Posted on 02/03/2007 4:33:51 PM PST by blam
Eco-millionaire's land grab prompts fury
Argentinian critics say an American campaigner is buying up vast wetlands for US strategic goals
Uki Goñi in Buenos Aires
Sunday February 4, 2007
The Observer (UK)
Douglas Tompkins cals himself a 'deep ecologist'. He is a millionaire on a quest to preserve some of Argentina's last frontier lands from human encroachment by buying them and turning them into ecological reserves.
But Argentina may not permit him such philanthropy. Opponents are branding him a new-age 'imperialist gringo' and claim he has a secret aim: to help the US military gain control of the country's natural resources. Tompkins, who sold his Esprit clothing firm in 1989 for a reported $150m to devote his time and wealth to ecology, takes such attacks in his stride. 'Land ownership is a political act; it arouses passions,' he says.
Tompkins, 63, holds to a very severe brand of environmentalism and is fond of reminding listeners that, unless runaway consumerism is halted, 'we humans will be building ourselves a beautiful coffin in space called planet Earth'.
Yet such statements do not carry much weight with Argentinian nationalists. The heaviest fire has come from radicals in the ruling Peronist party. Left-wing legislator Araceli Mendez introduced draft legislation in Congress a few months ago to confiscate the American's vast holdings. At the centre of the storm is a 310,000-acre estate Tompkins owns in the Ibera wetlands, a labyrinth of marshes, lakes and floating islands of nearly 2 million acres. 'He says he's worried about the birds and the wildlife,' said Mendez. 'But his land is above the Guarani aquifer, one of the most important fresh water reserves in the world, only 700km from an airbase the United States plans to build in neighbouring Paraguay.'
(Excerpt) Read more at observer.guardian.co.uk ...
"new-age imperialist"
These people are pretty smart. One whiff and they see it for what it really is.
More power to the guy for putting his money where his mouth is though. Does'nt sound like the impoverished down there will appreciate it and that makes for a risky investment.
Is anyone buying up land in Greenland yet?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
A good lefty is being attacked by international lefties - this is rich.
A greenie hippie in cahoots with the U.S. military to overthrow Paraguay and prepare for an invasion of Argentina. What will they think of next.
And you have put it better than I - he may be a wacky environmentalist - but he is using HIS OWN money (unlike enviro-wackos here) to preserve the environment. If it were up to me - I wouldn't have a problem at all with him buying the land and doing what he wants with it - it is something I wish we had the freedom to do here in the US - do WHAT WE WANT with OUR land/property...
And in all honesty - he may very well be correct in this case - there are some pretty fragile ecosystems within Argentina that are disappearing. If he wants to spend his own money and protect the areas by buying them - super.
Back in my home town, 30 years ago or so, there was a rich guy who was buying up farmland. Sometimes he'd buy 50 acres with a tiny house on it, and the day after settlement he'd send in bulldozers, level the house, put up fencing, and graze cattle or horses on the land. People got very suspicious. They thought he was going to build a huge factory or warehouses or a large airport. It got so they would refuse to sell to him and he had to use agents to buy land.
Finally, after he had acquired thousands of acres, his nefarious purpose was revealed: he loved open countryside and wanted to preserve it. He wanted people--anybody--to be able to ride horses freely across the open land the way they used to. He wanted this beautiful countryside to be his legacy. He said that there were plenty of other places quite nearby to build a mall or a subdivision.
Another man might have used his wealth to insist that the government take land for preservation. But this fellow did not want homeowners in the area to have their land condemned for parkland or forest preserve by the government; if they were going to sell, he knew he would be a more benevolent dictator and would pay the asking price instead of a condemnation price.
It was nice while it lasted, and it lasted many years. But he's dead now, and his dreams are as dead as he is. Despite his care in setting up a trust, despite the best efforts of his lawyers, his kids got their hands on the land and developed it. It's covered with McMansions and townhouses now.
That is totally sad. We had people in a local town leave an orchard to the city with the stipulation that it must be turned into a park and not developed (it's a cool little park, too.) I wonder if that would definitely hold up under legal scrutiny?
Sure it is not Robert Redford. He owns how many millions of acres that are off limits for ever. What is the name of the group that advertizes that you can leave your property in thier special trust so no development or hunting will ever occur on it. Only tree hungging and bird watching and hippie orgies.
What's wrong with that? If it's your land you ought to be able to leave it to anybody you please, including any land trust or to your Golden Retriever. If you want to keep it open for bird watching, so what? You paid for it.
Did I say there is anything wrong with it. I do have a suspicion however, that the goal is to limit hunting. And I think their goal is to limit hunting by buying up alot of land. Will they suceed. I don't know. We are not taking about a few hundred or thousand acres. We are talking about millions of acres.
"....or perhaps they find financially successful mates and latch on to them like parasites (see "ketchup boy" John Kerry for details)."
Uht-Oh. I think it's time to have a talk with Husband today, LOL! (Just kidding.)
Good points, though. ;)
Hi everybody, I´m Luciana, from Mar del Plata, Argentina. First I want to ask sorry for my english. I know that is an old post but I read your comments, and respectfully, I must say the article doesn´t show the truth. Part of the lands that Tompkins bought were home to a group of natives, a tribe that has lived there before Argentina even existed as a country. That´s why these lands were not on sale. Thanks to the corruption of some politicians, the purchase was handled without the consent of the natives. After that, in the middle of the night, the natives were taken from their homes by armed men. This only was shown one or two times for the TV, and reporters were threatened.
A lot of foreigns have bought lands saying that is to preserve nature, but then built cabins, and surround the lakes to private use. I lived in the Patagonia a year, and its really sad come back and see lakes surrounded by fences. Woods and lakes used to be public places for all, argentines or not. In the north even had kill people who refuse to leave the lands. And here is well known, the case of a foreign who bought all lands around a town and dont let the people pass trougth to come in o or out the town. It is not only fault of them, us too for dont do anything as a nation.
In the case of Tompkins what people in here believes is that the first donation was a cover, to keep buying lands with other motives. ¿And why USA is building militar bases in all the estrategic points in Latin America, like Guarani aquifer?
I´m concerned with ecollogy, so if people who buy lands here do it legally and do what they promise, We wouldn´t mind where are they from. But we see what it really happens day by day, so we cant be happy about this.
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.