Gentleman - for the love that is all things kind and neighborly, please stop.
Or take this back and forth off the listserv.
I appreciate our listserv as a place to share recommendations, research, and
services. A place where our neighborhood supports each other.
If anyone would like to have an in-person conversation about Thrive 2050 - a
long-term comprehensive plan - including with different opinions about it - I’m
happy to participate and share from my experience.
Your neighbor,
ILANA
Sent on the road
On Oct 7, 2021, at 5:01 PM, Henry Allen <hsallen4@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
George —
I didn’t paint you into this corner, you did.
Now you’re going off into “White-centered concepts” and “Whiteness is the
natural, default state of things” and how “the whole idea is disgusting.”
This sounds like desperation in an effort to win an unwinnable argument.
Shake hands? Have a beer?
Henry Allen
New York Ave.
On Oct 7, 2021, at 4:47 PM, George Leventhal <georgeleventhal@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Or, you could acknowledge that the very concept of "diversity" is a
White-centered concept, and that to define a goal of how much diversity we
want implies that Whiteness is the natural, default state of things, and
that we (the White people) should set a numerical goal of how many "others"
we want, and the whole idea is disgusting, and you really should just drop
it.
From: north-takoma-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <north-takoma-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
on behalf of Henry Allen <hsallen4@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 4:42 PM
To: north-takoma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <north-takoma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [north-takoma] Re: My Blog on County Thrive 2050 Plan and Related
Issues
Sorry George.
Your statement is defies logic.
You don’t seem to understand that you can have either minimum goals or
maximum goals.
This is to say: you can either want at least this amount of X, or no more
than that amount of Y. Both are goals.
I’ll add that If I say my goal is to have 96 percent of Americans employed,
that does not mean that I say that having 97 percent of Americans employed
is “undesirable."
Henry Allen
New York Ave.
On Oct 7, 2021, at 4:24 PM, George Leventhal <georgeleventhal@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
My name is George, and if you define a goal of how much diversity is
desirable, that means that any more diversity than that is undesirable.
From: north-takoma-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <north-takoma-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
on behalf of Henry Allen <hsallen4@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 4:18 PM
To: north-takoma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <north-takoma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [north-takoma] Re: My Blog on County Thrive 2050 Plan and Related
Issues
Paul —
Behave yourself.
I said nothing about a “upward limit” to diversity.
I asked how much is necessary to satisfy our goals, with no “upward limit”
whatsoever.
Henry Allen
New York Avenue
On Oct 7, 2021, at 4:12 PM, George Leventhal <georgeleventhal@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Dear Henry,
Because you are insisting on asking again, I will reply that it would be
appallingly wrong to delineate an upward limit beyond which we have
decided there are too many "diverse" types of people living here. Do you
honestly not understand that?
Best regards,
George
From: north-takoma-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<north-takoma-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Henry Allen
<hsallen4@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 4:03 PM
To: north-takoma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <north-takoma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [north-takoma] Re: My Blog on County Thrive 2050 Plan and Related
Issues
George —
My questions remain: How much density is our goal? How much
diversity is is our goal?
These are entirely practical questions. Practical answers might help
us down the road but you have answered with principles, not practicality.
I am resigned, at last, to the fact that you will not answer these
questions. Understandable!
Your problem is that you cannot answer them.
And so, in the name of civic virtue, we must strive ever onwards in our
quest for undefined and maybe undefinable goals. A curious way to do
business but Takoma Park’s clique of virtucrats will keep doing it..
By the way, I was charmed by a suggestion this afternoon that we
should accept more crowding on our quarter-acres in order to preserve the
25-acre zoning of the agricultural reserve upcounty. Not just agriculture
happens on those 25-acre sites — a lot of rich people have built country
houses on them, secure in the knowledge that their single-family housing
is unchallengeable.
Henry Allen
New York Ave.
On Oct 7, 2021, at 1:48 PM, George Leventhal
<georgeleventhal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Paul,
We have had practically this same exchange in the recent past. Your
suggestion that urban density is not sustainable because cities are "net
consumers" leads unavoidably to the question of what is the alternative?
I posted the absurd and sarcastic suggestion a few months ago, in
response to similar observations on your part, that Thanos (the
near-omnipotent supervillain from the Avengers movies) was right, that
the real solution for our planet is to eliminate half the humans on it. I
apologized for that preposterous suggestion, but really, where do you
think the people should live?
You are offended that I use the term NIMBY, but it is exquisitely apt.
People have to live somewhere; you just insist it should not be here. You
don't seem particularly concerned about the environmental impact of
people living elsewhere.
My PhD is in Public Policy, not in Environmental Engineering, so I may
simply not be smart enough to follow along, but to a city boy like me, it
just makes darn good sense that more people in a compact amount of space
will have less of an environmental footprint than spreading them around
an enormous amount of acreage, all with large yards that require mowing
and fertilizing, and with more roads necessary so that automobiles can
reach the remote corners of the region that are populated because we
didn't allow density next to Metro.
