Schwarzenegger approves conservancy, signs 20 other enviro bills

SF Gate/San Francisco Chronicle ^ | Thursday, September 23, 2004 | JIM WASSERMAN, Associated Press Writer

[Simmy2.5]

09-23) 16:56 PDT COLFAX, Calif. (AP) --

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger chose a woodsy mountain setting Thursday to sign legislation establishing a 25 million-acre Sierra Nevada Conservancy, while also signing nearly 20 other bills to protect the Pacific Ocean, curb smog and clean up blighted urban land.

With numerous strokes of the pen, Schwarzenegger opened 1,100 miles of car pool lanes to hybrid cars, established the nation's first Cabinet-level Ocean Protection Council in state government and barred cruise ships from burning garbage and dumping sewage inside state waters. He also banned commercial fishing fleets from bottom trawling along designated parts of the California coast and required 100-foot firebreaks around homes in mountain wildfire zones.

[citizenmike]

I read your post.

Like you I do not want the UN to have any control in our local affairs.

I live within a day's drive of several National Forests, National Parks and National Seashores, none of which were implemented by the UN. We also have a local Nature Conservancy which has done good work to preserve other parks.

Do you have any evidence that the CA legislation was influenced by the UN? How do you feel about conservation performed by Americans without outside influence?

[Hank Rearden]

Please explain why most of you are against conservation. Don't you like clean air and water? Do you like the outdoors?

If you like it, buy it. Get together with other people and buy a lot of it.

Don't go crying to Big Stupid Government to steal other people's money to buy it for you.

[SierraWasp]

You could quote the rousing convention speech about what a "Republican" IS!!!

My cup runneth over with dismay that anyone could claim to prefer Nixon over Humphrey and yet do this dastardly deed to my beloved adopted state! I loved this state from afar in the little one room school house where I took the CALIFORNIA STANDARD ACHEIVEMENT TEST in flat, boring, northern Illinois as a child!

I dreamed of emmigrating to CA as a young man. Family trajedy finally brought me here in 1964, just as the place was starting to collapse into liberal hell politically. Reagan brought relief and sparked a hope in me that it could be saved... but alas, a mocker has stolen a most historic Recall election and now he mocks even his own words in a stirring convention speech.

IMO he mocks all CA FReepers, especially those who supported him out of a fear that a conservative couldn't beat a corrupt LaRazza/Commonista puke.

I am so saddened by this, that like you, I can't think of much more to say. The fanatics I've fought for a decade couldn't force their will on their Democrat Governor, but have now coopted a Republican in name only... that was better looking and sweeter talking than a cockeyed conservative that too many never gave a chance because they assumed and presumed he didn't have one!!!

It's done now and it will be a thousand times harder to undo. We can't just "right-click" and click "undo!" Now I'm an old man, trapped in a state lurching toward the exact same Socialism that the deceptive Governator tried to tell us he despised, yet signs into law an act for the powerful, not the people and their land that has been settled by their forefathers with great toil.

Now they'll have to go yet again, hat in hand and bow before yet another bureaucratic tribunal and beg permission to break off just a little parcel to fund a child's education, or their own retirement. God knows they'll never again be allowed to cut one of their own trees to fund those needs, like before Schwarzenegger and his new found friends known as GANG-GREEN!

GANG-GREEN's only solution for the Sierra-Nevada is economic suffocation of anything not tied to Eco-Tourism in a new monopoly of nothing but a gigantic theme park for city slickers living like sardines as MetroSexuals in blue voting coastal counties of the once great state of Cauleeforneeah. There, maybe I said some of it for you, FRiend... Pass this along to your friend South40 as I dare not ping him as he can hand it out, but cannot take it. (if you care to. he'll probably call me a coward again, but tonight I could care less)

[Luis Gonzalez]

"If you like it, buy it. Get together with other people and buy a lot of it.:"

Let's take Florida's Ocala National Forest.

I enjoy traveling there, and camping with the family. In your world, people with a whole lot more money than I have should be able to buy that land (from whom I would ask), and disallow me and my family the ability to enjoy camping out.

They could turn the whole thing into a parking lot if they wanted to because it's THEIR land.

I don't have a problem with certain areas being owned by all of us rather than by some of us.

A place like Ocala National Forest should belong to all Americans...it's part of our heritage.

[citizenmike]

You said, "Get together with other people and buy a lot of it."

That is exactly what I do when I encourage my elected representatives to use my tax dollars to create parks.

