I posted the link to day two of Kaid Benfield’s series on our post from yesterday below, but here is a fresh post with the new link as well. You can read yesterday’s post of ours for the summary, but these paragraphs were certainly worth noting:
I also think that, at least with regard to neighborhood defensiveness with regard to development activities, including those undertaken by churches and schools, we in the environmental movement have played a role. For good reasons, beginning in the 1970s we created a system of laws and procedures, and a culture, that over time has made it relatively easy to challenge proposed development of all types, and to defeat proposals or delay them until proponents give up. People now consider it their right to fight proposed development wherever and whenever it occurs, and it has become an expectation in many places.
While there are important reasons to be glad for this – many, many bad projects have been halted because of environmental challenges, some of them litigated by yours truly – I think that, as the creators of this system, we now bear some responsibility for making sure that it is not abused. It is time for us as a movement to become more discriminating in what we challenge and what we applaud, and to speak more publicly and forcefully for as well as against things. Indeed, I believe it is irresponsible of us to say no without also indicating what would prompt us to say yes. We also must challenge those who oppose environmentally benign or beneficial projects in our name.
Sounds like Kaid is laying down a challenge to the environmental movement, from within the environmental movement. Are you nodding your head in agreement or shaking your head in disgust? Go over to the NRDC Switchboard and tell him what you think.