Posted on 09/23/2004 7:04:29 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Those questions are answered in that book I linked to. Go read then get back to us. The education you require is more than we can provide you with here. I think you will find that book enlightening.
I am not defending that Arnold signed this. I was right here on this thread saying that I am disappointed -- "good grief" is all I could muster.
But after I calmed down, I looked at who is better for CA overall: Davis or Bustamante vs. Arnold.
Based on that, while, I am quite disappointed with this decision of Arnold's, he has done and will do much more to turn around CA's business climate and budget.
So overall, if we look at it objectively, we are still better off with Arnold.
I have gone back over this thread and I don't find anyone against conservation. You have made this claim two or three times now and you need to back it up with an example. I'm starting to think you are a leftist who is here to bait us and you are not interested in any of the facts presented to you.
Neighbor, can you loan me a cup of sand? I need some clean sand so I can pass my sand compatibility test.
I have to disagree. We would have had grid lock with Bustemonte and I see that as preferable to lasting socialism. Sorry.
I actually have a bag of sand. I bought it for crafts. How much do you want? Couple of bucks at Home Depot will get you a whole bag.
OK, I get the sand from Home Depot. Now the only problem is swapping it for the one in the chain of custody.....
I noticed that lefty made some unsupported charges against the posters here. He also failed to answer my post linking Carry's book. He is not interested in debate that is for sure.
That's what's even more insane about this. You are incorrect! Davis Vetoed this piece of crap a couple of years ago!!!
It's bizzare. As I said in my lament above, GANG-GREEN who are nearly all rabid Democrats couldn't get even Gray Dufus to sigh it as I have included in all my endless whining about this abomination, but I see you haven't been reading those numerous replies I've posted to you and anyone else that would listen.
I guess you see "SierraWasp" and consider the source and figure I suffer from terminal prejudice against Arnold and just don't read when I keep repeating that even Davis was smart enough to veto this garbage government idea. It's hard to believe you missed that as I've repeated it adnauseum!!! People shun me because that's all I've said for months now.
Wonderful! I've driven everyone off being repetitive and nobody heard it anyway. Which proves the old adage: "Never complain and never explain because nobody believes any of it and nobody wants to hear it anyway!" I guess I am a slow learner!!!
Arnold is the first step in taking the state back. If he can be persuaded to appoint Tom McClintock as Lt. Governer, Californians would have a real candidate to support in 2006 or '08.
The harbormaster doesn't own the harbor so this situation is not an example of a violation of property rights or land abuse. It is definitely an example of small thinking, over controlling bureaucracy, which I abhor, but the original topic was that conservation tramples on property rights and causes land abuses. You haven't shown that.
The soviets nationalized their private industries and took land from farmers without compensation. That's not how it works here which you should know from your civics courses.
Yes, I am concerned about the potential for abuse by the government's right of eminent domain, but I haven't seen an example of this being used unjustly for conservation. For WalMart maybe, but not for conservation.
" With numerous strokes of the pen, Schwarzenegger opened 1,100 miles of car pool lanes to hybrid cars "
LOL! Stupid is as stupid does, and this is stupid doubled.
" Remember, Arnold had the Legislature repeal the illegal aliens' driver's license bill when he came into office, "
How did he do that? The CA governor must have a big stick.
Unfortunate choice of words in light of AB 2600. My parents live within the boundries of this land grab area along with 100's of thousands of others. (See: http://www.cfbf.com/maps/images/map_sierranevada.jpg for the map of the huge area). Arnold is like G.W., not even close to the best choice, but better than the alternative. I voted for recall but not for Pete Wilson's puppet Arnold.
Now who is doing the accusing. I can easily explain how this infringes on property rights. And that is not an on line book. There is a lot of information on the web site though. The book would explain how this imposes on property rights much better than I can but I will endeavor anyway. I'll even include the corruption that accompanies it.
Here goes. First you have foundations such as Pew and Ford who have overseas interests in oil, timer, natural gas etc. They give huge amounts of money to environmental groups who then file law suits, all designed to force regulations on us. These government regulations make it impossible for land owners, especially environmentally conscious ones (because that takes more money and makes it hard to make a profit) to make a profit from their land. They are denied legitimate use of their land. Now the only way to recoup on their investment is to sell the land. It now has a drastically reduced price because of the regulations imposed on it's use. The Conservancy now steps in and buys the land for a song with government grant money and then gives the land to the government. The original land owner has been denied his rights to use his land, they were stolen by those who did not pay for it. The foundations who funded the law suits in the first place are now free from domestic competition to their foreign investments.
Then you have the Nature Conservancy. They sue claiming some endangered whatever so you can't drill or log or develop it. Then they buy this devalued land at the reduced rate and turn around and drill or log or develop it. Or they sell it to one of their executives to build a multi million dollar house on. All documented by that right wing paper the Washington Post.
Sustainable Developers invade Santa Cruz County
By Freedom 21 Santa Cruz
Despite the advanced stage of the local Sustainable Development takeover, Santa Cruz forest owners are winning their court battle over confiscatory zoning ordinances. In addition to that battle, they - and others - must prepare to defend against the following Sustainable Development attacks on Santa Cruz County (a partial list).
