They paved paradise and put in a 10-lane superhighway?

By Vince Meserko

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

I remember a few years ago I had to write an 800-word essay on an Allen Ginsberg poem called “My Sad Self.” Ginsberg seemed like a weird, depressed dude and after three hours staring blankly at the page I was feeling pretty weird and depressed myself. While on the verge of tears, it finally clicked with me. I was over-complicating things. Ginsberg’s poem was reflecting the importance of a place — the narrator’s home. This was easy. Ginsberg was telling the reader, in a non-overt way, why New York City matters; why the narrator should leave it behind, why he should love it and why the reader should even care in the first place. It wasn’t any more difficult than that. It was poetry from the gut, and it hit me hard.

It’s the same sort of reflection I found in reading the poetry of the Wakarusa Wetlands, which I guess is sort of like New York City for the Great Plains Skink or the Smallmouth Salamander. I’ve never been particularly interested in animals. I used to have some goldfish growing up, and for a brief period of time I held a small snapping turtle captive in our front yard. When I see a report in the New York Times on endangered wildlife I get a little sad … but I'm not devastated. When a historian lectures me on biodiversity I zone out. I’m willing to bet others have a similar reaction.

“So they want to build a highway through the wetlands? Sounds good to me. Lawrence traffic sucks dude. Let’s go lift some weights.” That may well be a typical reaction from a typical college student.

This is where the poetry comes in. Here’s one example of the poetry that has been so connected to the “save the wetlands” campaign. Others can be found in the book "Wakarusa Wetlands in Words & Image." Read this and reflect:

Roadkill

If you can’t put a bullet
    through it, put a road
    through it: that killing
    only takes a little longer.
    Name the road after what you destroy:
    Haskell Highway
    or Wetlands Expressway
    The Wildlife?
    They’ll be fine, stuffed
    behind glass
    in the steel and concrete
    Nature Center, soundproofed
    from the road’s roar.
    The spirits? Who
    believes that claptrap anyway.
    not with a gun but
    a bulldozer.
    shoot, shoot.

    —Brian Daldorph

Daldorph is throwing daggers, and I can feel it. The final line is brilliant. Daldorph’s poem hits me the same way Ginsberg’s did. It makes me feel the magic of a place and why it’s worth saving. You don’t have to be a committed environmentalist to be moved by it. Like Ginsberg’s poem, the message is not overly complex. It’s simple and makes a point.

The poem is also apolitical, poignant and relevant. In others words, it represents a different type of way to talk about the environment in public. Poetry like Daldorph’s offers a competing narrative to the divisive political sparring that bogs down far too many discussions on environmental topics. In the words of Robert Frost, “poetry is what gets lost in translation.” People want to see and feel something. There’s a reason why everyone knows Joni Mitchell’s “Big Yellow Taxi” (”they paved paradise and put up a parking lot”), but can’t quote carbon dioxide emission regulations or fuel economy standards. There’s a simple resonance to Mitchell’s words; the same resonance found in "Wakarusa Wetlands in Word & Image." (Edited by Dennis Low, 2005. The book can be purchased through the Oread Books, The LAC, or The Raven for $24.95)

A newspaper story loaded with numbers and jargon is just too distant — irrelevant even. There’s a place for factual regurgitation, but it’s not likely to connect with people the same way a verse of poetry does. Poetry is a small way to combat labels like “treehugger,” animal lover, hippie, and lunatic—labels that trivialize our relationship with nature. With Daldorph’s poem you’re none of those. You’re just a human being and sometimes that’s enough.

-Vince Meserko

The idea for Fresh Green Beans grew out of a Journalism class at KU taught by renowned journalist and environmental activist Simran Sethi. The authors are group of diverse students and Lawrencians who share a motivation to take global issues and provide a means to act on them locally. If you have an idea or submission for this blog, please post it below or email us. And thanks for reading!

