This book not only makes a case against government environmental management, it proposes a solution based upon free markets, and private property rights.
Posted on 12/20/2001 3:20:36 AM PST by brityank
[MA] Landowners Take On State
Boston Globe 12.06.01GRAFTON - Tom Casale hasn't actually seen a ringed boghaunter dragonfly lately. But if he did, he'd probably swat it dead.
"My mother always used to say they'd sew your lips closed if you let them get too close," Casale said, standing on the porch of his A-frame house in the woods off Old Upton Road.
The dragonfly is one of five rare species whose preservation led the state to designate 8,700 acres in Grafton, Upton, and Hopkinton, including Casale's land, as the state's 26th Area of Critical Environmental Concern, part of a program to protect ecologically sensitive land.
The program has been in place in Massachusetts since 1975, but Casale and several other landowners in Grafton and Upton say that environmental-concern designations are being used with more vigor as a tool to control growth. In a lawsuit currently in the appeals process, they contend the designation diminishes the value of their land by imposing broader regulations on development.
"It's not right," Casale said. "Why should one half of the town be under this jurisdiction while the other side of town is not? It's a land-taking, and the thing that has us really up in arms is, they tried to push it through in a covert manner."
The clash in this land of thick woods, rolling hills, and dairy farms has become another flashpoint in the war on sprawl, as environmentalists seek to protect undeveloped land and landowners raise constitutional objections based on property rights.
The issue reached the US Supreme Court recently, in the case of a Rhode Island man prevented from building on his land because of wetlands regulations, and another case set to be heard this term of a Lake Tahoe, Calif., woman who says the government should compensate her for imposing a moratorium on development.
In the ACEC program, in which 100,000 acres have been protected thus far, there is no ban on development but, rather, an increased level of regulatory scrutiny on the designated land. Any 10 people can nominate an area for ACEC designation by showing the land has four of 11 characteristics that make it environmentally sensitive - a habitat for rare species, for example, or a wetlands ecosystem.
Massachusetts officials say the program is mostly about educating people about precious resources in the state, not slowing development. A Worcester Superior Court judge agreed, saying there was no evidence that any landowner had been economically harmed by the Grafton-Upton-Hopkinton designation.
But landowners say the designation makes it more cumbersome for farmers to clear land for hayfields, and has put a chill on development and potential land sales in an area outside the Interstate-495 loop and north of Worcester.
"They blatantly lied to us, saying it wouldn't affect development. It will, financially," said Lee Robinson, who owns about 400 acres in Grafton. "We have land planners who estimated there would be $10,000 more in permitting costs per lot under the ACEC. For a 50-lot project, that's half a million dollars. And we were told it wouldn't affect us at all."
Donna Williams, who as chairwoman of the Grafton Conservation Commission spearheaded the ACEC effort, said in an interview that the designation "has no regulatory impact except for existing regulations."
But even a small project in an ACEC must go through the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, or MEPA, review process, which is normally reserved for large projects.
Having a lower threshold at which MEPA kicks in "adds cost, for going through the environmental review; but, more importantly, it adds uncertainty by adding another step in the development process," said R.J. Lyman, former head of the MEPA office and now an attorney at Goodwin, Proctor & Hoar.
"Any time there is uncertainty and cost, developers will tend to look elsewhere," Lyman said.
Williams defends the process that led to the ACEC, saying "there was nothing secretive about it." She accuses Casale and a handful of others of "spreading a lot of misinformation, and putting a lot of fear into people that was totally unjustified."
Grafton state Representative George Peterson, a Republican who initially supported the designation and then turned against it, said the notification process for the ACEC program is flawed. He has proposed a bill requiring a public meeting with all affected landowners present, at the very beginning of the process.
"Once that nomination is in, the train has left the station and it's difficult to turn it around," he said. "I was not happy with the process."
The Grafton-Upton-Hopkinton ACEC, slightly downsized from the original proposal, was signed by Environmental Affairs Secretary Robert Durand, over the objections of local legislators, selectmen, and planning board members. State officials make no apologies for identifying sensitive areas in a fast-growing state.
"It does not prohibit development. It's not designed to prohibit development. What it does is educate people about what they have in their backyards and what they share with other communities," said Leslie Luchonok, director of the ACEC program. "This is a very public process," he added.
The Grafton-Upton-Hopkinton ACEC was the first case in which an ACEC challenge reached the courts in 26 years of the program, Luchonok said. Two more designations are in the pipeline, in the Nashua River watershed.
The controversy has left a bad taste in an area known for its rural conventions, though only roughly 50 miles from Boston.
"Some of these Yankee farmers are pretty stubborn. And they have good reason," Casale said. "They say we've been good stewards of the land, but then they come in and say, `We'll take it from here."'
Williams, the Conservation Commission chairwoman, said that "the landowners have been good stewards of the land. No one is arguing that." But, she said, "can they continue to be good stewards? Not with the development pressures you have in this region. We can't be certain of the future. It's necessary to have this kind of review to protect these resources."
The 8,700 acres that were designated represent an ecological system "that works, and there aren't a whole lot left in the state that haven't been impacted. So why not protect it and celebrate it?" Williams views the ACEC showdown with some bitterness as well. In an article for Sanctuary magazine, a publication of the Massachusetts Audubon Society, for which she works, Williams castigates "property rights zealots."
