The long and winding road
Did I miss something? John Borgmeyer’s recent article, “A Walk in the Park” [Fishbowl, January 6], had me convinced that the Meadowcreek Parkway had already been approved. Apparently, Mr. Borgmeyer has been sitting in too many City Council meetings with Blake Caravati, Rob Schilling and Meredith Richards. In reality, the Parkway has only been conditionally approved, and those conditions are still far from being met.
Using language like “land that will someday become the Parkway” and “once this becomes a stretch of Parkway,” does Borgmeyer expect people to come away believing that the road could actually not be built? After all, the road would cost the City millions of dollars, destroy a portion of its finest parkland, open up land north of the City to more sprawling development and dump the resulting traffic into Charlottesville’s Downtown—all good reasons that many have to oppose it. By waiting until the end of the article to imply that the road’s fate is not yet sealed, Borgmeyer leads his readers astray with a deceptive type of reporting that is all too common in the mass media today.
People who read this article and believe that the decision to build the Parkway has already been made will be less likely to voice opposition to what appears to be a done deal. Currently, the road cannot be built, nor has it been built, which, in our democratic society, means that people still have the opportunity to tell their elected officials that they do not wish to see this piece of parkland paved. And, in all likelihood, the Parkway decision will not be made before City elections in May, offering yet another opportunity for the Parkway to be defeated.
The Meadowcreek Parkway has been a contentious issue in this City for more than 30 years. This doesn’t mean that we are obliged to build it. It’s time for this City to recognize that it is possible to make future-oriented decisions about our transportation system that will not leave us stuck in our cars fighting over which roads should be built next. Why not spend the City’s urban allocation funds on a competitive transit system that could whisk people from Downtown up 29N in a matter of minutes? As cities like Portland, Oregon, illustrate, there are possible alternatives. Chin up John Borgmeyer, the fight’s not over yet.
Mandy Burbage
Albemarle County
John Borgmeyer responds: In a December 11, 2000 letter to the Virginia Department of Transportation, Charlottesville’s City Council agreed to support the Parkway, as long as the road’s construction was coupled with other transportation improvements. In particular, Council demanded an interchange at the 250 Bypass, replacement parkland and funding for a regional network of roads in Albemarle. Even though these provisions have not been met, a majority of Council wants to build the Parkway anyway. So the question, then, is not whether the Parkway will be built, but how many of these conditions will be met upon its completion.
Doe the right thing
I feel it is important to address Susan Wiedman’s comments in her letter to C-VILLE [Mailbag, January 6]. I am familiar with Wiedman’s name as a defender of all creatures big and small and I am delighted that she stands up for them. However, it is critical to address the management of wildlife based upon accurate information. I want to clear up some misperceptions so that they will not be perpetuated.
1) It is true that deer numbers might decrease if the availability of food and habitat decreased. Unfortunately, food and habitat increases with increasing suburbanization because yards typically have grass, shrubs and trees that deer can make use of.
2) It is absolutely not true that the deer populations are stable in our national parks where hunting is not permitted. I give talks each year in Shenandoah National Park, where the number of deer is astounding and quite disturbing. The overpopulation of these beautiful creatures should be of concern to everyone because deer are devastating the habitats of other species by overbrowsing the plants. For example, neo-tropical songbird numbers are decreasing in the park as a direct result of the burgeoning deer population. By not allowing hunting, we are failing in our responsibility to maintain the populations of numerous other species of wildlife.
3) Sadly, the No. 1 tool to control deer populations is hunting because we wiped out the natural deer predators—mountain lions and wolves. We and many other species are paying the price now for man’s intolerance of such natural predators, which would have kept deer numbers under control. Unless we reintroduce these large mammals, deer populations will only be controllable by man or disease and starvation when they increase in number beyond the carrying capacity of the land.
Lastly, I should point out that I am not a hunter and, in fact, I could not kill anything if my life depended upon it. However, as a naturalist with a scientific understanding of the natural world, I have to accept the death of some animals by others (in this case, hunters) in order to preserve habitat for other species.
As Soren Mitchell wrote in his letter, humans are the ones ultimately responsible for human/wildlife encounters because we have so overpopulated the Earth. Until humans realize they are part and parcel of the environment and take responsibility for limiting their own numbers, both wildlife and humans will suffer serious consequences.
Marlene A. Condon