To: Clintonfatigued; AliVeritas; holdonnow
2 posted on
06/20/2006 10:44:51 AM PDT by
new yorker 77
(FAKE POLLS DO NOT TRANSLATE INTO REAL VOTERS!)
To: new yorker 77
I'm sick of the abuse of property rights by the word "wetland".
3 posted on
06/20/2006 10:49:03 AM PDT by
1Old Pro
To: new yorker 77
Plain and simple....the people of this country need our wetlands, far more then the next developer needs to make a buck. Our wetlands:
1. Store water
a) RETAIN flood WATER...hello New Orleans
2. Provide habitat for those critters we hunt and fish
3. Provide ground water recharge/discharge
4. Clean our drinking water
5. Act as a filter (natures little water treatment plant) for our lakes, rivers and streams.
But seriously none of that is more precious than that almighty greenback joe developer/real estate broker makes.
And I certainly shouldn't have to give up my GOD GIVEN RIGHT to alter my property to an extent it was not suited for, I mean what are these commies thinking. I could build a house on unstable land...with a high water table...which will damage the foundation and flood my basement.
Thats the problem we are all so petty and money driven that "individual PROPERTY RIGHTS" and greed are to often the deciding factor between what is right/wrong, smart/STUPID.
Another point, if our wetlands are no longer regulated or protected...they won't be cheaper any longer (...see right now all those joe shmucks out there do what they do because they get that land for a couple thou less an acre "because they are restricted on what they can do with it"). What do you think would happen if there were no restrictions...now that land is not as "economically" appealing because it would have the same value as non-wetland per acre. Not only that but it would be less cost effective because you have to spend money to FILL and prepare it. MEATHEADS
8 posted on
07/07/2006 9:08:49 PM PDT by
Wizy
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson