Of course, the Enviros are afraid that if property cannot be STOLEN any more and instead has to actually be BOUGHT, it would destroy their Left-Liberal AGENDA.
Posted on 11/14/2004 11:39:07 AM PST by Issaquahking
EDITORIAL: Endangered weeds
Insignificant plants shouldn't halt auction
|
|
The absurdity of the biodiversity movement was never more evident than Wednesday, when Las Vegas officials learned the federal government is moving to protect some 8,000 acres from development because of the presence of weeds.
Much of the land, which extends across the far northern valley from North Las Vegas west into Las Vegas, was slated for auction to home builders in February. However, botanists found the Las Vegas bearpoppy, a scrub protected under state law, and a previously unknown form of the kindling known as the Las Vegas buckwheat.
"It's a brand new variety based on the genetics of the plant," U.S. Bureau of Land Management environmental protection specialist Jeff Steinmetz said of the buckwheat.
And under the Endangered Species Act, the government can move to preserve every subspecies and sub-subspecies of plant and wildlife because of differences detectable only at the genetic level. A rural squirrel with a fleck of red in its tail becomes "endangered," while its plentiful, nearly identical cousins beg for nuts in the city park and spawn future generations of road kill.
A squirrel, fleck of red or not, is still a squirrel. And a weed -- buckwheat, bearpoppy or other -- is still a weed.
The federal government already controls about 90 percent of the land in Nevada. Municipal leaders, dealing with limited room to grow, are justifiably concerned that "protection" of the acreage could further drive up the cost of land and send the price of valley housing even higher.
Local leaders should challenge the protection of the land and work to ensure next year's auction goes forward.
Agitation, regulation, taxation and ultimately litigation!!! They always shop till they drop, looking for a friendly GANG-GREEN judge to pull up some of that "settled law" they shrewdly got some unsuspecting twit of a politition to introduce and get passed in the past for them.
As someone pointed out to me in the ongoing Klamath debacle, solutions and resolution will never come with extreme environmentalists at the table. They make their living from conflict and do not benefit if environmental problems are resolved.
I also have noted that there is some weird reverence for "sound science" that will empirically stand as THE rule in solving problems. "Science" has become so biased and theoretical, it cannot be used as an absolute reference standard. The bulk of it is hardly based on the scientific method of field research any more. Much of it is computer modeling and manipulation of previously published papers.
It is important to have policy decsions made at the level of the elected official and not the scientist's or the bureaucratic committee level. Only the elected official is directly accountable to the people. The elected official can take other factors into consideration in decision-making, such as social and economic impacts, and make a balanced decision. Elected officials are also (supposedly) constrained in their regulatory authority to protect the rights of the private property owner (including privacy) from pressures to promote the public benefit at the owner's expense.
Here is good news from the PLF:
http://www.pacificlegal.org/view_PLFNews.asp?iID=261&sTitle=PLF+Launches+Sweeping+Lawsuit+Challenging+Critical+Habitat+for+48+Species+in+California
PLF Launches Sweeping Lawsuit Challenging Critical Habitat for 48 Species in California
Contact: Dawn Collier
Phone: (916) 419-7111
Sacramento,CA; November 15, 2004: Pacific Legal Foundation today announced its intent to file a sweeping lawsuit against the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service, challenging the critical habitat designations for 48 listed species of California plants and animals. The lawsuit will be a statewide challenge to the federal agencies’ broad failure to meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in designating critical habitats. PLF filed a 60-day notice of its intent to sue today.
PLF believes the lawsuit is necessary to fix four dozen critical habitat designations that are now invalid under recent federal court decisions. In particular, PLF says all 48 California designations contain the same fatal flaws identified by a federal judge last year in PLF’s landmark court victory that invalidated the designation of thousands of acres of land as critical habitat for the Alameda whipsnake.
Specifically, PLF argues that critical habitat designations throughout California violate the ESA because the federal agencies did not adequately identify the areas that are essential to
species conservation and routinely relied on inadequate economic analyses in evaluating the social impact of designations as required under the act.
“The federal government has been using a flawed template to designate critical habitat,” said PLF attorney Reed Hopper. The government’s strategy is to set aside as much land as possible without doing the work to determine where the species actually live and what they require to recover. The result is that species languish on the endangered species list endlessly without any real hope of being saved.”
