Here is one more candidate's answer to the population/sprawl questions.
These are the same questions answered by five other candidates in the
message I sent March 18th.  Jo Hudson
----------
From: Automatic digest processor <[log in to unmask]>
To: Recipients of BOD-CANDIDATES-OPEN-FORUM digests
<[log in to unmask]>
Subject: BOD-CANDIDATES-OPEN-FORUM Digest - 16 Mar 2001 to 19 Mar 2001
(#2001-4)
Date: Tue, Mar 20, 2001, 2:01 AM


There is one message totalling 71 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. Board candidate Jan O'Connell's response to population questions

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT
to [log in to unmask]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 19 Mar 2001 07:21:32 -0700
From:    Fred Elbel <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Board candidate Jan O'Connell's response to population questions

I recently asked all of the BOD candidates two questions on
population.  Below is candidate Jan O'Connell's response to these questions.



** Question 1.  The Census Bureau projects that if current trends continue,
U.S. population will double from our present 283 million within the
lifetimes of children born today.

Do you feel that the Sierra Club should do more, less, or just about the
same to address U.S. population growth?
Specifically what, if anything, would you recommend the Club do?


-- Response from Jan O'Connell: --


JOC:  Not that the U.S. isn't important but I feel this issue needs to be
addressed globally.  If we deal only with U.S. growth we are dealing with
only a small part of the problem and we are also addressing only the
symptoms and not the actual causes.  We need long term plans where reducing
population measures need to be taken HERE and ABROAD to support and educate
on family planning, access to proper medical care and just basically
increasing the literacy overall to deal with world-wide overpopulation.




** Question 2.  Members will vote on the following question on their
ballots:

Whereas the Sierra Club has made reducing sprawl a national priority
campaign; and Whereas population growth is an important driving force of
sprawl development in  most areas; and Whereas stabilizing the U.S.
population has been Sierra Club policy since 1969; Therefore be it resolved:

The Sierra Club shall emphasize both regional and national population
stabilization as essential components in all Sierra Club sprawl materials
and programs.



-- Response from Jan O'Connell: --

JOC:  Although both issues are very important there [are] difficulties and
confusion with how this ballot issue is worded.   I think we need a more
flexible approach to deal with Sprawl issues...more on a state-by-state
basis.  For instance here in Grand Rapids, Michigan where I reside...the
population here in a 10 year period has increased 16% but our development
(land consumption)  has increased 37% which is really inproportionate to
the population increase and in other areas I've heard of actual decreases
in population but an increase in developed land...which would be totally
incompatible with the wording of this initiative.

Therefore I am encouraging a "NO" vote here.... I am encouraging a "No"
vote here on the Sprawl/Population Issue.



 > Since others may be interested in  your response to these questions, may
I forward your response to others, publish it on discussion lists, etc?

Yes, Fred it can be distributed.

------------------------------

End of BOD-CANDIDATES-OPEN-FORUM Digest - 16 Mar 2001 to 19 Mar 2001
(#2001-4)
****************************************************************************
**

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT
to [log in to unmask]