Further discussion regarding the "planning area" and purpose of the areas of interest in the surrounding non-incorporated areas. 
Presentation & Discussion of the Environment Chapter. Most notably, staff has suggested the implementation of LEED Green Building Standards by:
- Encouraging private developers to engage in these standards.
- Having the Town seek Green Building Certification for all future public projects, where feasible.
- Studying the LEED for Neighborhood Development Standards. This is a pilot program, and it should be noted that high density is a key component. Staff is suggesting that the Commission consider some of the standards suggested by these standards, as some of these may not be appropriate to Ashland.
(for a really quick overview of LEED - see what Wikipedia says by clicking here.)
Presentation & Discussion of the Parks and Recreation Chapter. The Town's Parks and Recreation Committee will also review this chapter.
Set the meeting date of March 27th, at 7PM for the Planning Commission worksession. The next regular meeting will be on March 12 at 7PM.
4 comments:
Congratulations to the Town of Ashland for including the LEED standards in their update of the town's comp plan. Building "green" is not just a nicety anymore, it is a necissity.
This is fantastic news for Ashland, perhaps the County could be persuaded to establish a LEED program (which seems highly unlikley). Greensburg, Kansas, which was almost completely wiped out by a tornado is hoping to rebuild as the "Greenest Town in America." Maybe Ashland can someday join the ranks?
Although not LEED-related, Ashland might want should look at www.metrofi.com. Metrofi has secured agreements with several cities across the U.S. to design, build and operate ad-sponsored, free municipal wifi networks for residents, visitors and workers. MetroFi provides free access in these communities through online advertising supported by local and national advertisers.
Many people feel passionate, as passionate as I do about driving their cars, jetting off for holidays each year, or enjoying a mouthwatering choice of out-of-season fruit and veg, flown from all corners of the globe, in their local supermarket every day.
These are much-prized pleasures. They are legal. And they keep millions in work. How likely is it that people will voluntarily renounce them because of a disputed threat to the planet?
Not likely at all. And this is the big intellectual scam that worries me about the green debate. It’s the widespread impression that there’s no downside to going green – that it’s all about benefit. It’s the assumption that the power of reason will persuade or shame millions of people into giving up pleasures and luxuries that they really enjoy.
It’s the notion that, for the first time in 50,000 years, the human species will be persuaded to act for the benefit of all creatures great and small, rather than to further its own tribal interests.
I don’t buy any of that. I think it’s disingenuous to pretend that we can continue to enjoy a life-style sustained by 20th-century standards of transportation, yet somehow magically revert to preindustrial levels of carbon emission.
I think it’s fraudulent for corporations to claim to be “going green” because they make a few headline-grabbing gestures – reducing their use of plastic bags, or whatever – that shave their carbon footprints by less than 1 per cent.
I think it’s absurd to hymn the glories of renewable energy without pointing out that everyone – pensioners and the poor included – would end up paying a lot more for electricity if it came only from green sources.
And I think it’s immoral for nations that happily belched their way through their own industrial revolutions to give Third World nations, desperately playing catchup, pious lectures about preserving the ozone layer.
If politicians are serious about their green agendas, there is only one way forward. That is to wield a big stick. Impose massive dollops of punitive per-mile taxation on the transportation of people, goods and food.
Soon we would all be learning to live without fresh strawberries in December or family vacations in Florida. Of course, the effect would be disastrous in other respects. The tourism and airline industries would collapse. Poor countries that depend on selling cheap food, clothing and goods to the West would be devastated. And the poor would suffer disproportionately from huge hikes in supermarket prices.
In short, so many other things that we rightly believe to be vital – such as social justice and fair trade – would have to be sacrificed, or at least jeopardised, in a country driven by a green agenda.
And I haven’t even mentioned peripheral pleasures, such as the joy of travel, the freedom of mobility brought to millions by their cars.
I wish politicians were brave enough to spell out what “going green” would really mean to our lifestyles, and to the welfare of less fortunate people around the globe. Peddling the notion that you can have ecological gain without material pain is not just myopic. It’s dishonest as well.
Post a Comment