[MAIPC] MAIPC Digest, Vol 49, Issue 4
Richard Gardner
rtgardner3 at yahoo.com
Thu Nov 5 03:11:28 PST 2015
Turn bamboo removal into a community service. Perhaps even get the local garden club involved because of the many uses for cut bamboo in yards and gardens. We use cut and dried bamboo for trellises in the vegetable garden. It can be used for irrigation pipes, bee houses, wind chimes (ugghh!) and many other purposes. Schools and community centers can use it in unique art projects. Maybe the local SCA chapter (kingdom, fiefdom?) can be convinced to become Asia centered instead of Europe centered in some of its events and make bamboo body armor, ... from it. Suggest the local organic food stores harvest the young shoots for eating. These are a few of the many ways bamboo can be used as it is removed and in some cases be turned into a profit.
Richard Gardner
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 11/4/15, tomnjan2 at comcast.net <tomnjan2 at comcast.net> wrote:
Subject: Re: [MAIPC] MAIPC Digest, Vol 49, Issue 4
To: "Greg Johnson" <gjohnsonconsulting at gmail.com>
Cc: maipc at lists.maipc.org
Date: Wednesday, November 4, 2015, 11:43 PM
Clearly,
it doesn't grow anywhere near any of his investment
properties. I wonder if he's familiar with the potential
property mortgage harm that invasives present in the
UK. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-3074709/ I've
discussed bamboo, specifically, with our state legislature
representative because he's personally familiar with
coping. My suggestion was to introduce a change to the
Maryland real estate listing requirements for any property,
that is that the listing clearly state that the property has
bamboo growing. While it might not matter to a mortgage
company yet, it could impact the selling price and at least
give the buyer some heads up on what else they're
buying. The government wouldn't be forcing a property
owner to remove or mitigate, but if the owner thought it
would affect the selling value then I believe we would start
to see voluntary bamboo removal.
Jan SteinerFrom: "Greg
Johnson" <gjohnsonconsulting at gmail.com>
To: maipc at lists.maipc.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 9:06:10 AM
Subject: Re: [MAIPC] MAIPC Digest, Vol 49, Issue 4
It really is a social war.
On Nov 4, 2015 8:00
AM, <maipc-request at lists.maipc.org>
wrote:
Send
MAIPC mailing list submissions to
maipc at lists.maipc.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.maipc.org/listinfo.cgi/maipc-maipc.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body
'help' to
maipc-request at lists.maipc.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
maipc-owner at lists.maipc.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
specific
than "Re: Contents of MAIPC digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Response to lobbyist post to MMG to oppose
bamboo control
regs (HTI Gmail)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 09:00:45 -0500
From: HTI Gmail <historictimekeepers at gmail.com>
To: "maipc at lists.maipc.org"
<maipc at lists.maipc.org>
Subject: [MAIPC] Response to lobbyist post to MMG to oppose
bamboo
control regs
Message-ID: <563A0F8D.2000502 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8";
Format="flowed"
Below is my response and the post that prompted my response
to a Mr.
Parrish. I am also going to send it to MAIPC. It was sent to
the
Maryland Master Gardner list.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I happened to see Mr. Parrish's post and felt compelled
to set the
record straight.
Mr. Parrish is simply on the wrong side of this issue.
He claims to be
concerned about the rights of property owners, when in fact
he is only
concerned about the rights of a select few. How does
he protect MY
rights to not have an adjoining neighbor's invasive
plants escape onto
my property? Who pays for the damage done to MY
property?
The inconsistency aside, it is apparent Mr. Parrish does not
understand
the impact of non-native invasive plant species, nor I am
sure he even
understands the difference between invasive and non-invasive
plants.
Many non-native ornamental plants are not invasive:
They do not
aggressively disperse and then displace native plants if
they escape
into the wild. Bills such as the one proposed address
plants considered
INVASIVE. In fact, state legislatures such as
Connecticut have been
enacting legislation that proscribes the sale and import of
plants that
have been added to a list after a process that includes
nurserymen,
ecologists and landowners.
Perhaps Mr. Parrish does not travel much in the backcountry
where plants
like Japanese Barberry has taken hold after being dispersed
by birds.
Such plants raise the pH of the forest floor (making it less
hospitable
to forest plants), out compete native plants like Mountain
Laurel and
remove a food and nesting source for insects and larger
wildlife from
the habitat. See attached photo.
