Capital Daily, July, 27, 2021. A point and counterpoint response to a previous article published by the same eNews outlet. (VN’s analysis/link to the earlier article is here.) In today’s column, the author argues there are greater benefits obtained by opting for public greenspace combined with urban densification than are obtained by increasing the number of trees on private residential lots as suggested by the other author. Today’s columnist makes the points that benefits to humans obtained from greenspace mean that such areas should be equally accessible to all and that environmentally harmful effects produced per person are reduced by urban densification. The two points combined, she argues, suggests the better strategy is to densify and create more public parks than green up private property. In fairness, the first article doesn’t really make the opposite claim. Mostly it argues that trees in parks are not enough. However, it does not factor in pro rata benefits of diminished negative environmental impacts produced by urban densification. So what to do? Which is best? We might consider how both arguments tie into the issue of available resources (in this case space), as discussed in another posted article on Visioning Nanaimo. And we might conclude that it may be better to avoid thinking in terms of zero sum outcomes (for every winner there has to be a loser) and start thinking in terms of win-win strategies. The optimal outcome may come from our pursuing the best of all strategies rather than simply choosing one approach over another. [ARTICLE LINK]