Toxic-Free City Parks

[ SBN-P Opinion, 4/17/2005 ]:

OUR OPINION: Foot-dragging on toxic-free city parks


Estelle Foster of the Pesticide Awareness and Alternatives Coalition notes that discussions to get poisons out of Santa Barbara parks began six years ago. And after this long process, "I don't understand why concern for our children's health and safety is less of a concern than a solution to errant weeds."

If the choice is between "weeds" or your health, the answer should be clear for the Parks, Public Works, Waterfront and other departments responsible for caring for city properties.

After prodding by residents, Santa Barbara in January 2004 adopted a strategy to reduce the use of chemical pesticides and herbicides, known as an integrated pest management plan.

In June 2003, city staff first proposed a resolution that was too generally worded, failed to direct workers to come back with true change and didn't guarantee public participation. The staff report at the time said: "In reviewing the current practices for all city departments it was discovered that least-toxic practices have been an ongoing practice by each department in varying degrees."

You can translate that this way: The city had been polluting nature by overly depending on chemicals.

Everyone can agree the IPM plan in place today is better because of actions by the City Council. It still, however, falls far short of what Santa Barbarans should expect.

The plan, adopted in January 2004, created limited chem-free zones in certain parks, but it allowed city workers to continue to spray toxic chemicals in more than two-thirds of the city's parks. The plan called for just 15 parks to be totally toxic-free.

In reviewing the IPM plan last week, the council only added four more parks to the list.

The city's own IPM advisory committee recommended "expanding the 'pesticide-free parks' immediately to include all parks with play structures and/or picnic tables, followed by all remaining parks."

Instead, the council adopted a go-slower approach that includes using a Pesticide Hazard and Exposure Reduction Zone system, or PHAER, to map parks and other city properties into green and yellow zones. We question the need to hire a $25,000 consultant to do this work in a prolonged process at the expense of putting personnel in the parks to make them toxic-free immediately.

The city staffers also want it both ways. On one hand they argue for a more measured approach, in part because they claim the city needs more time and personnel to make all parks pesticide-free.

On the other hand, in defending the city's program, acting Parks chief Nancy Rapp told the council, "I do believe again that when this map comes back to you, I think you will be very amazed at how much of our city parks we are already maintaining green."

If so, make them toxic-free immediately.

As it stands, staff may not come back to the council with a PHAER zone model until December, well after the November election.

Councilman Das Williams at Tuesday's meeting grasped the importance to act: "I don't want Stepford Parks," he said. "I want parks that are real or natural as possible and are safe places for our children to play."

So does the News-Press, and now.


SPEAK UP

Santa Barbara City Council
735 Anacapa St.
Santa Barbara 93102

Brian Barnwell
564-5324
E-mail: bbarnwell@santabarbaraca.gov

Mayor Marty Blum
564-5321
E-mail: mblum@santabarbaraca.gov

Iya Falcone
564-5322
E-mail: ifalcone@santabarbaraca.gov

Roger Horton
564-5325
E-mail: rhorton@santabarbaraca.gov

Dan Secord, M.D.
564-5319
E-mail: dsecord@santabarbaraca.gov

Helene Schneider
564-5323
E-mail: hschneider@santabarbaraca.gov

Das Williams
564-5320
E-mail: daswilliams@santabarbaraca.gov

[ SBN-P online edition:
OUR OPINION: Foot-dragging on toxic-free city parks ]