[Patrick_Mucci]

That's right Pat...lets have a race to the bottom with China....lets see just how far we can go in deregulating and "unburdening" industry of all those troublesome environmental regs...

Mark my words.
Governments in the U.S., Federal, State, County and municipal will ease off their burdensome regulations over the next four or more years, or they'll suffer more dire consequences as a result of not being prudent.

like you, I enjoy drinking water laced with lead and arsenic...like you, I enjoy a lung full of steel mill pollution...yep, and I love my fish dinner filled with mercury...I love it, because no matter what, I can play golf on a course with water hazards....

It's typical of rigid, unreasonable environmentalists such as yourself to resort to extreme and ridiculous examples.  That's the only way you feel you can defend your radical positions.

Could you, or rather, can you answer the question I posed to you regarding the specific damage to the environment caused by the golf courses I cited.

Next you'll be blaming Bush for all the Radon gas that occurs naturally in the environment that's seeped into homes.

There are prudent environmental regulations and there are extreme and unreasonble environmental regulations.

You support them all,
Whereas, I support the prudent and reasonable environmental regulations.

Margaret Thatcher was a moron...deregulation led to higher energy cost in GB...just as it has here.

Comparing her career and her achievements to yours, how do you think she fared ?

What's the highest level of office you're ever held in the public or private sector ?

How would you compare yourself to Margaret Thatcher's accomplishments in the private and public sector ?
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat..why don't you respond to the actual case at hand...the Yale Farm...what problems do you have with the proposed "restrictions" in the permit? Please be specific and give me some science behind your response.

I answered that question already,

Now why don't you answer the question I posed relative to the courses I cited, Baltusrol, Merion, ANGC, Seminole and WFW.

[Craig Sweet]

You are right Pat..it is extreme to want clean water and air...by the way, even though we have burdensome regulations, arsenic, lead, mercury, etc, are STILL getting into the air you and I breath and the water we drink...and the "environment" is still blamed for many of the cancer illnesses.

Margaret Thatcher deregulated and it was a total failure....please tell me where she was a success.

[corey miller]

Wasn't this the project that was already delayed because they found a "special" frog a few miles away? 

[Steve Curry]

Hi Jim,

Food is good, true but doesn't excuse practices that are laking in sensible practice.  And by the same token increased economic base puts food on the table for some.  The problem is that many involved do not truly have the environment as a priority but rather are driven to stop the golf course.  This kind of blindness leads is bad for the cause.

Steve

[Jim_Kennedy]

Steve,
I think the concerns for the environment/water/fish/etc. are valid, and if the development can answer them in the positive it will get an approval.   

The other motives are personal and have no bearing on the rest of us, it's basically a battle between The Haves and The Haves. Both sides are driven by more than the environment, one wants golf, the other wants their privacy left intact.

[Patrick_Mucci]

You are right Pat..it is extreme to want clean water and air...


Another in a long line of absurd statements from you.
Everyone wants clean water and air.
But, when agencies go to extremes to produce clean air and clean water, those regulations have to be revised to a prudent standard.
You however, support every environmental regulation, irrespective of its merits, legitimacy, reasonableness and practicality.

by the way, even though we have burdensome regulations, arsenic, lead, mercury, etc, are STILL getting into the air you and I breath and the water we drink...and the "environment" is still blamed for many of the cancer illnesses.

Carcinogens are rightfully to blame for a number of cancers, but, perhaps blaming them has become the easier, legal, financial fix, rather than having to deal with a more potentially subjective cause such as genetic predisposition.

Nobody wants to unduely expose people, especially children to carcinogens.
Asbestos, a natural occuring mineral was first thought to have many beneficial applications, including fire retardation, hence, it was used in many schools and places where people congregated.  Should Asbestos be banned ?  Absolutely.  But, should a private school have been given a mandate to eliminate all Asbestos in six months at the cost of millions of dollars, causing the school to close ?  Or, should a more practical
plan for Asbestos removal been proposed, allowing the school to continue, while teachers and staff kept their jobs ?  Especially, when no cases of Asbestos related illnesses had ever been reported amongst current and former students and teachers.

