Another day, another fire.

[hamtown mike]

... based on it is in some opinion that it is a health hazard.

69,000 parts per million [[Pb) is not an opinion, it is a hazard. Tiles containing 40% asbestos, when set ablaze or exposed to rain, again, not an opinion.

[/QUOTE]...a majority of potential contaminants were those that were placed after vacating by illegal dumping.[/QUOTE]

Since some potential contaminants were dumped illegally should we simply ignore them?

The 1997 report [[a 3 page page report on a 35 acre site) repeatedly used the phrase "repaired or demolished." Neither of these recommendations have been acted upon. That's 15 years of collapsing rooftops. 15 years of scrappers "cooking" their bounty- leaving behind plastic and rubber slag. 15 years of structural fires. 15 years of "unaccessible 50 gallon drums" left to leak, 15 years of rain water soaking through the exposed and roofless structures leaching contaminants into the soil. In short, 15 years of further environmental and structural degradation on top of a report listing demolition as a recommendation.

Is it acceptable to allow citizens, who may have never even seen the Packard, to be repeatedly exposed to these airborne toxins while the "who's responsible" debate drags on?

[/QUOTE]So now you want to go to the EPA and say this is a hazards site demolish it.The EPA is going say that when the past environmental were done it was not considered a health hazard but sense then you as a city have allowed it to potentially become one.[/QUOTE]

Would the EPA really say "Tough shit!" to the people of Detroit? The mission of the EPA is to protect human health and the environment- to ensure that all Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work. No matter who is responsible for the current state of the site, it is, in my opinion, an ideal candidate for EPA consideration.

The EPA does have, or at least had, this authority. In 1983, a small town near my hometown of St. Louis, Times Beach, was bought out by the EPA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Beach,_Missouri


[/QUOTE]...to do what I am going to do...[/QUOTE]

This is the first mention of any specific plans that you have for the 35 acre site. I hope your numbers are right. I hope your math is sound. Hell, I hope the things I've read and the opinions I have formed are incorrect. I can only speak for myself when I say that I welcome you and your efforts with open arms.

Unfortunately, Detroit is not in a position to look at what could be. We have to deal with what is. Sadly, we can barely keep the lights on. While the theoretical battle of shoulda/woulda/coulda wages, people, real people, are being exposed to nasty nasty stuff. That is why I made my inquiry about reaching out to a higher authority to address the issue.

I believe the core of our disagreement lies in a difference in opinion regarding the condition of the site and feasibility of reuse. Forgive me if previous posts have appeared to contain personal attacks-certainly not the intent. I have been questioning your opinions, not you.

I would like to extend an invitation for you to come and visit. Should you choose to accept the invitation I would gladly play host and help you check off "site visit"-one of the most rudimentary elements of due diligence. [[Of course not crossing onto private property)