The Trust for Public Land points out 75% of ballot proposals for land preservation were successful this November 2 (see below) and in a related opinion piece circulating on the Internet, suggests that even if environmental values don't swing elections for office, they do shape the outcome on measures that buy parkland and open space. The idea is that you can live in a blue state or a red state, and yet have a trace of green.
To an extent, this makes sense. But people don't think of buying parks and open space as environmentalism in the same sense that they think of clean air, clean water, recycling and toxic waste cleanup. It's more about beauty and leisure than health; and no industries are harmed when the public spends money to buy land. So it's not a jobs issue.
In Michigan, at least, voters have shown they will go for "tangibles" -- especially parks, sewage treatment and land acquisition bond proposals. More than half a dozen of those have passed by margins of about 2-1 since 1968.
http://sev.prnewswire.com/environmental-services/20041104/SFTH09004112004-1.html
Then there's this George Weeks piece from today's Detroit News about how conservancies are helping save some of the best remnants of unspoiled Michigan. It is a good news story, regardless of the issue of blue, red and green.
http://www.detnews.com/2004/editorial/0411/21/A20-11263.htm
Posted by Dave at November 21, 2004 03:36 PM