http://paloaltoonline.com/square/print/index.php?i=3&d=1&t=1065


Town Square

Barron Park hillside spraying all about money

Original post made by Peter Deutsch on Mar 16, 2007

The lead sentence in the "green" education article on page 3 of the March 7 Weekly Web Link incorrectly presents the "classic conflict" as between "nature and public safety," which it is not.


It is between nature and money.


As the article makes clear, the reason the school district destroyed the hillside was to save money. It was less expensive than maintaining safety by mowing.


So what lesson did the kids learn? That money talks louder than nature and that the affluent community of Palo Alto, no matter what it preaches, doesn't choose to spend its money on keeping its irreplaceable natural environment healthy.


What a sad situation.

Comments

Posted by parent, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 17, 2007 at 12:36 am

This was just so unnecessary. I would like to know who was responsible for this decision. If money was the issue, it would have been so easy to have a penny drive to pay for goats, and even have school field trips to see them in action.

The surfactant in Roundup has been shown in recent research to kill frogs, at relatively low concentrations. (Not the poison, the detergent used to disperse the poison.) The Australian government even required Monsanto to change to a less dangerous surfactant in order to continue selling the poison in Australia. That's all stuff that is going to wash down into the creek and kill not only frogs, but native salamanders. As far as I know, the detergent does not degrade like the poison is supposed to.

Again, this was a totally unnecessary measure that runs counter to the kind of smart stewardship of the earth we should be teaching our kids.

Why weren't parents notified of this in advance? (Isn't there a state law to that effect?)