“This lawsuit will promote species recovery by forcing the federal government to set goals and meet clear standards in designating critical habitat. It’s a win-win for everyone,” Hopper said.
In addition, Hopper explains that the agencies understate the economic impact of critical habitat designations as a matter of course, despite the fact that the ESA specifically requires the government to evaluate the potential effect of proposed designations on the local economy before the designation is made.
According to the California State Association of Counties, of California’s entire land area of 100 million acres, over 42 million acres are designated as critical habitat. Once land is designated as critical habitat, it falls under severe use restrictions that increase the costs of constructing homes, hospitals, schools, and roads which, in turn, raises the cost of living and doing business in the state.
“The federal government has repeatedly ignored the impact of ESA regulation on California property owners, businesses, and communities,” said Hopper.
“We’re talking about millions of acres of property subjected to strict federal regulation, which has dramatic repercussions for the state’s economy. Yet federal regulators routinely claim
there will be no significant economic impact from proposed designations, no matter how much land they restrict or where it is located,” said Hopper.
“With such high stakes for both species and people, federal regulators need to rethink how the ESA is implemented. We’re simply asking the government to replace guesswork with sound science and get it right,” added Hopper.
PLF won the landmark victory in the Alameda whipsnake case (Home Builders Association of Northern California v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 268 F. Supp. 2d 1197, E.D.Cal.) in May, 2003. In that case, FWS admitted it had guessed where the snake lived and suggested that the designation of over 400,000 acres of land as critical habitat would have no significant economic impact in northern California, despite the fact that the area is suffering from a severe housing crunch and much of the designated property was slated for family homes. In finding for PLF, the federal court invalidated the designation, and issued a comprehensive analysis of the requirements the government must meet when it designates critical habitat.
PLF is bringing the lawsuit on behalf of the Home Builders Association of Northern California, the Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California State Grange, and the Greenhorn Grange.
###
To arrange interviews on this issue, journalists and producers may contact PLF's Media Director, Dawn Collier, at (916) 419-7111.
I know they've been working like fiends on this for years as I am on their mailing list.
Heck! It's ALL manipulation, when you get right down to it!!!
Of course, the Enviros are afraid that if property cannot be STOLEN any more and instead has to actually be BOUGHT, it would destroy their Left-Liberal AGENDA.
That's right, they ALWAYS turn to their saviors, the courts!!! If it weren't for the left leaning judicial activists in this nation, the liberal GANG-GREEN wouldn't have a chance.
To sit and watch a years long group mobilization effort at defense of the constitution like Oregonians In Action getting these measures passed by big majorities, only to be stifled by judicial activists is disheartening, indeed!!!
These are the frustrations that eventually lead to very messy revolutions. In France it lead to guillotines!!!
I don't know much about this issue, but i understand the gist of it; & I respect your knowledge of matters of property rights, etc. I think people don't pay attention to it because it's not something many people can relate to. we live in a sound byte society. Most people just own their homes, have a small front & back yard, & go to work every day to pay the mortgage. No one has ever infringed on their lawn, lol. It's as simple as that.
WHen people hear that arnie's appointment wants to tax them by the mile for driving, they get angry and protest. This is a simple issue, one that even John & ken can relay to the people.
But this conservancy stuff,.. no one i have seen, is able to sum it up in a cogent, relatable manner so that the average joe can GET IT and understand why to be leery of anyone (Arnie) who supports such things.
Most people don't own acres of property and no govt goons are lurking or infringing on it.
One guy claimed that the "Sierra Club' seizes all sorts of property. I don't belieev that. I replied that the sierra club has zero authority to seize even one foot of propery, much less an acre or 100 acres. Don't they simply lobby, and then have the govt seize this land? i mean, people cant just form some club and pronounce that the're suddenly 'kings' who are taking over someones private land. that's ridiculous. and, what does the UN have to do with this??
In order to get people interested, you have to give them a synopsis,.. a simple overview they can understand. I know i *could* read an 800 page detailed dissertation on it. not gonna happen.
don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to criticize. just giving my two cents. i know this issue is a basic one, and it's important. My point is that to get the public involved you have to make this issue have mass appeal.
