 |
Editor's ViewpointMeditations Of A Minnesota Mossback |
Funny Things Are Everywhere ... Using Your Loaf.
There are days when Dr. Seuss's famous line pops into my head: "From there to here, and here to there, funny things are everywhere."
Our eldest recently returned from England, where she was working on climate research at the University of Reading. She entertained us with stories of the linguistic phenomenon known as Cockney rhyming slang, which originated on the east end of London. Cockney rhyming is all about word substitutions in a sequence that makes sense only to those who follow the logic. It's like Pig Latin, only more commonly used.
For instance, using Cockney rhyme, you can tell someone to get the phone by saying, "Get the dog!" Because a dog has a bone - and "bone" rhymes with "phone." Get it?
Or after your child's youthful lapse in judgment, you can admonish your son or daughter to "Use your loaf." Because it's a loaf of bread - and "bread" rhymes with "head."
In fact, "Use your loaf" is commonly used throughout Britain, and according to Web sites on the subject, most people have no idea that the expression originated as a Cockney rhyme.
One more: "Have a butcher's" means "Have a look." A "butcher's hook" - used to hang a carcass in the shop - rhymes with "look."
So why is this interesting? If you have to ask, it probably isn't.
*
In our July 11 edition, I wrote about Wally the Steer as a good example of what can happen in rapidly-changing Hugo when a rural land use policy runs head-on into a nuisance ordinance.
The Wally incident illustrates what happens when differing public policies - which arise out of the various values we hold - play out in real life.
This summer, I became better acquainted with another example.
Case in point: the prairie plantings at Lino Lakes City Hall, installed in the place of grass lawn, which requires large amounts of water to maintain. Native plants require less water, fertilizer and maintenance than standard lawns.
But Lino resident Theresa Dziuk - noted for her native prairie plantings and seed preservation efforts - was ordered in June by the city to mow her flowering plants to the ground in a letter that cited the city's Ordinance 93-09, Weed Control.
Considering that the plants and grasses she was compelled to mow were identical to the ones that all summer long blossomed around the municipal complex and adorned the Marketplace Target parking lot, this seemed inconsistent.
Almost all cities have ordinances that require residents to keep their lawns mowed. One reason is to eliminate conflict between those neighbors who value "golf course lawns" and those neighbors who would prefer a no- or low-maintenance lawn. In this sense, the ordinance reflects an aesthetic value.
But local watershed districts are conducting education programs to promote the benefits of planting native species. A 20-mile stretch of the St. Croix River has been listed as polluted for the very first time because of high phosphorus levels, commonly found in agricultural and lawn fertilizers.
Native plantings require less water, reduce runoff, keep contaminants out of lakes and rivers, and don't require the application of chemicals. And environmentally savvy residents are listening: urban lawns are being converted into rain gardens in front yards and along sensitive wetlands, often with public money.
But water quality is only one concern. Quantity is another.
The state of Minnesota requires any entity supplying more than 1,000 people with municipal water to submit a "Water Emergency and Conservation Plan" to the DNR every 10 years. Lino Lakes' plan is due next week.
Minn. Statute 103G.291 identifies non-essential water uses to include lawn sprinkling, vehicle washing, golf course and park irrigation; it also specifies the conditions under which a city may be granted the authority to seek an additional public water supply well in a "public water supply deficiency."
Clearly, our love for thirsty green lawns will soon collide with our need to conserve water, and the legislature is preparing for that day.
In a time when water quality and quantity are becoming critical, doesn't it make sense for cities to take a second look at what constitutes a "weed?"
Is there a difference between an untended lawn and one lush with native prairie plantings? If so, should this difference matter?
In a world of finite resources, we need to use that "loaf" to evaluate the cost of the things we hold dear - like that mowed, green lawn - and realign the rules with the rhetoric.