I own an average house on 1/2 acre; I'm a 'little guy'. I can't afford the luxurious preserves of the rich and famous. By encouraging the government to use taxes from me and like minded citizens I get to enjoy parks that I couldn't afford to buy.

Most of the opposition to conservation (that I've read so far) seems to be based on "property rights" and "land use" which is not an issue in my part of the country. I'm going to learn more so I can understand your perspective but it seems to me you are concerned about government control and loss of freedom. If conservation could be enacted without loss of freedom would you be for it or against it?

It also seems to me that those who have most to fear about "property rights" would be large and wealthy land owners. Around here we see similar concerns voiced by land developers who don't want the local government to prevent them from cutting all the trees down when they develop a new sub division. I really don't think the proposed legislation is going to stop someone from cutting down one or a couple of trees on their private property as one of the posters implied.

[citizenmike]

You said, "Get together with other people and buy a lot of it."

That is exactly what I do when I encourage my elected representatives to use my tax dollars to create parks.

I own an average house on 1/2 acre; I'm a 'little guy'. I can't afford the luxurious preserves of the rich and famous. By encouraging the government to use taxes from me and like minded citizens I get to enjoy parks that I couldn't afford to buy.

Most of the opposition to conservation (that I've read so far) seems to be based on "property rights" and "land use" which is not an issue in my part of the country. I'm going to learn more so I can understand your perspective but it seems to me you are concerned about government control and loss of freedom. If conservation could be enacted without loss of freedom would you be for it or against it?

It also seems to me that those who have most to fear about "property rights" would be large and wealthy land owners. Around here we see similar concerns voiced by land developers who don't want the local government to prevent them from cutting all the trees down when they develop a new sub division. I really don't think the proposed legislation is going to stop someone from cutting down one or a couple of trees on their private property as one of the posters implied.

[hedgetrimmer]

What part of the country are you from? I'll bet I can find property rights and land use abuses by your area government.

[hedgetrimmer]

Here is a perfect example of the the power of a conservancy (or sanctuary). The sanctuary is a law unto themselves, they do not get voted into their positions, they create law by merely entering their rules into the federal register, and they have the FBI and other federal agents to call to arrest people who violate "their" rules.

For your edification the following letter shows: the act by the harbormaster in Monterey to remove 1 CUP OF SAND from the bay floor violates sanctuary rules.

*****

April 24, 2003



Bill Douros, Superintendent
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
299 Foam Street
Monterey, CA 93940

RE: Permit Request to Remove up to Four (4) Cups of Sand Offshore of Del
Monte and San Carlos Beaches

As you may be aware, the City of Monterey is beginning the initial stages of applying for all applicable permits to dredge several areas of Monterey marina and Monterey harbor. The scope of this project will be less than 10,000 cubic yards of sand, and it will be proposed to deposit this sand if it is suitable onto neighboring beaches above the mean high tide line. As part of this project, we have been advised by EPA that we should obtain samples of sand from the sub-tidal and inner-tidal areas immediately adjacent to our dredge material disposal areas to be assured of the compatibility of this material.

This small project will be conducted within the boundaries of the MBNMS and will be entitled the “Sand Compatibility Project”. The project will be undertaken by the City of Monterey Harbormaster’s Office, c/o City Hall, Monterey CA 93940 (646-3950). The duration of the sampling will be approximately five minutes per site. There are four sites proposed, and all aspects of the sampling will be performed and paid for by the City of Monterey.

The project will involve hiring a diver/contractor to obtain approximately one cup of sandy material in the inner-tidal area approximately 50 yards east of Wharf II off of Del Monte Beach. Likewise, a similar sample will be taken at approximately minus 3 feet (MLLW) farther offshore in the same location. A similar set of samples will be taken from San Carlos Beach at similar water depths. These samples are proposed to be taken on the same day, as yet undetermined, but sometime during the week following the issuance of the Sanctuary permit for this sampling. A Sanctuary permit is apparently required because the sampling will constitute a “disturbance of the sea bed” which is a violation of Sanctuary law, although the disturbance will be undetectable probably even minutes after the sampling occurs. An aerial photograph is attached which shows the approximate locations of the test samples.

Once we have obtained the 4 cups of sand, Harbor personnel will create a chain of custody and transport the material to a certified lab for grain size analysis. The results of this analysis will be forwarded to all interested parties in the dredge permit application process. No support services from the Sanctuary or Sanctuary staff are requested; however, if Sanctuary personnel wish to witness the sampling we will certainly make the exact time and location available once it is determined.