Lawrence.com blogs are collections of short, frequently updated posts by members of the Lawrence community. Blog writers, and comment posters, are solely responsible for what they say. (Please take the time to read our full policy.)

If you're interested in writing a blog on lawrence.com, send us a couple of sample entries.

Comments

lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy

Posted by mitzibel (Misty Nuckolls) on May 6, 2008 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is a spiffy blog concept, and a beautifully-written blog. Welcome aboard!

I tend to write off most poetry as unimportant and self-involved, mostly because I spent more than a few years thinking I was a poet. (Glad I grew out of that.) You've made me re-think that a little, at least for the time I spent reading this blog. Thanks for that.

Posted by smerdyakov (anonymous) on May 6, 2008 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is pretty pathetic that this town could oppose a thing for 30+ years and yet our public servants still figure out a way to push it thru (that story makes it sound like it's inevitable now anyway).

Anyone who's spent more than a few quiet moments out there among the wildlife — and there's no small amount — would have to be heartless bastards to approve a highway over it. People spend so much time shut indoors in front of computers, TVs, and video games that they've lost all appreciation and respect for nature.

A more southern route would seem both less destructive and more forward-thinking... if slightly more expensive. The way Lawrence is growing, the proposed route thru the wetlands isn't going to be a route AROUND town for very long. It was only a couple decades ago that 23rd Street was pretty much the route around town...

Posted by mitzibel (Misty Nuckolls) on May 6, 2008 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

smerd---that last paragraph. Oh so very much YES.

Posted by OtherJoel (anonymous) on May 6, 2008 at 8:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is the traffic on 23rd really that bad? Granted I'm rarely there during the peak of rush hour (I do drive it quite a bit, though); to me it just seems like a normal major road for smallish city. I think there is an argument to be made that further trafficways will just enable sprawl and expand the JoCo West element that already exists in parts of Lawrence.

If you want JoCo, my house in Olathe will be on the market soon (along with LOTS of others). And despite the talk I hear from Lawrence residents, there are several neighborhoods here that are actually cheaper.

Posted by DOTDOT (anonymous) on May 6, 2008 at 10:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One man's enable sprawl is another man's promote development. (Corralary: the house you live in is another generation's sprawl).

I agree that the current route will ultimately be a commercial strip with typical just out of town type businesses, and NOT a bypass. Trailer parks, RV dealerships, junk yards, tittie bars, and meth distribution warehousing.

Even if the road is not built, I haven't seen any guarantee that the land around the wetlands would be protected from development. Once the wetlands are boxed in, their fate will be tenuous at best. Kind of like nobody I've met in Lawrence is quite sure where Elkins Praire was.

What I mean to say, Vince, is that the trivialization of our relationship with nature goes deeper than name calling. It is product of generations of poor quality dissemination and propogandic sensationalism. On both sides (Money v. Righteous Indignation). Solving that is key.

Posted by smerdyakov (anonymous) on May 7, 2008 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DOTDOT, sounds like you support the proposed route even though you think it will enable undesirable development? Or what's your idea of "solving"?

Just pulling this out of my ass, but seems to me that an SLT route south of the Wakarusa River would preserve the wetlands as a park, wildlife refuge, native spiritual sanctuary, and so on, as well acknowledge the likely inevitable need for a bypass further south than the current traffic flow (ie 31st and 23rd street).

Posted by jtransue (anonymous) on May 7, 2008 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lawrence is my home, and I love it. But we never seem to "get it" when it comes to solving city-wide problems.

When the T was first developed, residents complained that the bus stops were taking up their parking spaces. And now their solution to congested traffic is to build another major road? Seems a little more than short sighted to me, especially in this time of high gas prices and an increased desire to conserve natural resources.

Building this trafficway is a 30 year old concept. The "now" solution to congested traffic on 23rd and 31st is to find other ways of getting around town other than driving. Divorce your car! Increase bus flow through those areas and create incentives for bus riders. Create bike lanes; in a state that is so flat, biking across town is a piece of cake!

