Advertisement

News

Enfireonmentalists

Rating: NNNNN


phoenix — “happy hunting,” says a communique claiming responsibility for the firebombings of nine luxury homes on the edge of the Phoenix Mountains Preserve.Most of the land around the preserve is virgin desert, some is developed and some is under construction. The arsonist’s repeated success and consistent targets make an excellent conservationist point: so many luxury homes are under construction near the environmentally sensitive preserve that even a massive law enforcement task force aided by thousands of paranoid residents can’t nab a serial firebug.

Nine times. Three hit in December alone. The arsonist even struck the same location twice, and wrote a now-famous message to brag about it: “U Build It We Burn It — Again.”

The meticulously executed attacks, impassioned ideological messages and comically baffled law enforcement officials are almost enough to make you root for the arsonist. And the big, bad, ugly truth is, many do.

The arsonist’s first presumed attack was in 1998. The second was last April. Nobody knows why the arsonist came out of apparent felonious hibernation last year to begin a 10-month-and-counting spree against sprawl targets. In a rather unsettling bit of law enforcement logic, deputy fire chief Bob Khan says the “trigger” for the FBI taking over the arsonist case last month was that the fires appeared to be “crimes used to activate social or political change.”

While the arsonist’s technique is certainly criminal, his apparent attempts at social change are purely populist. A nationwide October poll shows that residents in some U.S. cities rank sprawl and crime as equally important concerns. Throughout California alone there were nearly four dozen land-use measures on local ballots last year attempting to curb sprawl.

Even traditionally conservative suburbanites are signing environmental petitions and nagging state representatives to, you know, do something about growth.

Arizona environmentalists are justifiably more frantic than most. In the 1990s, Arizona was the second-fastest-growing state in the country (Nevada was first), and the Phoenix megalopolis is reportedly eating desert at the rate of an acre an hour — an oft-quoted figure called “obscene” in one alleged arsonist communique.

Last year’s statewide sprawl war produced an unprecedented growth-control proposal with real claws — Proposition 202. So Arizona developers lightened their wallets and outspent their opponents five-to-one to convince voters that Prop 202 was downright scary. “It goes too far,” it will cost jobs, it will create “density” and an upward spurt that will turn Paradise Valley into Detroit.

Their campaign worked. The first Phoenix growth-cap proposal ever to stand a chance at becoming law, and initially supported in polls by a four-to-one margin, was ballot-punched into oblivion.

But while some civic-minded citizens struggled for constructive change via traditional routes last year, a few members of the radical left fought sprawl on their own terms. An organization called the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) claimed responsibility for anti-sprawl arsons in Indiana, Colorado and New York. Each target was an unfinished luxury home encroaching on an environmentally sensitive area.

The ELF said the Niwot, Colorado, fire in November was set specifically to protest voter rejection of an anti-sprawl amendment that developers spent $6 million to defeat. At the Long Island site, accompanying graffiti expressed sentiments such as “Burn the Rich,” “Stop Urban Sprawl” and “If You Build It We Will Burn It.”

About that last message. Its similarity to the first message left by the Phoenix arsonist may be coincidental, or ELF members may have picked up the phrase from news reports. The ELF denies responsibility for the Phoenix attacks, and ELF spokesperson Craig Rosebraugh says he just learned of the Phoenix arsonist a few weeks ago.

Unfortunately, his claim of ignorance is plausible.

Until the Long Island firebombing propelled the ELF to page one of the New York Times, the national media were uninterested in the arsonist. We’ve heard opinions from the fire department, police, city council members, frightened homeowners and luxury home contractors, all essentially saying: “Arson is bad, mm-kay?”

Terrorism experts say shrugging off the arguments of those who feel disenfranchised, rather than providing a forum for discussion, only serves to inflame a movement’s radical fringe. And the reality is that many in the (Phoenix area) valley are, quietly and sometimes guiltily, rooting for the arsonist because of the presumed motives behind his acts. Not everyone can muster sympathy for wealthy people seeking to build half-million-dollar houses by the Phoenix Mountains Preserve. Their plans are being spoiled by a radical who’s presumably risking life in prison to protect open space for the rest of us.

“I don’t necessarily condone the act of arson, but I support the aim,” says Randall Amster, the Arizona State University instructor leading the Save Tempe Butte campaign. “You defeat the Citizens Growth Initiative, you find the Sierra Club falling asleep at the wheel, and nobody seems to be doing much. You can see how frustration could mount to the point where they might see arson as a viable way.”

Amster says he frequently talks to other environmentalists about the arsonist — partly to hear their opinions, partly to play the environmentalist community version of Clue to try to figure out the arsonist’s identity.