Thanks you for your consideration of this permit request.

[citizenmike]

You said "What part of the country are you from? I'll bet I can find property rights and land use abuses by your area government."

I live near Atlanta, Georgia. I would be interested in learning about land use abuses around here. The only abuses I am aware of are those instigated by large businesses who want to profit from from their land use but without consideration for how their activities impact their neighbors.

But I also want to get back to the orginal topic. If conservation could be enacted without loss of freedom or property rights (such as a situtation where the majority of citizens agree on a course of action) would you be for conservation or against it?

[farmfriend]

Can we place the Conservancy on the ballot and repeal it,

The amount of money it would take to put an initiative on the ballot is enormous. It is a thought though. We would need to get a money backer.

[hedgetrimmer]

The only abuses I am aware of are those instigated by large businesses who want to profit from from their land use but without consideration for how their activities impact their neighbors

Gee, if civics were still taught in American schools, you might have learned there are constitutional protects that keep your neighbors from harming you or your land by their activities.

That being said, why do you always quote "property rights" ?

If you are finding large businesses who are abusing other people's property you will probably find them hand in hand with a corrupt politician.

If people aren't allow the right of economic use of their land then they aren't allowed property rights.Whether you are a large landowner or small, your right to the economic use of your property should be the same.

[farmfriend]

If conservation could be enacted without loss of freedom or property rights (such as a situtation where the majority of citizens agree on a course of action) would you be for conservation or against it?

For it. When I was Legislative Director for the California State Grange, I supported a program that would do just that. The current system of environmental protection does nothing to help the environment and actual harm by these policies has been documented.

The only abuses I am aware of are those instigated by large businesses who want to profit from from their land use but without consideration for how their activities impact their neighbors.

The system I promote would take care of that problem as well. Are you interested in learning more?

[farmfriend]

Actually I think our best bet is a law suit. We need someone who is well versed in constitutional law to look into it.

[citizenmike]

I am referring to property rights because I asked other posters why they were against conservation. Their responses indicated that they were against conservation because it involved a loss of "property rights".

Do you have examples of land abuses due to conservation in the Atlanta area as you stated in your previous post?

I agree that the letter you posted does seem very silly that someone would need to ask for permission, in writing, to collect 4 cups of sand. While it is silly and entertaining I don't see how it defends your position. How does this sanctuary constitute a land abuse or infringe on anyone's property rights? How is this example of conservation harmful to society?

[hedgetrimmer]

How is this example of conservation harmful to society?

This example isn't silly. It is a very clear depiction of an individual granted power without any checks and balances who is using it to manage the people who come in contact with the Monterey Bay down to an almost molecular level. Have you never read history and do you not understand our government is supposed to protect the rights of its citizens and not take them away? It surely is not a free country when the harbor master cannot remove a cup of sand from the harbor without maps, aerial photos, observers and a chain of custody that is more restrictive for a cup of sand than it is for the researchers at the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory! Do you even care what this "silliness" costs the taxpayer ( which you pay too because it is a National sanctuary).

I think if you were from the former soviet union, you would see the relationship between the actions of this superintendent and the actions of the lower echelons of the communist party leadership.

[FairOpinion]

I am disappointed in this as well.

But if Davis had been governor, he surely would have signed all this, and worse.

Arnold is at least really are working on turning CA around, and has accomplished a lot of positive things, which we wouldn't have gotten under a Dem governor.

So, if you do an objective comparison between a Dem CA governor or Arnold, while his record falls short, but it's still an order of magnitude better than that of a Dem.

Remember, Arnold had the Legislature repeal the illegal aliens' driver's license bill when he came into office, and just vetoed it now, when it was put on his desk.

You need to look at the whole picture.

[farmfriend]

But if Davis had been governor, he surely would have signed all this, and worse.

I've heard it said here many times that Davis vetoed a Conservancy bill. I know you are on our side on this issue but there is just no defending this at all.

[SierraWasp]

Remember this?

[hedgetrimmer]

But if Davis had been governor, he surely would have signed all this, and worse.

The conservancy was a campaign promise that the governor made to environmental groups. The conservancy has its origins in the Sierra Nevada framework, which is an Agenda 21 project from the UN that began in 1998 or 1999. Davis did not make the conservancy part of his bid for the governorship, Arnold did.

If you look into the sierra nevada framework and the subsequent sierra nevada conservancy you will find Gov. Schwarzenegger mentioned frequently.