Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Welcome to the Salazar Wilderness
Wall Street Journal ^ | December 10, 2012 | MICHAEL MORITZ

Posted on 12/11/2012 10:10:21 PM PST by george76

Shame on the Interior Department for trying to drum a family-owned enterprise out of business.

After a seaside area has been designated as wilderness, when is it considered pristine enough by Washington's standards? Is it after airplanes have been banned from flying over it? After electricity pylons and telephone cables have been removed, cars and bikers prohibited, the roads torn up? When hikers are forbidden access to trails, and kayakers, sailors and snorkelers banished from the water? When eucalyptus trees and other foreign species are eradicated? Or only after Miwok Indians' arrowheads have been excavated and placed in a museum?

Apparently it is none of the above, at least according to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. Instead, he seems to think that turning a tiny portion of the lovely coastline of California's Marin County (part of the National Seashore) into the first marine wilderness in the continental United States also requires destroying a family-run oyster operation that has conducted business in the same spot for eight decades

...

Unable to use its doctored studies to close the farm, the Park Service changed tack and resorted to even more dubious arguments

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; US: California; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: agenda21; farming; fishing; ranching; salazar; stealing; taxes; theft; un21; unagenda21; unitednation; unitednations21; wilderness

1 posted on 12/11/2012 10:10:27 PM PST by george76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: george76
Hard to express my disdain for Ken Saladbar....

without getting a time out

2 posted on 12/11/2012 10:14:39 PM PST by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

Ideology trumps absolutely everything else to these libtards.


3 posted on 12/11/2012 10:23:03 PM PST by ChocChipCookie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

Freedom is not a word libs like. Only power and control


4 posted on 12/11/2012 10:33:06 PM PST by bestintxas (Anyone who votes for Obama after these 4 miserable years needs to take a mandatory citizenship test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

Shades of the insidious Agenda 21 bullcra*

The video on the UN pushed evil agenda, is quite the eye opener. Gains recognition with GWB, Clinton and of course
barry who uses an EO to make it extra special.

They can do whatever they want within the framework of this ‘agenda’ - crazy


5 posted on 12/11/2012 11:00:00 PM PST by AllAmericanGirl44 (Fluck this adminstration of misfits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

bttt


6 posted on 12/11/2012 11:02:58 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

I have no sympathy for them. They were operating a business that was on property leased from the government.

Barring any clauses in the lease regarding rights of renewal, the government has every legal and moral right.

.... snip .... “one day before his company’s 40-year lease was set to expire — that he had three months to clear out. On Tuesday, he announced he’s suing. .... snip ....

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/10/family-owned-california-oyster-farm-to-fight-federal-government-over-lease/


7 posted on 12/11/2012 11:29:56 PM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

Where does the U.S. government get any moral or legal right to own land?


8 posted on 12/11/2012 11:43:36 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

“Barring any clauses in the lease regarding rights of renewal, the government has every legal and moral right.”

Moral right?!

Are you serious? Since when is oyster farming immoral? And since when is it considered a good idea for governments to “own” property?

It seems to me that our country “belongs” to those who end up paying for it, through all the various forms of taxation that we endure.

And it also seems to me that we have some right to enjoy and in some cases, even exploit it as long as we demonstrate a reasonable amount of stewardship.

Our various levels of government have no “moral” right to withhold huge sections of real estate from the citizenry, no matter what justification may be currently in vogue.


9 posted on 12/12/2012 12:00:48 AM PST by Tigerized ("..and whack 'em, and whack 'em, and whack 'em!' cried the Toad in ecstasy." (also my 2012 strategy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

“without getting a time out”

Your generation with your time out instead of whipping the curtain climbing rug rodents when they missbehave has ruined a couple of generations!!!!


10 posted on 12/12/2012 12:12:00 AM PST by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tigerized
Are you serious? Since when is oyster farming immoral? And since when is it considered a good idea for governments to “own” property?

I may have been misunderstood. I mean moral right in that you really can't accuse the government of doing something wrong for not renewing a lease. Not accusing Oyster farmers of being morally wrong for choosing that means of making a living.

The Oyster farm leased the land, exploited it (not in a pejorative sense) for 80 some odd years and now the government doesn't want to renew the lease?

11 posted on 12/12/2012 12:12:09 AM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
where does the U.S. government get any moral or legal right to own land?

I suppose after the paragraph that say's it can't.