Zealous environmentalists, like yourself, have a tendency to ignore the history and evolving use of asbestos, arsenic, lead and mercury, choosing to isolate  their existance and use solely in a 21st Century context, thereby ignoring the thousands of years of history and use of these elements.

For centuries, lead was used for piping and plumbing by people who were totally unaware of the unintended consequences.  Should lead pipes be replaced ?  Absolutely.  Should it be mandated that they be replaced overnight at an excessively high cost, or, should a prudent replacement policy be put into effect ?  You tend to side with the former while I tend to side with the latter.

Margaret Thatcher deregulated and it was a total failure....please tell me where she was a success.

You can't be that obtuse or ignorant, can you ?

The woman had a remarkably distinquished 40 year career in politics.
She was well educated and quite accomplished, despite the fact that you labeled her as a "moron".

Your allegation that her desire to deregulate was a failure isn't borne out by the facts, which never seems to get in your way.

I keep asking you and you keep ducking the question.

How specifically has the streams at Merion, Seminole, WFW, ANGC and Baltusrol harmed the environment.

Why are you unable to address and answer the question ?

Could it be, because they haven't ?

Enter Yale Farms, stage left.

Have you played golf with Roland Betts and discussed issues such as this and other golf related issues ?

[Craig Sweet]

Pat you said

"I keep asking you and you keep ducking the question.

How specifically has the streams at Merion, Seminole, WFW, ANGC and Baltusrol harmed the environment.

Why are you unable to address and answer the question ?"

Pat, I can't answer that question because I have no data to form a "specific" answer....NOR DO YOU.....unless of course you have participated in a scientific study of the water ways on, and downstream, from the courses you mentioned...

I will say this, if you think there has been zero impact you would be wrong....then the question is one of "to what degree" have they harmed the environment....

As you know, there is no "one size fits all" when it comes to mitigating the impacts from development....conditions (a far better word, and a more accurate word than "restrictions")  for approval have to be crafted given the situation and the anticipated results from the development...

[Craig Sweet]

"Zealous environmentalists, like yourself, have a tendency to ignore the history and evolving use of asbestos,"

That is precious Pat...especially when W.R, Grace knew asbestos was deadly back in the 70's and never told their workers....

And Pat, people have known that lead was a serious health issue for 100 years, yet you are shocked that in 2009 people expect swift action to remove lead from the environment?

When people are dying and a company keeps quiet about its role in those deaths....there is NOTHING zealous or extreme about demanding an immediate shut down and action

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat you said

"I keep asking you and you keep ducking the question.

How specifically has the streams at Merion, Seminole, WFW, ANGC and Baltusrol harmed the environment.

Why are you unable to address and answer the question ?"

Pat, I can't answer that question because I have no data to form a "specific" answer....NOR DO YOU.....unless of course you have participated in a scientific study of the water ways on, and downstream, from the courses you mentioned...

I'm not the one claiming that they've harmed the environment vis a vis mercury, arsenic and lead contamination.  YOU ARE.  So prove it in the courses I cited.

I don't have to have been a participant in a scientific study of those waterways anymore than I have to be a participant in a scientific study of Neil Armstrong's landing on the moon to prove that Apollo 11 was successful. 

Municipalities, Counties, States, the Federal Government and their designated agencies routinely and regularly test those waterways.
If there were any contaminents, originating from the golf course the club would have been notified of the violations.  The club would have had to remedy the situation and the media would have published same.

Can you provide any substantiation to your claim that the waterways mentioned have harmed the environment over these last 90 years or so ?

Can you provide the studies that detail the harm done by those waterways over the last 90 years or so ?

I will say this, if you think there has been zero impact you would be wrong....then the question is one of "to what degree" have they harmed the environment....

There you go with your EXTREMES again, using zero impact as your benchmark.  Rainwater has more than a zero impact. Should we therefore ban all rainfall ?

Use the term "substantive" impact

As you know, there is no "one size fits all" when it comes to mitigating the impacts from development....conditions (a far better word, and a more accurate word than "restrictions")  for approval have to be crafted given the situation and the anticipated results from the development...

Agreed, each situation has its own set of facts and circumstances, including the political element.

