There must be things we can all agree on. All of us, minus of course the members of the Flat Earth Society, who believe and advocate that the earth is flat rather than a sphere.
We agree that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights. We agree that in the pursuit of our rights we shall not be limited save that we not trespass upon the same rights of others. The foundation for peaceful human cohabitation is thus laid, an enormous achievement on our way from survival of the fittest to a highly differentiated, just and equitable society. But where do we clarify the relationship between men and nature? If culture is defined as everything man-made, and nature as everything else, it is apparent how heavily favored all things cultural have been in the western world ever since the industrial revolution. Shouldn’t we agree on the following as well: we must meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs? Just in case you are still thinking, replace the words ‘future generations’ with ‘my grandchildren’.
The above is the definition of sustainable development by the United Nations World Commission on the Environment and Development. Much more so than simply appearing as part of mission statements or a goal that is set out to be reached, sustainable development is to be regarded on a similar level as the Unalienable Rights. The wisdom and necessity of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are fundamental to the healthy and prosperous development of our free society, and transcend political claims of ownership. Similarly, the prudence of sustainable development makes it impossible to become a partisan issue. Sustainable development is something we all agree on, a truth that is self-evident.
On the local level, it is of note that in November 2008, an advisory referendum whether Riverside should initiate and promote environmental best practices, including, among others, conserving natural resources, recycling, and sustainable building practices, was affirmed by 75% of voters. Yes, you read correctly – there is an issue in our Village that a majority of voters are for. All elected local board members take note: you have the opportunity to be leaders who first and foremost base their decision-making on the truths we hold to be self-evident. Including, of course, the one about sustainable development.
For example, take the proposed Hauser School sidewalk and front yard improvements that were recently debated. The drivers for the proposed changes are functional in nature and revolve around, among other things, the question of the appropriate width of the public sidewalk. Given the large number of car drop-offs and associated crowding on the existing sidewalk, the adjoining grass has been trampled, and children’s safety is in jeopardy when they step into the street to avoid the crowds. The concerns are legitimate, and should be addressed.
Any design solution can only be as good as the extent to which the design problem has been understood. Assuming high aspirations for any school project regardless of scale, this seemingly simple and straightforward issue turns out to be anything but. From the environmental perspective, it is better to encourage students to walk to school as opposed to further accommodating car drop-offs. We live, after all, in one of the most walkable communities anywhere. Combined with strict enforcement of car drop-off rules by the school administration, traffic could thus be reduced, which would improve children’s safety and reduce air pollution.
With regard to the trampled grass, we have at our disposal today various pervious pavings that have the functional benefits of a traditional hardscape like solid concrete. At the same time, those pavings allow rainwater to be absorbed by the underlying soil, and thus recharging our aquifers. This is of increasing importance as we face growing water scarcity. Additionally, the Village and School Districts could adopt a policy similar to the one by the Chicago Park District, which requires a caliper-inch for caliper-inch replacement for every tree that is lost. Riverside should adopt a similar policy for trees and every square foot of landscape that is lost, by requiring at least the same amount to be changed from hardscape to landscape on the same property.
Public schools and local governments have a golden opportunity to show leadership on the environmental issue. All it takes is political will. And, if necessary, a gentle reminder here and there by the rest of us that the large majority of Riverside residents supports sustainability.
