I love the smell of concrete (or plutonium) in the morning …
On a not-so-sleepy little street in Bethesda, Maryland, nestled between two private country clubs, there is a turf war going on. The adversaries do not wear different color bandanas or flash signs to one another to indicate their allegiances.
You see, this is a war over a sidewalk.
On one side of this little war are those who want a safe place for the children of the neighborhood to walk to and from school. On the other are people who think that a sidewalk is an eyesore to their little “respite from the city.”
The people in the anti-sidewalk camp have formed a civic association, hired a “prominent” real estate lawyer, and found an arborist who claims that a sidewalk would kill all mature trees.
Those who want a sidewalk passed around a petition, collected letters from PTAs and principals and spoke with the county’s arborist who says that the sidewalk won’t do any harm.
People who do not want the sidewalk had things like this to say:
“Sidewalks are very urbanizing. Here we have what remains to be a little respite from the city. Not a whole lot, but at least some.”
“We have a 30-foot sidewalk that children have used for years. It’s a beautiful green sidewalk. Thirty feet. Not four feet. It’s called grass.”
“For these eight to 10 children, 40 years worth of work and caring will be destroyed and the lives of virtually every household on Maryknoll Avenue will be disrupted.”
Fans of a sidewalk made comments like this:
“Most kids who could be walkers avoid walking so they won’t get killed.”
“The whole way there, I was a nervous wreck. My son was stunned. We just didn’t expect so much traffic.”
NIMBYism has many faces. And, in my opinion, most of them are ugly. Most of the time it is the affluent who try to impose things they don’t want in their neighborhood on poorer citizens who don’t have the influence that is unfortunately required. In the case of the sidewalk, it is the neighbors who are more concerned with their rose bushes than the safety of the children who live in their neighborhood.
However, sometimes the bully is the government. A few days ago a federal appeals court rejected the state of South Carolina’s request to stop the federal government from shipping surplus plutonium into the state. Luckily for the citizens of South Carolina — including my future in-laws — Gov. Jim Hodges (D) is fighting the good fight. Calling the shipments “a threat to the health and safety of our state,” the Governor plans to appeal the decision all the way to the Supreme Court.
Earlier this summer Gov. Hodges had this to say about the issue after ordering the state’s police force to block the shipment of 30 tons of plutonium into the state:
“As governor, when I believe danger exists to our state, I am empowered to declare an emergency and to take measures to maintain peace and safety in South Carolina.”
“I know the folks in Washington will not like this action. And we will follow any court order regarding the shipment of this plutonium. But until ordered otherwise, I will continue to exercise any and every lawful power I possess to keep this plutonium from threatening the safety of our citizens.”
In a letter urging Gov. Hodges to sign a proposed agreement, U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham had this to say:
“It is now time to bring this process to a close. Further delay in reaching agreement will undermine important international and domestic priorities of the United States.”
What about the federal government undermining the health and safety of its own citizens?