so.....
i'm really trying to understand these notes....
the fort russell area... which has several mature street trees which
provide valuable habitat for all sorts of creatures... is not a valid model
which you'd like to see extended to commercial districts?
if we can't get merchants to spend some dollars for landscape ON SITE,
how do we expect to see them contribute OFF SITE where they will not
realize any mercantile gain?
why make it an either or....?
why not insist on landscape streets and parking areas to mitigate the
negative impacts of the automobile, and do specific habitat projects?
as for the comments re the university.. i can't address past sins, and its
a large organization, and we are often hamstrung by the fiscal
constraints placed by the very economic structure of the state, but i can
firmly state that those with whom i deal on palnning and construction
issues most certainly care about aesthetics.
>>> Lisa Marie Lombardi <lomb7741@uidaho.edu> 03/08/96 09:04am >>>
Well, the University used to have a great little project -- a wetland, a LOT
of work by the student chapter of the Wildlife Society planting native
shrubs, putting up bird boxes, etc. That all went under the pavement for
the mall. I don't think the Univeristy gives a rap about habitat and/or
aesthetics.
Speaking of which, I would much rather have habitat than beauty strips.
For instance, I would rather ask people like Rosauer's and tri-state to
spend their beauty money on someplace like the Paradise Creek
restoration than on a few trees along the Pullman highway. The problem
of course is that they are required to do neither.
Cheers,
Lisa