Progress Beset with Disappointment
The last several weeks have witnessed considerable activity concerning gasoline stations in Louisville.* After the Louisville Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of a Murphy Express gasoline station and convenience store along McCaslin Boulevard, I launched a citizens’ initiative to prohibit the construction of new gasoline stations in Louisville. On morning of 18 October, I submitted this initiative’s petition to the City clerk for approval. Towards the end of that night’s City Council meeting, City Council decided to consider an emergency moratorium on new gasoline station applications at its next meeting. At that meeting on 1 November, City Council enacted an emergency moratorium on new land-use applications for gasoline stations. (Since its developer had already submitted the relevant land-use application, this moratorium exempted the Murphy Express.) Two weeks later, despite letters, comments, and a protest in opposition, City Council approved the Murphy Express in a split vote. Needless to say, City Council’s approval of the Murphy Express disappointed me immensely.
I was disappointed in City Council’s disregard for Louisville’s Comprehensive Plan and McCaslin Boulevard Small Area Plan. (Not every City Council member disregarded these plans.) As I explained in a previous blog post, the Murphy Express application is subject to the Planned Unit Development criteria of Louisville’s municipal code. One PUD criterion states that such a development “shall be in accordance with the adopted elements of the comprehensive development plan of the City”. As I also explained in that previous blog post, there are strong arguments that the Murphy Express does not accord with several elements of the Comprehensive and McCaslin Boulevard Small Area Plans. While City Council gave some consideration to the Murphy Express’ accordance with some of these elements, our City’s development plans did not prevail. I will write further about these deliberations elsewhere.
I was also disappointed in myself for making unusually lackluster comments before City Council. Between preparations for and participation in the protest, I did not set aside sufficient time to draft compelling comments. The fantastic—and fantastically moving—comments from several local high school students buoyed my mood until the direction of City Council’s deliberations became clear. Later that night while mulling over City Council’s decision, I thought of what I might have said.
The night before the City Council meeting, the indigenous climate activist Ava Hamilton spoke at the Louisville Center for the Arts. Without delving into the details, I especially appreciated her emphasis on science guiding our response to climate change, no matter our level of scientific training or expertise. After her presentation Hamilton entertained and answered questions from her audience. One woman—after attesting to her inability to purge her aspirations to protect the environment despite her sense of repeated failures to make a difference—asked Hamilton to suggest substantive actions that we could all take to mitigate climate change. I, of course, share this woman’s aspirations and, at times, her sense of failure. Her question, however, belies a misconception, a misconception, which, I suspect, is widespread precisely owing to this sense of failure: our lack of success in averting climate change and our lack of progress in mitigating climate change do not stem from a lack of understanding of the necessary actions. Quite the contrary, we knew how to avert crisis from climate change, and we know how to avert further crisis from climate change. For decades scientists have proposed, studied, and demonstrated safeguards and solutions, but we have failed to implement these actions, at least on the necessary scales, for a variety of reasons. (I do not mean to imply that we have worked out every last detail of these safeguards and solutions.)
The abandonment of fossil fuels tops the list of safeguards and solutions. We could have started to drawn down our usage of fossil fuels decades ago; instead, we have entrenched and expanded our fossil fuel usage. Since we failed to heed the scientific consensus then, we now cannot instantaneously abandon fossil fuels without major socioeconomic repercussions. As the International Energy Agency has advised, though, we can and must immediately halt new investment in and development of fossil fuels. ‘Business as usual’—like the construction of new gasoline stations—is not merely no longer acceptable, but even no longer compatible with a reasonably safe, future climate. As the United Nations’ report The Closing Window explains, we must implement transformational changes in the next several years to avert catastrophic climate breakdown. If this situation does not impart us with a moral and ethical imperative to act, then what else will?
I was further disappointed that City Council did not employ Louisville’s municipal code as a means to exercise this moral and ethical imperative. (Some council members did so employ Louisville’s municipal code.) As I explained in a previous blog post (and, more fully, in a letter to City Council), another PUD criterion requires that the Murphy Express possess “an appropriate relationship to its surrounding area”. This PUD criterion does not specify the meanings of ‘appropriate’, ‘relationship’, ‘surrounding’, or ‘area’. Lacking in such specificity, this PUD criterion confers tremendous freedom in its interpretation. How might one engage with such freedom? One might ignore such freedom, as did City staff in its analysis of the Murphy Express. One might temper such freedom on the basis of precedent, as Councillor Dickinson seemed to favor. One might adjust the degree of such freedom on basis of changing times, as did Mayor Stolzmann in arguing that the presence of a nearby daycare facility, not contemplated when the area was initially developed, renders inappropriate the Murphy Express’ relationship to its surroundings. One might leverage such freedom to address the community’s concerns, as did Councillor Most in expressing her own concerns about the Murphy Express’ fugitive emissions. One might gauge such freedom on the basis of other relevant statutes, as did Councillor Leh in enquiring whether the Murphy Express would violate any state or federal statutes concerning its fugitive emissions. (I have no reason to suspect that the Murphy Express would violate such statutes, but I still maintain that the Murphy Express fails this PUD criterion on this account.) The freedom of interpretation nevertheless remains. As written this PUD criterion allows Louisville City Council members to go above and beyond state and federal statutes, statutes which are evidently insufficient to safeguard our air quality and our climate.
In spite of my disappointment, I will continue to fight for progress. I will consider any and all further options to block development of the Murphy Express, and I will redouble my efforts to prohibit new gasoline stations in Louisville.
*A disproportionate number of my blog posts have also concerned gasoline stations. I would much prefer to write about other topics: I have little interest in gasoline stations beyond prohibiting new gasoline stations, and there are many more positive topics about which I plan to write. That said, I also recognize my responsibility to respond to happenings in our community.
