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

Skip to comments.

Schwarzenegger approves conservancy, signs 20 other enviro bills
SF Gate/San Francisco Chronicle ^ | Thursday, September 23, 2004 | JIM WASSERMAN, Associated Press Writer

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 ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: ab2600; blowingupboxes; california; callegislation; conservancy; environment; environmentalism; landgrab; propertyrights; schwarzenegger; sierraconservancy; sierranevada; socialistagenda
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-110 next last
To: Centurion2000

"SB 1615 by Senator Jeff Denham (R-Salinas) - Air pollution: smog check: out-of-state vehicles."

I caught that too.

Why do I suspect that this is some revenue trap that will be unenforceable without resorting to unconstitutional infringements on citizens rights?

It sounds suspiciously like the Jerry Brown scheme to conduct roadside smog checks, and of course once they have you stopped a search of your vehicle will be routine.

Fourth amendment? Not a consideration in the Kali. police state!


61 posted on 09/23/2004 11:52:47 PM PDT by Richard-SIA ("The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield" JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: citizenmike

Fishing oversight in the Monterey Bay is currently administered by the California Department of Fish and Game, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Pacific Management Fishery Council . The original 1992 MBNMS Designation Document promised that fishing would not be additionally regulated through Sanctuary rules. Perhaps Sanctuary Officials are hoping the fishermen will forget that promise because now there is a proposed ban o­n krill fishing and the establishment of Marine Protected Areas that outlaw access to boaters, fishermen, and the public.

Lisa Rudnick, an abundance ecologist, property rights advocate and a founding member of Freedom 21 Santa Cruz was able to attend a portion of the MBNMS meeting o­n the evening of July 30th. "It is mainly the principle of it all that drives me," says Rudnick. "I will not stand by silently as many responsible fishermen now join the ranks of the loggers, ranchers, miners, farmers and many other productive citizens who have been suffocated by o­nerous regulations based o­n politicized science with questionable credibility."

Many small, independent fishermen working o­n our federal seas have been regulated out of their livelihoods to the point of ruin. So why is it that some of the BIG fish like those associated with Tyson Foods seem to thrive? Is this the new definition of "Sustainable Fishing"? Government/private partnerships o­n the high seas?

Will it Succeed?

Perhaps we should take a closer look at the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary program that's being heavily promoted as the latest effort to "save our environment" (from ourselves). Are the Sanctuary Officials qualified to opine o­n the condition of and solutions for the Bay? Most are experts o­n neither oceans nor o­n fish. They were appointed, not elected, and they work for Bill Douros, Superintendent of the Sanctuary under NOAA and the Federal Department of Commerce. Some o­n the SAC have a background of participation in the formative stages of the Local Santa Cruz UN Agenda 21 Campaign. Agenda 21 is the blueprint for Sustainable Development that puts nature above man and all private property and natural resources under the power of the state.[See UN Agenda 21 Chapter 17 for UN oceans agenda].

And when has "the State" ever in the history of the world been a "good steward" of the earth?

The Sanctuary program seems to be simply a massive land grab that puts the control of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for you and your posterity under the control of a cabal of government and non-government bureaucrats.

Let's contemplate what we're doing here before the Bay becomes a sanctuary for the elite and the land becomes a controlled penitentiary for us, the common fleet.

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/sept_2003/private.htm


62 posted on 09/23/2004 11:52:59 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: citizenmike; hedgetrimmer
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.

Here you go. It took me all of two minutes to find this one. It does involve a large corporation but you can see that this corporation is conservation minded and tried to do the right thing. If I have to I will go find a small fry as well.

63 posted on 09/23/2004 11:53:36 PM PDT by farmfriend ( In Essentials, Unity...In Non-Essentials, Liberty...In All Things, Charity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: citizenmike

There is a HUGE difference between "conservation" and radical socialist eco-Nazi, private property rights abolishing extremist!

I would pity the people of Kali. if they had not elected their masters themselves.


64 posted on 09/23/2004 11:56:21 PM PDT by Richard-SIA ("The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield" JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: citizenmike
I live near Atlanta, Georgia. I would be interested in learning about land use abuses around here.

Ok, here is a small fry.

65 posted on 09/23/2004 11:57:49 PM PDT by farmfriend ( In Essentials, Unity...In Non-Essentials, Liberty...In All Things, Charity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Richard-SIA
I would pity the people of Kali. if they had not elected their masters themselves.

Mr. Douros who runs the monterey bay sanctuary was not elected. The people who will run the conservancy will not be elected. You will get a petty tyrant running his own personal soviet very soon in the sierra nevada mountains. And he won't be elected.

Thanks to our emerging soviet system of council government in California encouraged by the supreme terminator, we won't have to worry about electing anyone soon.
66 posted on 09/24/2004 12:00:13 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: citizenmike; hedgetrimmer
Here you go. It took me all of two minutes to find this one. It does involve a large corporation but you can see that this corporation is conservation minded and tried to do the right thing.

Well it would help if I provided the link. Sheesh.

