Chesterton Tribune

 

 

Guest Commentary: Burns Harbor Councilman Miller: Take time to learn issues on beach conference center

Back To Front Page

 

Guest Commentary

By Greg Miller

Burns Harbor Town Councilman

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.

 

Posted 4/24/2015

 
 
 
 

 

 

Search This Site:

Custom Search