwise, I was reminded that, all too often, the mantle of “science” [and often “the latest science”] is employed to cover a multitude of other factors involved in real decision making.
Examples:
Intertidal detritus is good but pet waste is bad [unless you have pet Canada Geese, swans or deer].
Stimulation of green growth via fertilizer runoff is bad but stimulation of green growth by employing perforated plastic grid dock decking is good. [What fraction of the sun light gets through the new grid decking, when structure and sun angle are accounted for?]
Lawn grass clippings cause pollution while the decay of salt grass meadows provide necessary nutrients for the food chain.
Why was a neighbor to the north required to build a “high” dock to promote green growth while a neighbor to the south was forced to build a “low” dock [to minimize visual impact?]?
And why docks inevitably result in visual pollution when so many works of art depict docks and other hard structures prominently in their aesthetically appealing compositions?
Why did the verbal message relative to the adverse impact of bulkheading upon salt grass not mention Phragmites, although the visual employed seemed to provide evidence of the adverse impact of this invasive species?
Why is leaching from sheathing and decking not scientifically acceptable [other than ” We feel that…..”]?
And, finally:
Why does “The public right….” often seen to exclude waterfront property owners from the body public?
“Science” or current fashion and public relations imperatives?
After reading comments about the 10JUL08 “Docks on the Bay” meetings, it appears that “fashion” trumps science and “the public right…”, at least in the eyes of some from Albany. And that some feel that their personal prejudices, and preceived public relations imperatives with respect to special interest groups, are enough to justify an overlay of arbitrary restrictions, covering all land and water from “half way to Southampton to half way to CT”.
Ask not whose ox is being gored. Yours is next!