“Almost universally, most are clearly sympathetic with what the person is — in theory — trying to do. Not too many come out in support of the arson act, but in general people are, like, “This is what it’s starting to come to. We’re running out of space, and if we don’t put the brakes on it will be too late in 10 or 20 years.’ There’s a “the time is now’ kind of quality.”

One group, the Phoenix Anarchists Coalition, even debated whether to issue a public endorsement of the arsonist. Although they did not reach the consensus required for such a statement, member Brian Tomasi went on record to say that the wealthy “think they can buy and sell whatever they want, regardless of the repercussions. And the arsonist is saying a very clear “No, that is not allowed.'”

At the conservative end of the environmental spectrum, Grant Woods worked with the Sierra Club and Governor Jane Hull to draft sprawl-control proposals. So, c’mon, honestly, isn’t he quietly rooting for the arsonist, too?

“Not for this guy, but you can see why I’m sympathetic with the Sierra Club and other groups that want to preserve the environment,” Woods says. “People are frustrated with sprawl, no question. If people want to pave over every square inch of the desert and mountains, we will wreck this place. Ultimately, the builders will leave and go someplace else, and the rest of us will probably be stuck here.”

Listen to environmentalists of all stripes and you’ll hear the word “frustration.”

Gary R. Perlstein, a frequently published expert on terrorism and a Portland State University professor, says frustration is a terrorism precursor, and he’s not surprised that “eco-terrorist” acts are occurring more frequently.

“When you’re young, we basically promise change to you,” he says. “We promise it to you in school, we promise it to you in politics. Especially with the Clinton-Gore administration, I think it was expected with Gore being environmentally oriented (that there would be more change). You add to that the feeling that change is supposed to happen quickly — which using computers teaches young people — then frustration is built in. And, too often, frustration leads to aggression.”

A second precursor is a growing movement. The more popular a cause, the wider the range of personalities involved and the wider the range of tactics that will be employed.

“Years ago the Sierra Club was considered a very radical organization,” says Rosebraugh of the ELF. “Today the Sierra Club is a mainstream organization. And I think one of the reasons that occurred is that more radical organizations like the ELF are out there that have been an arrowhead pushing the social movement.”

This argument also attempts to justify the seemingly futile arson attacks. Sure, a torched house will be rebuilt. But the memorable force of the action will remain in public consciousness when mainstream organizations push for other environmental causes.

Naturally, the Sierra Club wishes the ELF would get off its side.

“I disagree (that radicals help the movement) in a lot of ways,” says Sandy Bahr of the Sierra Club. “Maybe it would be different if things were reported differently, but we all end up being lumped together. Issues get lumped together and environmentalists get lumped together.”

So which perception is correct? Perlstein says history shows a definitive answer. “Historically, unfortunately, the radicals are correct,” he says. “There has never been a major social change that hasn’t had violence associated with it at the beginning.”

To hear the ELF tell it, burning houses is not a violent or terrorist activity at all. “We condemn all forms of terrorism,” the ELF wrote in its claim of responsibility for the Long Island attack. “A common definition of terrorism is “to reduce to a state of fear or terror.’ We are costing them money. If change falls out of your pocket, you are not in a state of fear or terror…. We are non-violent.”

The message goes on to say that targeted houses are searched for “all forms of life” beforehand and that citizens should donate generously to local volunteer firefighters. “Don’t be mad at us,” the message concludes. “Be mad at urban sprawl.” In other words: sure, we’re burning down houses, but we’re being awfully nice about it and have a darn good reason.

This defines terrorism by its intent, not its effect. It’s saying that because environmental arsonists have good intentions, nobody should be afraid. Those living near the Phoenix Mountains Preserve would likely disagree.

There is also political danger in the left’s use of more extremist techniques. Amster, despite his years of frustration fighting to preserve open space and his admitted sympathy for environmental arsonists, points out that escalating tactics may up the ante for everybody at the ideological table.

“If you admit the possibility that you can use arson for (the sake of) your principles, then you have to admit the possibility that other people can use it for their principles,” he says. “And what would other groups decide to burn down if they used that tactic? You might have the fascist right burning down art galleries or synagogues.”

When asked about Amster’s argument, Rosebraugh says that the righteousness of the environmental cause validates the method, that the ends justify the means.

“We are already seeing signs of massive species extinction in both plants and non-human animals, and humans becoming sicker and sicker due to environmental reasons,” he says. “I feel this is quite different from the fascist right burning down a synagogue. That is a selfish act versus an act by the ELF that is designed to ensure that life on the planet for all can continue.”