And please, from the heart, I regret that you believe I feel animosity
toward you; I do not. I think that you and Lorraine are very nice people,
advocates for environmental protection and historic preservation, and
longtime homeowners who get anxious at the prospect of their familiar
surroundings undergoing change. That is, again, an understandable
perspective, but not a sound foundation for planning for the future.
I have come to the conclusion after years of study that single-family
zoning is inextricably connected to racial segregation, and I can be
impatient with people who willfully ignore that compelling point. My
communications with you have reflected that impatience. I understand it
isn't my most appealing quality.
Best,
George
From: north-takoma-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<north-takoma-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Paul Chrostowski
<paul.chrostowski@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 12:32 PM
To: north-takoma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <north-takoma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [north-takoma] Re: My Blog on County Thrive 2050 Plan and
Related Issues
Dear George
I strongly object to your mischaracterization of my motives and opinions.
The NIMBY name calling approaches disparagement and you should do
better to manage your personal animosity toward me in public. You know
fully well that I am one of the most qualified environmental scientists
in the area and that my commitment to environmental preservation has been
unwavering since Earth Day 1970. You talk about a “well-recognized truth
that density is better for climate” which sounds much like those people
who say that it is “well-known” that the Covid vaccine is ineffective.
What is actually well-known from people who have environmental expertise
is that urbanization is not sustainable because cities are net consumers
of ecosystem services. I really don’t care how many people live here,
but they should do it sustainably and we have a golden opportunity to do
it right for a change and people like you are obstructing this. Why are
you so opposed to an environmental impact analysis? Is there something
you are afraid of.
Paul C
Sent from Mail for Windows
From: George Leventhal
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 11:58 AM
To: north-takoma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [north-takoma] Re: My Blog on County Thrive 2050 Plan and
Related Issues
Dear Paul,
I am sorry that you are frightened. I wish there was some way I could set
your mind at ease, but I think it is beyond my persuasive ability. I and
others have responded to your question regarding climate change with the
well-recognized truth that density near public transportation is better
for the climate than single-family sprawl. You keep willfully ignoring
this point, out of what really can only be described as NIMBYism. You
simply don't want more people living near you. That's an understandable
perspective to take, but it has nothing to do with diminution of
greenhouse gases.
Sincere best wishes,
George
<6CD727BA150F4947ADF159F17C1555BF.png>
From: north-takoma-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<north-takoma-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Paul Chrostowski
<paul.chrostowski@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 11:53 AM
To: north-takoma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <north-takoma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [north-takoma] Re: My Blog on County Thrive 2050 Plan and
Related Issues
Dear Peter, George et al
The frightening thing about this to me is that people, whether county or
local government or residents, do not seem to be taking climate change
seriously. Climate change represents an existential challenge to humanity
and other living things. We absolutely must be looking at every new
proposal and plan through the broader lens of climate change. Remember,
one single project – the NDC proposal for Takoma Junction would generate
as much carbon during construction as the entire city of TKPK does over a
year. It makes no sense to me to be narrowly focusing on housing by 2050
when we are not taking the steps necessary to ensure a reasonable quality
of life will be attainable at that point. Will all these new housing
units be required to use renewable energy only? Will all building
contractors be required to use renewables? Will all the waste generated
by construction be recyclable? How much are we going to allow impervious
surface to increase at the expense of more floods? How much tree canopy
do we need to mitigate the urban heat island that we have created? These
questions (among others) can be answered if we take the time and energy
to do it. Without answers to these and related questions, it seems that
Thrive 2050 and the missing middle really just more of the same that got
us here in the first place.
Paul C
Sent from Mail for Windows
From: George Leventhal
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 11:22 AM
To: pen@xxxxxxxxxxx; north-takoma; HodgesHeights@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [north-takoma] Re: My Blog on County Thrive 2050 Plan and
Related Issues
Dear Peter,
Your observations on Thrive 2050 are largely on point from my perspective
(I actually expected to disagree with you more than I did!). I appreciate
your keeping a cool head and not feeding the alarmism.
Thanks,
George
<6CD727BA150F4947ADF159F17C1555BF.png>
From: north-takoma-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<north-takoma-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Peter Kovar
<pakovar@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 11:00 AM
To: pen@xxxxxxxxxxx <pen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; north-takoma
<north-takoma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; HodgesHeights@xxxxxxxxx
<HodgesHeights@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [north-takoma] My Blog on County Thrive 2050 Plan and Related
Issues
Dear Neighbors:
Given the discussions on the Ward One email lists about Montgomery
County's Thrive 2050 plan and its potential impact on zoning and related
issues in Takoma Park, I thought you might be interested in a blog I
posted this morning on these topics:
http://www.councilmemberkovar.com/blog/2021/10/7/montgomery-countys-thrive-2050-plan-and-zoning-in-takoma-park
Peter Kovar, Takoma Park City Council, Ward One