Bamboo stands, barberry, and tree of heaven infestations can
be found
throughout the Mid Atlantic forest.
The National Park Service spends millions of dollars each
year
eliminating invasive plants that escape from home
landscapes. This
money could be better spent on programmatic
activities. How does Mr.
Parrish account for those costs? Why should MY tax
dollars go to
controlling a problem HE wants to perpetuate simply because
he fears he
or his clients can be held accountable? I happen to think
personal
accountability is a cornerstone of community.
Regards,
Dewey Clark, Ph.D.
Club Naturalist
Co-District Manager (PA)
Potomac Appalachian Trail Club
Maryland Master Naturalist
>
>
>
>
> Subject: Baltimore
County's BAMBOOzle
> Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 12:54:05
-0500
> From: Ian Parrish <president at investorsunited.com>
> To: umebaltimorecountymg at umd.edu
>
>
>
> Hi John,
>
> Good talking with you last week. As promised,
here's a copy of Baltimore
> County Bill 81-15, the bamboo bill, introduced by
Councilman Wade Kach:
>
<http://resources.baltimorecountymd.gov/Documents/CountyCouncil/bills%202015/b08115.pdf>http://resources.baltimorecountymd.gov/Documents/CountyCouncil/bills%202015/b08115.pdf.
> It's a silly but irksome little bill. I
had hoped that the Extension
> would have been consulted on this, so when I
found out that they hadn't,
> I wrote the brief below. Feel free to use
it in part or in whole as you
> see fit. I look forward to talking with you
again, soon.
>
> Ian
>
> ===
> In a nutshell, Baltimore County Bill 81-15, the
bamboo bill introduced
> by Councilman Wade Kach,bans all species of
bamboo within 20 yards of a
> property line, even species with clumping roots
that don't spread
> rapidly. It also appears to ban bamboo even if
it's contained in a
> planter, even if a root barrier is used, and even
in if two neighbors
> sharing a property line enjoy it as a landscaping
feature. If
> Councilman Kach has his way, Baltimore County
property owners in
> violation can be fined up to $1,000 per day.
>
> The real estate owners and developers in the
Investors United network
> which I represent OPPOSE Bill 81-15 for several
reasons, the most
> significant of which is that the bill infringes
on private property
> rights. The bill also fails to respect due
process inasmuch as legal
> remedies are already in place for citizens with a
grievance against a
> neighbor's land use. Also in place for use by
citizens are the valuable
> resources for dealing with invasive species
offered by the University of
> MD Extension, the agency of record for such
issues; the councilman would
> have known about those resources had he not
failed to consult with the
> Extension prior to his introduction of this
drastic measure. (The MD
> Emergency Response Pan for Invasive Forest Pests
is another such
> resource, among others.) Perhaps the worst
part of this bill is that it
> disproportionately penalizes the disabled, the
elderly, the poor, and
> those who might not even be aware of the presence
of bamboo on their
> property. Ironically, Baltimore County itself is
likely to be one of the
> worst violators of all, thereby penalizing
taxpayers even further.
> Finally, the bill sets a precedent for the ban of
dozens of plant
> species which, while classified as
"invasive", are also manageable with
> the proper education - just like bamboo.
>
> Therefore, weencourage our Baltimore County
friends and neighbors to
> contact Councilman Kach's office and to
instruct their County Council
> representatives to OPPOSE this bill. As of
today, it is scheduled for a
> vote on Monday 11/16 at 6pm.
>
> Ian Parrish, President
> Investors United
> ===
>
>
>
>
>
Regards,
Dewey Clark
Club Naturalist
Co-District Manager (PA)
Potomac Appalachian Trail Club
Maryland Master Naturalist
--
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IMG_20130824_095257_656(1).jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 293111 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.maipc.org/pipermail/maipc-maipc.org/attachments/20151104/7dc686f7/attachment.jpg>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
MAIPC mailing list
MAIPC at lists.maipc.org
http://lists.maipc.org/listinfo.cgi/maipc-maipc.org
------------------------------
End of MAIPC Digest, Vol 49, Issue 4
************************************
_______________________________________________
MAIPC mailing list
MAIPC at lists.maipc.org
http://lists.maipc.org/listinfo.cgi/maipc-maipc.org
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
MAIPC mailing list
MAIPC at lists.maipc.org
http://lists.maipc.org/listinfo.cgi/maipc-maipc.org
More information about the MAIPC
mailing list