The former Cat Stevens might ask that question, if he were to descend on the Portland planning bureau. This thought came to my mind as I read a book called Last Child In The Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder by Richard Louv. Mr. Louv argues that (1) children have become slaves to the electronic gadgets in their lives and don’t get outdoors for unstructured play or direct contact with nature any more, and (2) government land use regulations and private developers’ fear of lawsuits have destroyed or made inaccessible the spots where children used to build forts and splash about in creeks. (He makes many other points, but these two are the ones that inspired this post.)
I thought he was overstating his argument — he admits that he’s not trying to say that "nature-deficit disorder," a phrase he coined, is a psychiatric syndrome, even though it sounds like one. And at least in Portland (a city he compliments in his book) the city planners encourage and require open space.
But what kind of open space? A few years ago one of my friends designed and built a planned community with a mix of houses, apartments, shops, and offices. The City of Portland made him set aside about 8 acres as greenspace, a requirement imposed by the planning bureau. There’s the space for children, no?
No. The conditions of approval required my friend to fence off almost all the greenspace so that the residents can’t use it, and to post signs to warn the residents (who in fact own the greenspace) that they can’t go in. I like to think that the children who live there have found their way under the fence.