I applaud Ken Trainor’s diatribe on what he refers to as “leaf dreck” [No thank you very mulch, Viewpoints, Jan. 14], but I take issue and am disappointed with the aesthetic underpinning of his argument. As an aside, I think the term “sneave” (snow + leaves) is more appropriate that “dreck “as the forcible plowing of the snow with street leaves is responsible for much of the issues we are experiencing. After the snow melts, “dreck” is certainly a reasonable term.
Aesthetics is a purely patriarchal western viewpoint. More fitting for the Oak Park community would be focusing on the collective safety and environmental issues imparted by sneave. As speeding e-bikes, scooters, and cars encounter sneave piles, loss of traction may occur, leading to the inability of these vehicles to comply with village traffic-calming measures. As such, they may not be able to stop at the various stop signs and lights. I wonder if micro-deposits of sneave that coat the road cause this to occur in seasons other than winter?
Sneave piles impair the newly deployed village-wide street markings and murals. As such, mid-street morning walkers may not be able to discern village bike boulevard markings and as such may impede bike traffic as they obliviously walk in the bike boulevard lanes. Confusion may develop among the bikers as they may not be able to discern the appropriate lane due to sneave.
Furthermore, sneave piles are an attractive nuisance for “fort-building children,” who may hide in the sneave, potentially leading to a dangerous encounter with a vehicle or various amebic diseases.
Finally rotting piles of dreck … after the snow melts will produce methane, which will negatively impact the various green initiatives undertaken in the village, such as the highly successful gas leaf blower ban.
In short we need a collective, village-wide, multidisciplinary, rethinking of our current leaf strategy, which is not based solely on aesthetics.
Ed McGee
Oak Park
