Posted on 04/21/2005 4:10:44 PM PDT by Gas Fighter
Gasoline prices are high, and we need to make them go down! I have started a petition that can be downloaded at http://www.biggreenfish.com/gaspetition. This petition asks that the United States Congress do everything within its power to lower gas prices to a bearable level, and that it set the initiative for scientists and engineers to find the best alternative fuel source to gasoline and discover the best way to convert our nation to that new fuel source. Download it and pass it on to all your friends. I will turn the signed petitions for my area over to my congressional representative during the first weeks of May. All the petitions need to be in the hands of our representatives before they leave for the summer break. If this petition does what it can, it will launch America above other countries in the fuel market. We would not have to be manipulated by foreign fuel producers any longer; America would produce its own fuel. So, let's all do our part to strengthen America!
...and don't forget drilling off the coast of Florida, too.
If we had been drilling in those places 10-15 years ago, and if we had been building new refineries, I'll bet we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.
Next time someone says, "You can't do that, it will take 10 years!", tell them, "Yeah, that's probably what you said 10 years ago."
Dumb idea.
I hate it when zot newbies come aboard without a clue!
Can't upset me today! ...something about a Confidential Witness? heheheheheh
Blog Pimp!!
GOP_1900 is right! The only way gas prices are coming down is a massive increase in our refining capacity--everything else is secondary. Environmentalist hippies have screwed us with boutique blends, drilling restrictions and a moratorium on refinery construction. Here's another solution: Maybe we should start collecting some of that "Oooiiiilllllll" we "went to war over". In before Zot??????
Ethanol!!
Some areas are more suitable for oil refinerys than others. If my midwest location was one of those suitable sites that would be acceptable to expand refining capacity in my back yard, fine. But since I don't live near a seaport or oil wells, there is nothing wrong with supporting the building of refinerys in areas more suitable for the economical production of oil and gas products. People who live in those areas are 1. employed by those refiners 2. employed by the transportation industry 3. are in ancillary services and business that support the base group that is economically dependant on the refining and transportation.
I doubt the people in those groups are the ones who are screaming NIMBY. It is always an outsider envirowacko who stirs the pot, files the suits to block the expansions of industry. In fact, environazis want to block economic development PERIOD! It is a sin to make too much money, it hurts poor people, pollution will kill the dweezle beetle etc.
Economic development requires some sacrifice of property and resources for the betterment of the civilization. Yeah, there may be some who stand to lose, but if they are smart enough they have the same opportunity to find profit as the next person. There is no such thing as a free ride.
"But since I don't live near a seaport or oil wells, there is nothing wrong with supporting the building of refinerys in areas more suitable for the economical production of oil and gas products."
Ah, so your against NIMBY as long as your backyard is not effected. Somehow, your position does not seem principled.
"People who live in those areas are 1. employed by those refiners 2. employed by the transportation industry 3. are in ancillary services and business that support the base group that is economically dependant on the refining and transportation."
If I'm not employed by those services, then I don't really care, do I? If that refinery is going to reduce the value of my nearby property to zilch, that is what I care about. You can force property owners to bear the cost of a refinery if they don't want to.
"Economic development requires some sacrifice of property and resources for the betterment of the civilization."
Says the guy in the midwest with nothing to lose. Nobody should be forced to bear the cost for other people in the name of "civilization". That was Stalin's plan I do believe.
"There is no such thing as a free ride."
Exactly. So let the refinery go where either people don't care or let the refinery buy out everyone so there is no NIMBY problem. That's "no free ride".
You seem to miss my point completely, or just are ignoring it. I would be willing to accept a refinery in my back yard if I lived in an area where a refinery would be economically feasable. Why place a refinery in the outback when it would just drive up the cost of production?? I thought location of industry in the proximity of the raw materials made economic sense? Your apparant ignorance of economic consequences by placing eg: the oil well 1000 miles from the refinery shows me you really care little about economics are are just another environmental obstructionist.
Perhaps some urbanites would accept the fact there are large livestock facilities in my back yard but since I live in rural America, that specific land use is targeted for agriculture and we put up with the smell? Does it drive down land values? Perhaps in a few instances but the general conscencus is that the overall picture is good for America. But heaven forbid a large livestock facility be placed near a luscious suburb. So it is ok for rural Americans to have this, but urbaintes are too good to share in anything but the consumption of the beef and chicken and turkey?
Americans not only share the fruits of our economic development, but we share the same consequences. Working together will lessen the impact of those with environmental concerns. Working against each other will only cause us to pay more. Maybe your bank account is fat enough to cover higher costs of everything we consume? But not mine, nor not most Americans. We are tired of paying for stupid, costly environmental regulations, government red tape etc. We can never roll back time to the cave man, but if you choose to live in a primitive cave and not accept progress, you have that choice. Cave property may just be a sound economic investment.
"Maybe your bank account is fat enough to cover higher costs of everything we consume? But not mine, nor not most Americans. We are tired of paying for stupid, costly environmental regulations, government red tape etc."
I'm not talking about environmental regulations, I'm talking about property rights.
