Editor's Note
by Paul L. Hayden
What Do You Think?
You don't know how hard it is to sit here and
write a comment about land use around Lake Superior. It's one of those
perennial "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situations.
On the one hand, folks would like to believe that if no further development
occurs near the lake, it will be safe in the future from any degradation.
On the other hand, some folks will tell you that unless development is
allowed, there cannot be any sustainability of current standards and lifestyle
nor guaranteed protection of its future.
We've always believed that the readers of our magazine are so diverse
in their opinions that we'd be hard put to form a single voice to address
issues such as land use. For those who live in the Lake Superior region,
there is strong reaction to those "on the outside" who would
come in and try to dictate particular uses of their property. Then again,
to warrantee that a common standard of protection is applied to all areas
of the country (whether it be the United States or Canada), national laws
sometimes will supercede individual rights.
We've seen a number of local situations where common sense approaches
seem to be thrown out with the wash in lieu of rules that were never meant
to be applied in our area. In some cases, the local governments have just
never gotten around to establishing their own set of guidelines, thereby
abdicating control to national legislation. In others, there could rightfully
be concern that a company with headquarters outside the basin might not
respect the long-established customs of residents.
A beautiful body of water like Lake Superior naturally leads many to
want to preserve every inch of the shorelines. For some, the entire lake
basin should be a park, with no human habitation. We know that is not real.
There are people who live here. And there are responsible parties who can
develop without destroying.
I'm inviting our readers to get involved in this issue of land use
through a forum of communication on our pages. I don't expect everyone
to agree, but I would hope that some well-thought statements might put
all of this in perspective or at least get the dialogue flowing. There
are always specific cases that demand intense attention. There cannot be
a single, all-encompassing standard for everyone. But, we'd like to know
what you think about the future use of land around Lake Superior. Remember,
there are many historical rights that should not be violated. But, there
is also a strong sense of survival that has to be addressed.
We don't have any idea on where this may lead. We will report the results
to you as we receive them. There are no better citizens to assess for this
critique than those who are already showing a strong interst in the lake
- our readers. We look forward to your input.
Paul L. Hayden
Editor