1. The U.S. Department of Interior is attempting to create a county-wide Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) through local fire agencies. The HCP is a regulatory program that mandates private property owners manage their land pursuant to single species protection, at the expense of ecological diversity, productivity, and human liberty. This system of regulations could keep landowners from being able to prevent fire hazards, and prevent them from walking on their own property. HCP implementation had been thwarted in 2002 by private citizens, but the plan is now being re-launched, bundled within the adoption of an international fire code (Urban Wildlands Intermix Code - UWIC) disguised as a local ordinance.
2. Within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a web of Best Management Practices are being implemented by the local Resource Conservation District, in coordination with the local Farm Bureau and others. The program leads to the implementation of a new regulatory process for rural and agricultural activities. The system will operate under the principle of voluntary compliance - manage land the government's way, or else!
3. The U.S. Department of Commerce's Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary is a massive, mountain-ridge-to-shoreline land use regulatory program designed to "protect the ocean." The scope of this set of growing regulations is limitless. For instance, urban runoff from kitty litter is considered a threat to the Sanctuary. Over twenty different agencies partner to enforce sanctuary regulations, with fines of up to $119,000 per violation.
4. Five million dollars has been allocated to a local federal employee of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, so that he can hand out money to battered (over-regulated) farmers, in exchange for conservation agreements and easements. Conservation Easements vest future management control of the farmlands into the hands of government, or its partnering "non-profit" farm organizations, like Agri-Culture.
5. The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board now has veto authority over timber harvest plan approvals. Recent California legislation gives this board the ability to impose an unlimited water data collection fee. The tax has been designed to be as high as 70% of the timber yield.
The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board is also mapping agricultural land, with farm bureau cooperation, for purposes of designing agricultural irrigation permit requirements. This program would steal the farmer's genuine ownership in the water drawn from his well, and place it into state control, thus subjecting the farmer to government control of his land management. The purpose of this regulatory infringement on farmers is to gain state control over water use, crop selection, crop rotation and most other farm management decisions.
6. The Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency has imposed an enormous illegal tax, collecting tens of millions of dollars from local farmers for use of their own privately-produced water. Some courageous farmers have initiated a major legal undertaking to nullify the tax.
Local farmland is threatened with the prospect of a federal water pipeline coming to our rain-abundant county. When compounded with new state laws, the farmers' groundwater may then be subject to conjunctive-use rules that are intended to merge ground water with surface water regulation. The result would be a loss to the farmer, of his California constitutional right to the well-head water that the farmer pumped.
When the farmers say "so long to our water rights," Americans can look forward to food grown on state-managed, centrally-controlled, collectivized farms. There will be increasingly fewer choices - and real and manipulated shortages. Remember, Sustainable Development views American production as "unsustainable." Sustainable Development, in its own words, seeks to destroy America's middle class.
7. A smart growth housing element has been drafted, and is being reviewed by the California State Department of Housing and Community Development. The proposed draft restricts use and limits basic services to many rural areas. The plan also seeks to place approximately 10,000 government-controlled housing units within walking distance of an impractical rail line. After a 4-1 vote, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors gave perfunctory legislative approval to the draft. The local paper reported initial government "grants" of $295 million in order to subsidize the first 3,700 of these "affordable" coastal projects. Language in the county's draft housing element encourages and provides incentives for these government controlled units to be built by government's "partners". (If an individual wanted to build a single-family house in the county, it could take years, and, perhaps, $100,000 in government fees.)
Government-imposed conditions to housing may include restrictions on auto ownership, or auto use, and compliance to future edicts regarding acceptance of water and energy "masters" who would possess unilateral authority to restrict an occupant's ration of water and power. The so-called owners of many of these units will not be allowed to obtain market equity. Housing occupants will be chosen by a government Housing Authority. The majority of Supervisors on the County Board appear to presume that the lure of the subsidized rents and controlled prices (with beaches as a bonus), will expand their voter base. This will allow them to usher in water and power rations on suburban homes, and increased tax assessments on suburban homeowners. Under Sustainable Development principles, suburban, single-family homes are not "sustainable"
Housing will be collectivized under Sustainable Development. Consumer-driven and morally-financed new housing development is close to dead in Santa Cruz.
8. Hundreds of "non vacant - underutilized" private property parcels have been identified by the Santa Cruz County Planning Department for future densification by government-selected Smart Growth builder "partners." Selected single-family home owners, on this list, will be harassed and replaced, or forced to comply.
9. County and regional plans, state grants, federal funds, and taxes are being prepared for the creation of a two-county (Monterey and Santa Cruz) "passenger rail line." Auto transportation has been deemed by the transportation authority as "behavior" that should be "modified." Accordingly, auto mobility is being made increasingly difficult.
The unveiling of Sustainable Development Agenda 21:
"...current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are unsustainable."
Maurice Strong - Secretary General United Nations 1992 Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Accords)
The Rio Accords were signed by then-President George H.W. Bush. Sustainable Development has been the official policy of all federal agencies since 1993, when President Clinton created the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD).
http://www.eco.freedom.org/el/20040502/santacruz.shtml
This will be disaster, not only for Kalifornicate'ya, but for adjoining states as well.
We can look forward to more Kali. refugee's, and endless litigation regarding shared resources.
Arnie seems to be getting it right only about 20% of the time.
Too bad for all of us.
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.