Yeah, my bank account is pretty fat. I worked hard in school, worked hard in college, worked hard in law school, and now work hard at my firm. See the pattern? Work hard, work smart, get fat bank account. In other words, I earn my fat bank account. If "most Americans" cannot afford what they consume, then they need to either consume less or get better jobs (and a better education if necessary). Stuff costs what the market says it costs.
Now, if I buy some beachfront property and some company wants to build a refinery next door, then part of the cost of that refinery is the loss in value to my property. This loss will pretty much be 100% (I grew up in New Orleans, so I know all about the land value issues raised by refineries.). Now someone has to pay that cost. What you are saying is that I should bear that cost. Why is that? Because I was unlucky enough to buy land next to where a company later wants to build a refinery? Try again.
If the refinery destroys my property value, the refining company should either buy me out or if I am unwilling to sell, go someplace where people are willing to sell. The refinery then passes the cost of doing business on to the consumer. Part of that cost will include buying me out. So what? That's part of the cost, so it should be reflected in the price. That's called capitalism.
Well, I've already lived fairly close to a refinery, so, I'm no NIMBY. Time to share the burden. Let's see - in my state - San Diego, Sacramento - no refineries there yet ....
do you really think that a product where the exploration methods and location of supply, production, sale is highly taxed, ingredients, are controlled by government is an example of capitalism?
"Well, I've already lived fairly close to a refinery, so, I'm no NIMBY. Time to share the burden. Let's see - in my state - San Diego, Sacramento - no refineries there yet ...."
Yeah, share the burden - pay the full cost of the gas. Including any property you need to buy out. Any other "burden sharing" for the "greater good" is just Stalinesque nonsense.
"Now, if I buy some beachfront property and some company wants to build a refinery next door, then part of the cost of that refinery is the loss in value to my property." you said.
I guess that leads one to recognize the importance of researching a potential real estate investment before purchasing, especially in an unfamiliar area. Just asking some locals about potential ideas being floated around about potential land use can usually identify potential conflict of interest with plans you may envision for a property. If it appears that land use may be better suited for a commercial enterprise, then perhaps that beach front property needs to be purchased somewhere else.
Or better yet, buy the property and build your own refinery.
Property rights are important, very true. But nowhere I know of can you find 100% of property owners agreeable on neighboring land use. And since nobody can agree, the end result is economic stagnation unless someone forces their hand. Yeah it can cause resentment. So does eminent domain, which is being abused quite a bit.
So I would assume that those who are against building a refinery, in a best possible location suited for transportation access and economic viability, probably don't consume gasoline and walk or ride bicycles or take public transit. So they have no need for refinerys. But isn't that selfish for those who do need gasoline and depend on private transportation that delivers their grocerys to the store?
And in reality, do we really own our property or do we just have a lifetime lease on it? Just neglect paying your property taxes and see who ends up owning "your" property.
So property rights are mostly a matter of a neighborhood association in signing up like minded residents so to control land use. There are designated industrial areas, and designated commercial areas, and designated residential areas as defined by planning and zoning (your friendly local government). If they plan something for your property besides what your plan is your pretty much screwed.
"uess that leads one to recognize the importance of researching a potential real estate investment before purchasing, especially in an unfamiliar area."
I'm talking about buying property before a refinery is to be built. If you buy it after they get the permit, then its on you.
"But nowhere I know of can you find 100% of property owners agreeable on neighboring land use. And since nobody can agree, the end result is economic stagnation unless someone forces their hand."
There are conflicting uses and their are incompatible uses. A refinery is pretty much incompatible with everything else. It would be like if I bought land next to a refinery and wanted to build a wooden dynamite factory. That's just not a good idea. You would expect the refinery to get to veto that idea.
"Or better yet, buy the property and build your own refinery."
Build a refinery? Are you nuts? Do you know the environmental regulations I'd have to comply with ...
"But isn't that selfish for those who do need gasoline and depend on private transportation that delivers their grocerys to the store?"
What's your point? I could say, isn't it selfish of you to want to contaminate someone else's property just so your gas is cheaper? Then again, I see nothing wrong with being selfish. Do you go to work out of the goodness of your heart? I sure don't. Again, let the refinery buy out the surrounding land. And if the locals want a premium, that's fine. It's called free enterprise.
"So property rights are mostly a matter of a neighborhood association in signing up like minded residents so to control land use."
I was thinking more along the lines of common law nuisance. There is a big difference between some guy in a mansion trying to zone against a trailer park next door, and a guy with a house trying to avoid the contamination brought about by a refinery. But hey, if you have a magic refinery that can contain all of its pollution on its own grounds then go ahead and build it where ever.
NOS - It's NIMBYism, anal retentive land use control, and the Agenda 21 nonsense that are Stalinesque. Did you make a mistake at the fork in the road that said "Freerepublic" and "DU?"
"NOS - It's NIMBYism, anal retentive land use control, and the Agenda 21 nonsense that are Stalinesque. Did you make a mistake at the fork in the road that said "Freerepublic" and "DU?""
You know you've won an argument when you get someone to argue that property rights belong on DU. The "Free" in free repulic ain't refering to free gas ...
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.