Even when I point out the litigation hazard to a land owner, they just don't get why anyone should have private property with that kind of control on it. I've asked them if they've given a copy of their ignition key to everyone they know... but they STILL don't get it!!!
So your points are well taken... It's no wonder that Socialism is no longer creeping in this country, it's now at a full gallup. Especially here in the Sierra-Nevada Foothills with our new Republican Governor inspired CONservacancy!!!
Thank you for your heartfelt and insightful comments. In answer to your request, go here and scroll about halfway down the page (the beginning is highly technical) to a section entitled "From Ranch to Ranchettes". Read that section carefully. It may take a little work at first because of the terminology, but you will start to understand the environmental problems that derive from a failure to respect property rights, and the reasons the activists behave the way they do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask as I wrote that book.
If you want an example of an urban form of enviro-racketeering, please consider this post.
Here's a few more good threads:
History of Federal Land Control
Property Rights is not just a Western problem
While these quasi-governmental regional authorities have brought new federal dollars to many communities, they are also eroding the authority and accountability of local and state elected officials. Moreover, they are slowly transforming the processes of representative government.
If anyone hasn't read this exposé of the Nature Conservancy, they should. It is a series in the Washington Post; there are 10 or more articles that they have written over the past year or so.
And... a quote:
“The establishment of an American Soviet government will involve
the confiscation of large landed estates in town and country, and also, the
whole body of forests, mineral deposits, lakes, rivers and so on.”- William Z. Foster, National Chairman of the Communist Party,
restating point one of the Communist Manifesto in 1932,
“The abolition of private property.”
Yes, not to MENTION the great Gang Green series the Sacramento Bee ran a while back - Here is a link...
http://www.sacbee.com/static/archive/news/projects/environment/20010422.html
...and more links to a number of other good background articles from a variety of sources, at...
http://www.econot.com/page9.html
...but be careful not to read too much of this stuff at once. It's REALLY depressing! (More than you wanted to know/Worse than you feared...)
Good links for the research library. Thanks for posting.
They take the economic value out of the things they supposedly protect. When something isn't valuable, they don't invest in it to keep it top shape.
Conservancies buy development rights. They DON'T buy habitat. They don't pay any taxes on those rights while they increase in value. Often, a developer can get the government to buy the property adjacent to the one he develops to make that adjacent property massively increase in value. It's kind of like getting taxpayers to buy a free park for the wealthy.
Don't think for a minute that if those development rights become worth too much that they won't be for sale as developable land. The Nature Conservancy does it all the time.
Speaking of outhouses, did you know that every County Seat was a "five holer?"
Oh! And now that the sun goes down so early, I can get John & Ken a little. I'm really waiting for the sometimes entertainingly mindless Phil Hendrie Show so I can listen to Bobbie Dooley say "Un-huh, Un-huh" instead of listening to Phil's callers. It's a way of letting my mind, which is usually wound too tight, relax and enjoy some non-sense for a change. I'm not too high on John & Ken, however.
I can live without John and Ken... and I can DEFINITELY live without Hendrie!
BTW, they seem to be auditioning people on KABC for Doug McIntyre's old RedEyeRadio (midnight to 5:00AM). The last two nights (mornings?) have been Carol Liebau (atty and political analyst). VERY entertaining and informative. She gets one more night tonight. We'll see if they keep her. Other than her, they've offered a bunch of socialists talking about how great nationalized health-care would be and what a wonderful President Arnold would make.
Oh Good Lord!!! God save what's left of the CA Republic from that self-infatuated, ignorant mad-man!!! (let alone the US!!!)
Yep... it comes from one of our part-time talk radio hosts here in L.A., Kim Serafin. BTW, she worked for Giuliani and Riordan both. She calls herself a 'moderate' democrat. What a gal.
I don't git KABC too well for some unknown reason.
I hope your kidding? If not, you need to read this whole thread. even without the illegal aliens, Las Vegas is growing at over 200 people a day. I will reserve my thoughts till later.
I couldn't be more serious.
If not, you need to read this whole thread. even without the illegal aliens,
I mean by immigrants, ALL immigrants, legal or otherwise.
ALL immigration needs to stop because this country is too crowded already, and we are losing freedoms and quality-of-life-prosperity as a result.
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.