67 posted on 09/24/2004 12:00:21 AM PDT by farmfriend ( In Essentials, Unity...In Non-Essentials, Liberty...In All Things, Charity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

Before I respond to your post I will make the observation that conservation seems to be preceived and handled differently here in the Southeast as compared to out west.

Here, when lands are set aside for federal parks it seems to occur through amiable negotiations and good will gestures on the part of private land owners. On Cumberland Island most of the park land was donated by private owners. Other land owners on the island have agreed (its my understanding) to will the land to descendants but not to develop it or sell it.

The Nature Conservancy buys land from private owners and gives it to the government for parks. Much of the Smoky Mountains Park was in terrible shape after extensive clear cutting before the government bought it on the cheap and made a park.



68 posted on 09/24/2004 12:04:24 AM PDT by citizenmike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: citizenmike
Other land owners on the island have agreed (its my understanding) to will the land to descendants but not to develop it or sell it.

Rescuing Private Property Or The Ruination Of Future Generations? By J. Zane Walley Part 1and Part 2

There is no question that this series of articles will brew a storm of controversy. Hopefully, they will spark debate on this murky and potentially risky property option. Conservation easements (CEs) are viewed as a saving grace by many private property owners and as an irreparable mistake by others. Most property owners are still scratching their heads trying to figure out inherent pros and cons, but practically all agree that the long term actuality of selling or giving a CE will not be known for generations.

The major contention is that a CE could save family land from the taxman upon the demise of the owners, but would, through inevitable economic conditions, force heirs to sell the property at greatly discounted prices to the organization holding the easement. The pro-easement camp believes that the financial and tax advantages are sufficient to guarantee family land can remain with kin perpetually instead of being subdivided to pay taxes.

There are no simplistic explanations on the pros and cons of conservation easements because they are infinitely complex. In these articles, I’ll present hard facts, findings, examples, and interview property owners subscribing to both schools of thought. Additionally, I solicit your observations by email and letter for possible inclusion in the series. This column series will run in six monthly installments. When completed, the entire article will be available from the Paragon Foundation. WHAT IS A CONSERVATION EASEMENT?

Researcher Gina Brosig, in an analysis for the American Farm Bureau Federation used the Texas Natural Resources Code (TNRC) as an example. TNRC defines a CE as “a non-possessory interest of a holder in real property that imposes limitations or affirmative obligations.” Black's Law Dictionary defines an easement as a "right of use over the property of another."

Ms. Brosig abridged the CE concept writing that; “Conservation easements are more like restrictive covenants than easements. A grantor who enters into a CE agrees to dedicate the portion of his property encumbered by the easement to a specified use (or non-use as the case may be) or agrees to adhere to specified practices thereon-in perpetuity. Common law dictates that the original parties must intend for the restrictive covenant to run with the land and the covenant must bind the parties and their assigns. In other words, a landowner who enters into such an agreement not only signs away his right to change the use of the land, but also gives away the rights of any future owner to change the use of the land.”

To understand CEs, view your property as a bundle of distinct rights that can be separated. Examples are mineral rights, water rights. Your development rights prevalently constitute the most valuable portion of your entire property rights package. Commonly, when you sell or give a conservation easement, that is what you, your heirs and all future owners lose. The right to develop the property, and in numerous cases the right to use portions of your land and its resources. CEs HIGHLY COVETED BY U.S. REGULATORY AGENCIES

Is a CE valuable? The Feds sure want them. An example lies in recent federal agency taking-actions. They have devised a method to take conservation easements without paying a dime. Brent Mitchell, Director of the Atlantic Center for the Environment, Massachusetts, notes that an agricultural landowner is soon to be assessed a monetary fine by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Fish and Wild Service for violation of the Endangered Species and Clean Water Acts. The agencies are interested in offering a settlement package in lieu of the fine to include the “donation” by the landowner, of riparian easements on the property which was disturbed. Brent Mitchell was distressed by this action. Not over the right or wrong of federal agencies seizing private property under the auspices of their regulations, but rather how it would be viewed by the public.

Mr. Mitchell stated “Several questions have arisen. Who should hold the easements? A local land trust holding the easement presents the appearance of the federal government coming into an agricultural valley, condemning land and handing it over to a private non-profit. The state or a federal agency might be the most palatable entity to hold the easement.”

Tim Howell, an U.S. Government environmental attorney, states that federal agencies can take conservation easements in lieu, or as a part of the penalty process. He noted, “This option falls under the EPA's supplemental environmental project (SEP) policy. A SEP is an environmentally beneficial project which a violator voluntarily agrees to perform as part of a settlement of an enforcement action. In return, EPA agrees to reduce the monetary penalty that would otherwise apply as a result of the violation(s).” Attorney Howell also noted that “Some federal agencies may hold such easements.”

Bluntly stated, it seems that EPA and other regulatory agencies can issue an ultimatum. “Give us the most valuable portion of your property rights or we’ll take your money!” Furthermore, the responsible federal agency can assign those rights and the power to enforce the restrictive covenants to an environmental organization such as the Sierra Club or The Nature Conservancy.