This traffic way is old news, Lawrence, live in the "now".

Posted by DOTDOT (anonymous) on May 7, 2008 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"DOTDOT, sounds like you support the proposed route even though you think it will enable undesirable development? Or what's your idea of "solving"?"

I could probably re-phrase my whole comment, but if you didn't get it the first time, then you won't get it the second. I'm not sure how it could have be construed to mean I support the proposed route, though.

But your comment on my comment makes my point in an offbeat skewed kind of way. People keep throwing words back and forth, and, for the most part, put as much effort into the logic of what they are saying as they put into listening to others.

Carbon footprint, baby.

Posted by md_pinks (anonymous) on May 7, 2008 at 6:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Impetus

Justification, the means are the end
Doctrine and dogma, I will not relent
This world a garden in need of such weeding
This world a minefield in need of such sweeping

This ministration without full consent
Fire and brimstone, I will not relent
Just as all good things must come to an end
I will administer as I see fit

I will not relent
I will not relent
I will not relent
I am driven

Impetus

I am driven
---------------------------------------------

Seems to me like the meaning to this poetry is rolling more in the SLT's favor rather than the citizens of Lawrence who want to fight it.

Has anyone seen any sort of rally, lobbying, or any organization outside of savethewetlands.org protesting this action?

Perhaps if we as a city came together in such ways we wouldn't have to waste time blogging about it and actually do something to prevent the destruction of yet another beautiful part of Lawrence.

It would also be nice if it was more than just the few of us here talking about it....

Posted by smerdyakov (anonymous) on May 8, 2008 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Point taken DOTDOT—I guess I interpreted your critique of Vince's blog...

>
What I mean to say, Vince, is that the trivialization of our relationship with nature goes deeper than name calling.
<

...and the lack of an definitive opinion either way as tacit support for the proposed route. What you say (in both comments) makes sense... I'm still curious as to what "solving" means to you? I mean, after we've heard and understood each other's ultimately incompatible points of view, what solution should we implement?

pinks—in my time here (since '95) I've seen many loosely organized groups protest the SLT besides the one you mention. The Critical Mass movement comes to mind, and sign-holders at various times down by the courthouse.

Posted by DOTDOT (anonymous) on May 8, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

smerd (been meaning to ask you if this is a Karamozov reference),

Let's look at the meaning of the word "support." I'm not from here. So many people have history with this SLT v swamp issue, but I'm not one of them. I'm an outsider looking in and trying to understand the issues. My aggravation with both sides is that the issues are articulated propogandically and it has been beyond me to sort through the bullshit.

Issue one - build it or not?
As an outsider who happens to have grown up in Florida, I am an expert in the effects of shitty development and an absence of long range planning. One of my favorite applications of this experience is the ability to see the future of ill-conceived roads. I call it RODAR. I think this road is ill-conceived because it is based on 70s planning. The rest of the trafficway was ill-conceived too, so you (or your parents) allowed that one to be almost built, so don't talk to me about tacit approval. But isn't it a lesson in the futility of long range planning? If the studies done 30 years ago are no good now, how would any studies we do play 30 years from now?

Issue two a - protect the wetlands
Always a good idea. But why is it only an issue against the impending road?

Issue two b - protect the sanctity of Native American tradition.
Same argument. Absolutely. If these are Sacred Ground, then I expect an initiative from the Native American community to acquire and protect these grounds. All I've heard in the debate are white people calling each other stupid and racist.

What I read is people arguing for the wetlands, but using the long range planning argument against the SLT, and/or some other confusing mish-mash of rhetorical desperation to make themselves feel better.

To be clear:
1) I have less against the road than I do against the non-existent long range planning.

2) I think we should give ALL the land back to the Native American community. That includes your house and my house. That way we can feel good all the time, and NOT just when there is a road to be built. Seriously, any other celebration of Native American rights is half hearted, opportunistic, condescending, and, well, RACIST.

