William Nangle’s
recent commentary in the NWI Times attacking Save the Dunes regarding the
organization’s opposition to the Indiana State Park Pavilion Expansion
Project was a disservice to the readership for several reasons.
For one it
misrepresents and misunderstands Save the Dunes’ clearly articulated
position, which is publicly available on the organization’s website in the
form of several press release statements. Additionally, Mr. Nangle’s ad
hominem attack dismisses legitimate environmental concerns as “laughable”
without so much as touching on a single fact that would demonstrate any real
understanding of the issues at stake.
I would submit that
Indiana’s woefully low standing in environmental quality and protection,
49th in the nation according to Forbes magazine, is a result of this
penchant to dismiss legitimate concerns out-of-hand as somehow silly or not
worth debating on their face.
Referring to Save
the Dunes, Nangle states, “The group’s motive appears to be stopping a much
needed project.” A quick glance at the initial statement released by the
organization reveals a much more nuanced position. For one, according to the
release, “We [Save the Dunes] are not opposed to the idea of renovating
and/or expanding the Pavilion in principle, within reason. However, we
believe that any changes at the site must be considered thoughtfully with
robust public involvement.”
No birds, grass or
sand mentioned there. In fact, Save the Dunes went out of their way to point
out that the most pressing ecological threats to the dunes are not in
“previously disturbed” areas, thus implying that this wasn’t their utmost
concern regarding this project. If Save the Dunes’ position is read and
understood, it is very clear that their concerns have much more to do with
the transparency of the process and safeguarding the public trust.
In their initial
release, which pointedly didn’t oppose the project, Save the Dunes listed
five concerns.
The first concern
was that “DNR must ensure that the public retains the right to access the
beach, building and parking areas as they do today.” This seems a reasonable
concern. Next, The Pavilion site should remain publicly owned and not
transfer to private ownership. That seems fair.
Continuing with
their concerns, “We must prevent encroachment on the dunes ecosystem during
and after construction.” This seems like a no-brainer, certainly shouldn’t
be a deal breaker.
Another ask is that
the new structure, if built, be “aesthetic ally pleasing, but also energy
efficient, smartly designed to protect the dunes ecosystem and wildlife
(particularly birds) and also prevent light pollution.” Frankly, we have the
tools and the technology. None of this is earth-shatteringly difficult.
Are migrating birds
important at the southern tip of Lake Michigan? You bet they are.
Prevent light
pollution? What’s that all about? It’s as simple as being able to see the
stars, something that most of the people reading this will agree is more and
more difficult as skyglow has overtaken the night sky within living memory.
Light pollution is perhaps the cheapest and simplest thing to prevent.
Just make sure not
to light excessively, and that the light points down and fixtures have
adequate reflectors to minimize light escaping upward. Since most birds
migrate at night and light pollution is detrimental to them as well, there’s
a two-for-one.
Finally, Save the
Dunes states that “the design process must be transparent and must include
stakeholder input before, during, and after completion.”
Should we really
insist on any less when it comes to this beloved and historic landmark?
The fact that Save
the Dunes’ eventual opposition to the project was largely on stakeholder
input and transparency grounds is missing from the Times editorial.
In summary, if Mr.
Nangle had taken the time to explore the issues at stake, elucidate the very
public positions of various stakeholders accurately, and ask legitimate
questions, then readers would be much better equipped to understand the
issues and to engage in an informed debate. Instead, we got a fluff piece
that is long on rhetoric and absent of fact. That is, well, laughable.