At present some commercial lenders take a dim view of loaning monies on properties that have lost the most valuable asset, the potential for future development and change. The con-forces contend that because of the vastly diminished value of the land, any Ag operation will eventually fail, because as any farmer and rancher knows, his best business ally is his banker. The pro-easement side contends that land with existing CEs are becoming a highly sought after asset which increases the loan value.
69 posted on 09/24/2004 12:09:48 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

Perhaps I should have said, "elected the masters who are approving this scheme, themselves".


70 posted on 09/24/2004 12:11:43 AM PDT by Richard-SIA ("The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield" JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Simmy2.5

The 100 foot firebreak around homes in "mountain" areas is totally UNENFORCEABLE.

I live in Nevada County, Calif. The entire county is considered a "fire zone" except for inside city limits of Truckee, Lake Wildwood, Nevada City, Grass Valley, and Lake of the Pines. EVERYTHING else is "fire zones".

What is the problem, you ask? Well, Most houses are built within 100 feet of their property lines, and I have absolutely NO PERMISSION, (nor will I ask) to go "fire safe my neighbor's land, wooded or pasture or whatever.
My house is entirely within 100 feet of my neighbor's property. There is NO WAY anyone is going to be able to enforce this.
They have cut the budget of the CDF, and grounded most of the borade planes. Now they think they have $$$$$ to measure the 100' perimeters of over 43,000 properties within the county? Nevada County is only one of 13 counties in this bill. GOOD LUCK.
Arnold is turning into a disappointment over enviromental issues. The Sierra CONservancy is just that---a CON. It is a law against private property rights. They will tell you what and when you can do whatever with your property, and by the time they have regulated it into a very low value, then they will become "willing buyers" of your "willing seller" property at 8 cents on the dollar. More and more land goes into the holdings of the government, and NO TAXES are collected. Puts taxpayers further and further behind the 8-ball. Then the "sold" land gets NO maintenance, and fires like last year in So Cal will become the norm. Environazi's at their best.


71 posted on 09/24/2004 12:26:49 AM PDT by ridesthemiles (ridesthemiles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: citizenmike

Clean water and clean air is the sheep clothing:

EXTREMELY detailed rules and regulations about what you can do on YOUR private property is the wolf in this bill and others like it.

One group is trying to limit you to using only 35% of your entire property for ANYTHING!!!. No pasture, No crop, No anything. BUT- you ARE expected to keep paying your full tax bill every year. AND- you are expected to keep it fire safe, but you are also required to keep it "in a natural state of vegetation". I personally don't think there is ANYONE alive who knows "what the natural state of vegetation" of my 5 acres is, was, or should be. But I am expected to produce this. For the east coasters, you wouldn't believe the ACRES and acres of dead pine trees from the bark beetle. A fire looking for a dry lightening strike. This is an example of "natural vegetation".
It is despicable.


72 posted on 09/24/2004 12:36:42 AM PDT by ridesthemiles (ridesthemiles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: citizenmike

The current rules and regs in Nevada County DO prevent you from cutting down a tree or two on your property.

You MUST get a permit.
You MUST get an arborist-minimum of $5000 out of your picket- to verify that the tree(s) you want to cut down are diseased enough to let you cut them down. Tree where you want your house? RE SITE your house, is their answer. I could go on and on and on. You have absolutely no idea about the rules some enviros want to put into place.


73 posted on 09/24/2004 12:41:41 AM PDT by ridesthemiles (ridesthemiles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

Cal bump!


74 posted on 09/24/2004 12:45:13 AM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them, or they like us?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Simmy2.5

Didn't Schwarzenegger express his support for this initiative in the Recall election campaign a year ago?


75 posted on 09/24/2004 1:34:02 AM PDT by Barlowmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

Insanity!


76 posted on 09/24/2004 1:34:13 AM PDT by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: citizenmike; hedgetrimmer
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".

I may have given you the wrong idea. I assumed since the subject of this thread was a "conservancy", and what many of us were vocally opposing was the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, that you meant "conservancy", not "conservation" in your original post.

No one here opposes conservation, just the method.

77 posted on 09/24/2004 1:45:01 AM PDT by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel

The Lt. Governor is elected, not appointed... and Arnold ain't no savior. We have more debt, more social programs, higher spending, etc. etc. etc. Perhaps that is not of concern to those in West Virginia, but it does concern some of us Californians.


78 posted on 09/24/2004 2:00:55 AM PDT by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: citizenmike
You should also read this book.
This book is an honest answer to a divisive struggle: Private Property Rights versus Environmental Protection. The answer is... BOTH.

79 posted on 09/24/2004 4:12:00 AM PDT by snopercod (In addition to medical, military and financial records Kerry won't even release his school records.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp

The RINOs have killed the republican party. And yes, Nixon was one of the first. Wage and price controls, OHSA, and a bunch of other unconstitutional programs were his legacy.


80 posted on 09/24/2004 4:16:23 AM PDT by snopercod (O beautiful for heroes proved, In liberating strife. Who more than self the country loved...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-110 next last

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