You can't justify environmentalists ILLEGALLY trespassing and planting false evidence on a site, resulting in the halting of the project, costing the developers a fortune and depriving the ultimate user of the enjoyment of the project.

While that's an extreme, there are other less extreme tactics aimed at the same result

As I stated previously, you seem to blindly and blanketly support every environmental regulation whereas I tend to support prudent regulations.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Zealous environmentalists, like yourself, have a tendency to ignore the history and evolving use of asbestos,"

That is precious Pat...especially when W.R, Grace knew asbestos was deadly back in the 70's and never told their workers....

Whom at W.R. Grace knew it, and when did they know it ?
And, how do you know that they never told workers ?

And Pat, people have known that lead was a serious health issue for 100 years, yet you are shocked that in 2009 people expect swift action to remove lead from the environment?

That's correct.
Let's take an example of an 80 year old building in NYC.
Why should they be required to repipe the entire building by next tuesday ?
Should they have to replace the lead pipes, yes, but, in a prudent time frame, unless, the environmental agency wants to buy the building at market cost and redo the piping themselves.  There has to be a reasonable man standard and application, which appears to be contrary to your views.

When people are dying and a company keeps quiet about its role in those deaths....there is NOTHING zealous or extreme about demanding an immediate shut down and action.

It's amazing how you imply devine knowledge on the part of individuals within a company with respect to attribution of cause of death.

How does a company determine its role in "cause of death" if they're not privy to the autopsy and medical records of the decedent ?

You're so quick to automatically blame nameless company employees for every malady known to man, that's your modus operandi.

I'd prefer to obtain the facts and make a prudent determination of cause and effect.

[Craig Sweet]

Wow Pat, as usual you jump to illogical and wrong conclusions as you jump from topic to topic...god, you even go off on extreme environmentalist trespassing and planting false evidence...as if they were some sort of Bush administration war mongers...

I never said that ANY golf course was responsible for putting arsenic, lead, etc, into water ways and groundwater...though I am sure many have....

I have tried to keep this on subject...the Yale Farm project, yet you want to talk about merion, augusta, etc...as if to say merion does not pollute, so no golf course development will pollute....even though you claim that you agree, one size does not fit all....

Is the groundwater and streams near Merion tested?  I have no idea, and I will not assume the state does any kind of monitoring...

But back to Yale Farm...your first posts were all about restrictions and you even made the statement that some future golf courses could not be built due to these restrictions....

So, I will ask you once again...specifically, which Yale Farm "restrictions" do you find extreme?

[Craig Sweet]

You like facts Pat?

So if I tell you officials at Grace have been convicted of covering up their knowledge of asbestos will you accept that as fact?  Look it up.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Craig Sweet,

If you'll take the time to review the posts on this thread you'll see where I already answered your question.

Now, will you answer the question about the waterways at ANGC, WFW, Baltusrol, Seminole and Merion.  After all, those courses have been there for about 100 years, surely there must be some facts to support your wild claims.

If you can't provide one iota of substantive evidence that those waterways have harmed the environment then why do you assume that Yale Farms waterways will harm the environment.

What you continually miss in this exchange is the impact to GCA vis a vis the prohibition against incorporating waterways in hole designs.

Imagine the impact on # 1 and # 18 at TOC if the setback provisions were the law of the land.  What harm has TOC had on Swilcan Burn and the environment ?

The impact on # 11, # 12, # 13, # 15 and # 16 at ANGC.

[Craig Sweet]

Pat Mucci...

No...what YOU are missing is every development is different with different impacts and conditions.  We are not talking about  Merion or Augusta.

The DEP in CT has put forward conditions for development at Yale Farm.  I asked you to comment, but you would rather talk about Augusta.

What in those conditions are preventing that golf course from being built and incorporating water hazards and the waterway in its design?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat Mucci...

No...what YOU are missing is every development is different with different impacts and conditions.  We are not talking about  Merion or Augusta.

The DEP in CT has put forward conditions for development at Yale Farm.  I asked you to comment, but you would rather talk about Augusta.

What in those conditions are preventing that golf course from being built and incorporating water hazards and the waterway in its design?

I already addressed and answered that question.

Since you were too lazy to go back and reread the posts, I'll provide you with a hint.  See reply # 12.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()