3) Environmental preservation is critical, so I "support" no roads at all. Ever. No new development, Jobs, and especially NO NEW PEOPLE. This the only answer.

4) Traffic on 23rd? I'm not even going to say anything about this. Ya'll don't know from traffic. Oops. I wasn't going to say it.

Posted by md_pinks (anonymous) on May 8, 2008 at 5:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'll have to agree with you DOT, traffic on 23rd is damn near non existent when compared to that of other cities. Dallas comes to mind, where I'm sure about 50% of Kansas drivers would have a heart attack at the wheel.

As for the Native American issue in regards to the wet lands and the SLT, it seems to be another way to attach drive to pushing against the development (in anyway) of the land in question. Doesn't seem to be helping though in regards to getting people take action to prevent it.

Bottom line is the people that care about issues like this these days don't (or can't in various ways) travel the correct avenues to fight back.

Very unfortunate.

Posted by OtherJoel (anonymous) on May 8, 2008 at 6:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yep. Basically sayin' #4 DOTDOT/md_pinks. Try traveling east or north in JoCo at 7:45 am. And plenty have it even worse. Basically the main traffic problem I see on 23rd are stoned college kids who won't go for ten seconds after the light turns.

Posted by vincemm (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks everyone for responding to the inaugural post.

Pinks - what exactly are the "correct avenues" for the people to care about this to follow? The opposition to this project has been pretty fierce for the past 15 years or so when the project was first being threatened. I would imagine the SLT would have been built by now if the opposition was contained to only a small grassroots organization with little support. "Wasting time blogging about it" can in fact be a way of organizing for future action and can at least help put it on the agenda for others to think about. Blogging (and poetry for that matter) can trigger discussion, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. You can't protest something you're not aware of.

DOT - I'd like to know more about the Florida development issues you mentioned. I did another project for our class on the music of a swamp-funk band from north Florida called MOFRO who have been pretty vocal about development plans near Lake Lochloosa. Are you at all familiar with that project?

Also, I agree with your argument that recognizing the long-term ramifications of the plan should definitely become a part of the conversation. It can also help combat "city vs. the environmentalists" theme that can often be the running narrative for conflicts like this.

Posted by DOTDOT (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 10:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Vince:

I'm not much of a fisherman, and it's been awhile since I lived in FL, but I'm surprised to hear about Lake Lochloosa. I am not familiar with the project, but that is the area of "The Yearling". Cross Creek connects Lake Orange with Lake Lochloosa. I gots a bit of a catch in ma throat.

Regarding long range planning, one doesn't have to throw a rock too far in Lawrence to hit a patch of grass growing up through asphalt in the parking lot of an abandoned component of somebody's long range plan. The first successful thriving business establishment you see when exiting the turnpike and driving into North Lawrence is a tittie bar. Over development on the South end is showing its effects. Property owners don't even have the self respect to keep the damn weeds down around the very locations they are trying to lease. Planning necessarily involves factoring in the vagaries of private developers. Who knows who they are or who they will sell out to when the time is right?

I'm not an expert on East Lawrence, but even with the traffic volume on 23rd, the eastern leg is riddled with shut downs, while many of the businesses between Iowa and Mass depend on volume. I seriously don't see the logic in diverting traffic away from taxpaying businesses, and moving it out into the farmland.

If there is a future plan, I haven't seen it, but from what I see around here, I wouldn't trust it if I did. Areas of commerce are already claimed. My view says cultivate those before we pave any more.

Posted by md_pinks (anonymous) on May 14, 2008 at 12:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Vince - the "correct avenues" was a bad phrase, I apologize for that.

What I'm talking about is getting people to go vote (on the small scale, we won't even get started on the big one!), sign petitions, blog with us, e-mail their senator, things of this nature.

Basically more group movement towards getting things done in avenues a construction team, a development team, and our state, county, and city government can't ignore. That too, is also another topic altogether though..

They paved paradise and put in a 10-lane superhighway?

Comments

Post a comment