12 posted on 12/12/2012 12:17:16 AM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AllAmericanGirl44

“They can do whatever they want within the framework of this ‘agenda’ - crazy”

It’s a whole lot more than most would think....http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/


13 posted on 12/12/2012 6:09:53 AM PST by DaveinOK54 (Freedom is not Free and I'll never quit defending it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

First, the lease doesn’t say that it isn’t renewable. Second, the congressmen who helped form the Point Reyes National Seashore have firmly stated that their intention was to ensure the continued operation of the small farms that were occupying the land.

Yet the Interior Department has ignored the statements of former California Reps. Pete McCloskey and John Burton (a former California Democratic Party chairman).

The Park Service ignored another inconvenient fact: It doesn’t control fishing rights in the disputed area. Those are controlled by the State of California


14 posted on 12/12/2012 6:10:41 AM PST by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: george76
First, the lease doesn’t say that it isn’t renewable.

That's likely true and I wouldn't expect to find a clause forbidding renewal. The sad point is, leases are finite and subject to the whim and capriciousness of the leesor. Some commercial leases provide for "unduly" and "unreasonably" renewal clauses.

As for political intervention, well sadly again, you don't always get what you pay for, promises 'in the wind' and caveat emptor.

15 posted on 12/12/2012 6:25:31 AM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dalereed

My kids never knew what a time out was. FR mods, on the other hand...

So I sensored my remark, ok?


16 posted on 12/12/2012 7:23:48 AM PST by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

The oyster farm had been there operating just fine for almost 100 years.

There was absolutely no reason to shut them down.


17 posted on 12/12/2012 12:45:11 PM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo; Tigerized
Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There is the paragraph that says they can't. I don't see any following paragraph that says they can. Try again.

18 posted on 12/12/2012 1:18:23 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
U.S Constitution, Article 4 section 3

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

19 posted on 12/12/2012 4:38:06 PM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: george76

Just hope Grijalva doesn’t take the job!!


20 posted on 12/12/2012 4:45:49 PM PST by DLfromthedesert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
And let's not forget

U.S Constitution Article 1 section 8 (in part, emphasis mine)

"... snip ... and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased/b> by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And ... snip ..."

21 posted on 12/12/2012 4:56:58 PM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

Thank you for posting the other relevant Constitutional passages that support my point. This land taking certainly has no relation to building ‘Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.’


22 posted on 12/12/2012 5:21:25 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

So in fact you concede the point that the Federal Government is empowered by the U.S Constitution to purchase and own land? Because that was your point entirely.

The fact remains, you spoke as if you really knew something about the matter, as it turns out you knew nothing and tossed a flippant quote of the 10th amendment as a catch all excuse.

While I, knowing nothing about the situation researched the veracity of the original post and then researched the claim that the Federal Government isn’t entitled to own land. Including Articles in the Constitution and several prominent cases adjudicated by the SCOTUS regarding public land leases, land purchases from States, and adjacent clauses.

And the fact still remains, we don’t even know the providence of the land in question, for all we know it could be part and parcel of land acquired by Federal Government through “Manifest Destiny”, war, stolen from the American Indian, or purchased from a foreign entity.


23 posted on 12/12/2012 5:43:39 PM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

No, I don’t concede that disingenuous misrepresentation of the text of the Constitution. The text is specific and it clearly doesn’t cover the land use in question.


24 posted on 12/12/2012 5:49:48 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Whats the providence of the land in question? Do you even know?


25 posted on 12/12/2012 5:55:23 PM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

SCOTUS determined that land purchases by the U.S government within the jurisdiction of States are negative affirmation purchases. Meaning that if the State doesn’t object to the purchase, the purchases is legal and within the framework of the Constitution.

You can look that one up, took me all but 3 minutes to find it. Think of it as internet searching 101.


26 posted on 12/12/2012 6:01:57 PM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo
SCOTUS determined that killing babies is Constitutional.
Didn't have to look anything up.
27 posted on 12/12/2012 6:12:02 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Again, what’s the providence of the land in question?


28 posted on 12/12/2012 6:26:32 PM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo
Irrelevant to this...

Barring any clauses in the lease regarding rights of renewal, the government has every legal and moral right.

29 posted on 12/12/2012 7:03:10 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

You’re right, that’s my original argument. The government has every legal and moral right not to renew unless the lease has an option at the discretion of the leesee.

But first you have to agree that the Government is entitled to own land, you disputed that. So therefor:

What is the providence of the land in question? (it’s okay to say I don’t know).


30 posted on 12/12/2012 7:14:20 PM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

I do know. I looked it up three hours ago. It’s irrelevant.


31 posted on 12/12/2012 7:30:58 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson