On a recent trip from Wisconsin to Salt Lake City, Utah, Enviro-Girl was aghast to find that from the highway one city did not look terribly different from the other. Lining the road were familiar signs and buildings: ShopKo, WalMart, Cost Cutters, Subway, McDonald’s, Home Depot…without the mountain range in the distance, Enviro-Girl could have been ANYWHERE. The thought depressed her.
The sell out of America’s character and regional charm to franchises is another issue entirely, what really must be addressed before consumers choose between eating at Applebee’s or Verna and Mort’s Supper Club by the Bay is the issue of sprawl. Our cities are spreading thin — thinner — and in many of these cities the population and infrastructure is falling and failing.
Consider Flint, Michigan. The population has dropped by half of its heyday number of 200,000. More than 1/3 of the houses in Flint have been abandoned. A shrinking city is not unique to Michigan–cities across America are growing smaller as the economy changes. The big question is: What is the answer?
Enviro-Girl has long maintained that active policy against urban sprawl, keeping resources and infrastructure closely positioned, allowing growth in places and ways that make sense and banning subdivisions and business parks located far beyond the scope of the city limits makes environmental and economic sense. Smaller cities are cheaper to run, use less resources, allow for easier and more efficient transportation (especially important for an aging population — Yo! She’s talking to YOU, Baby Boomers!), and preserve green space. Smaller cities are safer, healthier and provide more connections for their residents.
But how does one mandate against urban sprawl and irresponsible growth? In a country where property rights are held sacred, how does the government tell a landowner that they may not develop their property into a strip mall on the outskirts of town?
Easy, says Enviro-Girl. The government doesn’t have to deny people the right to develop. But it has the right to deny people access to resources if they choose to develop. “Want to build a strip mall 5 miles away from the city center? Fine, but you’re on your own for fire and police protection, road maintenance, water, sewer, electric, garbage pick up and anything else we’re providing to taxpayers living and working and building within the district.” Ditto for people building houses — live where you choose, but your choice does NOT have to be subsidized by your neighbors living within the boundary lines drawn up by governing bodies.
This puts the onus on the property owner and NOT on taxpayers and economics is a strong force. Why should landowners develop property for profit at the expense of the citizens providing these services? They shouldn’t. Period. And it’s time local governments started standing their ground on behalf of the taxpayers and on behalf of the environment.
A wetland is classified as any low-lying land that is flooded for at least a portion of a calendar year. Swamps, bogs, marshes and fens all fall into this category. An acre of wetland can store up to 1 to 1.5 million gallons of water. Enviro Girl thinks that’s astonishing–if we would just leave wetlands alone, we’d have no need for retention ponds in most cases. Wetlands also filter and purify water flowing into streams, lakes, rivers and oceans and they provide habitat for an amazing array of creature and plant life–everything from reptiles to insects, fungi to ferns. Without wetlands, water sources would be more polluted and flooding becomes a problem. In short, wetlands provide many services and resources, but they’re under-appreciated. Continue reading 