On the subject of seeking ACEC designations, she advises against bringing elected officials into the nomination process, because they will "fold up like paper parasols on grapefruits when buffeted by a political breeze. You need only 10 nominators. Use committed environmentalists with strong spines."
To Casale, her advice is proof that the ACEC program is in the hands of environmentalists opposed to development.
The nomination process needs to be beyond reproach, he said, and elected officials representing the views of constituents should not be so readily dismissed.
"Of course they want to put the brakes on growth. But not this way. This is back-door," he said.
Permission to reprint/republish granted, as long as you include the name of our site, the author, and our URL. www.SierraTimes.com All Sierra Times news reports, and all editorials are © 2001 SierraTimes.com (unless otherwise noted)
Just as a thought exercise, ask yourself who buys the homes the developer builds? Could it possibly be all those "people in the middle?"
This book not only makes a case against government environmental management, it proposes a solution based upon free markets, and private property rights.
Yes, they're surely salivating, alright.
When one adds their property rights assualt to the assualt on our 2nd Amendment?
One can't help wondering if the level of their arousal might be a good deal more than just salivating, at that.
They've just got to be amazed they've got this far as it is; without being tarred & feathered, then hung.
Then-again they've had our kid's minds via the schools for years.
...there's really not many left to resist 'em; since their educated are simply too stupid.
Thank you TJ and Friends!
I wonder who owns property in the half of town that is not restricted and then compare it to the list of people who are behind the effort to take away the property rights of others.
Strikes me as being suspect, just like the fact that members of the Sierra Club are much more likely to have red wood decks than the average person. Then there was the president of the local chapter of the Sierra Club in the Spokane, WA, area many years ago who illegaly logged 20 acres of his own property but saw nothing wrong with that. Like all liberals, their rules only apply to others.
I hardly know where to start. - Your view of the development process is right out of the modern Marxist's resource for activism.
No, developers do not have anywheres near 'unlimited resources' and every cent that they are forced to spend fending off misguided activists must be added to the price of the homes that ultimately get built.
Most large developers are publicly traded companies that will fold at the drop of a hat if they are unable to complete their projects on the 6-7% profit margin that competition allows. - When you fight these developments you are raping your own children, not some imaginary, ultra-rich land baron.
Wildlife and housing cannot coexist, and since housing is necessary, and wildlife is an expendable luxury, which do you think should prevail? - There is no absolute need for wildlife; man only occupies about 2% of this world, while wildlife has the other 98%.
What the enviro-NAZI are asking is impossible, unless you're willing to allow your children to be murdered to save some superfluous bugs.
No. Around here, at least, they're the people from elsewhere.
For all practical purposes, their resources are unlimited. To whit:
Let's say it you vs. the developer. The developer has a full time staff, plenty of lawyers, and so on, whose job it is to spend all day every day on that development.
You have .... you, and maybe some associates, who have day jobs, and many other responsibilities -- your time is limited, theirs is not.
Also, you have a limited amount of money to spend -- to you $5,000 is a lot for a year. To the developer, they spend that much every week on toner for the copier.
since housing is necessary, and wildlife is an expendable luxury, which do you think should prevail? -
The fallacy here is that it's an either-or proposition. It's not.
There is no absolute need for wildlife;
You're absolutely sure about that?
man only occupies about 2% of this world, while wildlife has the other 98%.
Which has nothing to do with the point I was making.
What the enviro-NAZI are asking is impossible, unless you're willing to allow your children to be murdered to save some superfluous bugs.
Oh, come now. That's an insane comparison -- even you can't believe it.
All development is on a tight buget, and the staff you imagine cannot exist because they cannot justify their own existance. - No developer has uncommitted expendable funds.
You live in a dream world !!
And it isn't just the Northeast leftists who've stabbed the West in the back. Jack Kemp and Bill Bennet and Bill Weld and Jim Jeffords and Olympia Snowe and Susan What's-herface, etc...
Of course I don't really want to sieze 60% of New England and populate the other 40% with millions of illegal aliens. But I'm gonna beat that drum any time I can, and rub Northeast face in it. They've done it to my state, so it's all in good fun.
All developers have people who take the development paperwork/plans/proposals through the various governmental hoops. In addition to fulfilling bureaucratic needs, they also lobby to ensure that their development is really built.
The developers also work hard to develop political influence. That is why the biggest campaign contributors in my city/county are real estate developers.
Citizens -- not activists -- who object to all or part of a development plan are at a huge disadvantage. Meetings are held during normal working hours, which makes it tough if you've got a job. Money is limited -- you have no political influence, and cannot match the developers ad-for-ad. The process is arcane -- can you pay a lawyer to help you through it?
It's just a fact, e-s: the developers have the upper hand. It's far easier for them to build, than for you to oppose.
You live in a dream world !!
LOL! It's a lot more real than the one you apparently inhabit.
I'm not actually against house-building -- far from it. And I'm strongly opposed to the cute-fuzzy-animal tactics of the enviros.
What I'm opposed to is Pave-and-Pack developments and strong-arm developer tactics, not to mention the immense infrastructure costs that these developments inevitably impose on the city/county budgets.
To find all articles tagged or indexed using above index words
Go here: OFFICIAL BUMP(TOPIC)LIST
and then click the topic to initiate the search! !
Call them what you want; I call them NIMBY activists because that's what they are. - What they are doing is immoral, and unreasonable. - If they wish to influence the use of property, then they are morally obligated to purchase that property. - Nobody has a right to encumber the property of another so that they can use it to further their own enjoyment.
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.