From the Phoenix New TimesThe ongoing fight to stop urban sprawl north of Toronto hasn’t produced fire-setting ecologists. But the hardy band who have stood up for the Rouge River and Oak Ridges Moraine have been just as relentless in their own way.This week they were savouring a temporary victory. The federal government has pledged to preserve 5,000 acres of the ecologically sensitive moraine — wildlands equivalent to the area between Bloor and the lake, Spadina and the Don Valley Parkway.

But a portion of the moraine is still in danger. Glenn De Baeremaeker, spokesperson for Save the Rouge Valley System, plans to lobby the provincial Tories to add 5,000 acres in Markham, southwest of Highway 7 and Brock Road, to the federal donation just to the north.

The surrounding area is rapidly turning into houses as the Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) continues to sell provincially owned farmland to developers.

Markham councillor Jack Heath says Law Developments has built more than 1,000 houses in his ward and is planning to increase the number to about 10,000. The ORC claims that it’s in negotiations with builders over another piece of land, but Heath says developers “have either purchased or leased land from the ORC” with the intention of building up to 2,600 homes.

“I’d like to maintain as much green space as possible,’ says Heath, but “they (the province) don’t seem to listen to Markham all the time.’

Erin Shapero, another Markham councillor, warns that “Markham has 2 to 5 per cent left of forest cover, probably closer to 2.’ She says many farmers are seeking protection against rapid urbanizing and that “there are a lot of speculators who want to get those areas.’

Although De Baeremaeker admits that “not many Tory cabinet ministers play golf with environmentalists,” there is a chance they will stop selling land to developers and agree to the donation of land abutting the feds’ gift. “Most Tory support is in the 905 region, and that’s who’s most angry about urban sprawl,’ he says.

De Baeremaeker says the Liberal move “is like your big brother showing up at a schoolyard fight. The balance of power has shifted. Now everyone is on board except the provincial government.’

If the province does turn over the tract, the amount of protected land would increase and the 40-kilometre river system that begins in the Oak Ridges Moraine and flows to Lake Ontario could be contaminant-free. Says De Baeremaeker, “We would still have a viable ecosystem.”

the burning question

by Greg Konstantindis

The ongoing fight to stop urban sprawl

north of Toronto hasn’t produced

fire-setting ecologists. But the hardy band

who have stood up for the Rouge River

and Oak Ridges Moraine have been just

as relentless in their own way.This week

they were savouring a temporary victory.

The federal government has pledged to

preserve 5,000 acres of the ecologically

sensitive moraine — wildlands equivalent

to the area between Bloor and the lake,

Spadina and the Don Valley Parkway.

But a portion of the moraine is still in

danger. Glenn De Baeremaeker,

spokesperson for Save the Rouge Valley

System, plans to lobby the provincial

Tories to add 5,000 acres in Markham,

southwest of Highway 7 and Brock Road,

to the federal donation just to the north.

The surrounding area is rapidly turning

into houses as the Ontario Realty

Corporation (ORC) continues to sell

provincially owned farmland to

developers.

Markham councillor Jack Heath says Law

Developments has built more than 1,000

houses in his ward and is planning to

increase the number to about 10,000. The

ORC claims that it’s in negotiations with

builders over another piece of land, but

Heath says developers “have either

purchased or leased land from the ORC”

with the intention of building up to 2,600

homes.

“I’d like to maintain as much green space

as possible,’ says Heath, but “they (the

province) don’t seem to listen to Markham

all the time.’

Erin Shapero, another Markham

councillor, warns that “Markham has 2 to 5

per cent left of forest cover, probably

closer to 2.’ She says many farmers are

seeking protection against rapid

urbanizing and that “there are a lot of

speculators who want to get those areas.’

Although De Baeremaeker admits that

“not many Tory cabinet ministers play golf

with environmentalists,” there is a chance

they will stop selling land to developers

and agree to the donation of land abutting

the feds’ gift. “Most Tory support is in the

905 region, and that’s who’s most angry

about urban sprawl,’ he says.

De Baeremaeker says the Liberal move

“is like your big brother showing up at a

schoolyard fight. The balance of power

has shifted. Now everyone is on board

except the provincial government.’

If the province does turn over the tract, the

amount of protected land would increase

and the 40-kilometre river system that

begins in the Oak Ridges Moraine and

flows to Lake Ontario could be

contaminant-free. Says De Baeremaeker,

“We would still have a viable ecosystem.”

Advertisement

Exclusive content and events straight to your inbox

Subscribe to our Newsletter

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

By signing up, I agree to receive emails from Now Toronto and to the Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.

Recently Posted