Trouble brewing in Florida's swamps: Henry Lamb explains why property owners are fighting mad

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Sunday, July 7, 2002 | Henry Lamb

[summer]

AAABEST, I'll tell you another true story that may make you feel a little better, because believe me, I am not trying to make you feel bad here. I know someone who has been vacationing in SW FL for a very long time, and he wanted to buy the commercial land on Airport Road and Golden Gate Parkway 30 years ago, when all it was back then was a dirt road. He could have bought it too, for a low 5 figure sum, but someone told him it was silly to buy land alongside a dirt road. Today that plot is the site of the new Estuary Development - do you know how much it costs in that development to buy a single family home lot? (Just the dirt, no house.) I won't tell you, but when you drive by sometime, take a look....he feels very sad about not listening to his own gut and buying it way back when!

[summer]

The eminent domain thing he did was great. I DO live here, I know.

BTW, that was good of you to acknowledge. I hope you do write to him and tell him this, and tell him your concerns about Golden Gate, because I know for a fact he has paid attention to the concerns of citizens who write to him.

[summer]

Summer, I did a thirty year study, of rural land conversion to residential development, for a book on this topic. You are out of your league.

And, I'll bet your book is off base in everything it says about FL, no offense to the other fine info it may contain about other locations.

[summer]

Of course they do....

This organization you go on to condem is one that is supporting YOUR side.

[TruthNtegrity]

Bumping and bookmarking

[Carry_Okie]

Both sides are dirty summer. Sustainable Development is an invitation to political manipulation of the value of private property for the benefit of campaign contributors. It is a system set up for the big players to win. That makes it attractive to both Democratic and Republican politicians.

[summer]

Well, sometimes one side certainly appears dirtier than the other -- Al Gore having his main point man in FL having financial interests with the developers of a proposed commercial airport in the Everglades, at Homestead, makes Gore look a lot dirtier than the Bush brothers ever could on that deal, IMO.

But, Carry_Okie, let me emphasize: with respect to every single land development situation in FL, I am no expert. However, there are certainly times the environmentalists have a point, and yet, believe me, I do support the protection of private property rights. Yet, I think Gov Bush has to be given some credit here for successfully balancing interests thus far.

It may be that in time the entire Everglades agreement needs revised; I don't know. But, for now, I think Gov Bush is doing a good job, and the difference between Lamb's article and the WP article shows just how great a spin one could make on this issue.

[Carry_Okie]

I think Gov Bush has to be given some credit here for successfully balancing interests thus far.

Since when should government be deciding how people use their property? That isn't balancing interests, it is controlling property value.

Maybe I know something about Sustainable Development that you don't. I was on the very first Agenda21 roundtable in the US in 1994. I promise you, the process is totally corrupt, unconstitutional, and, at least so far as many "open government" and "public disclosure" laws are concerned, illegal. Sustainable Development in Florida, Smart Growth in Portland, or anywhere else for that matter follows the same blueprint. If you want to learn more about how poorly the results of the system were in Portland, go HERE. I suggest you buy and read Mr. O'Toole's book. But then, perhaps you should also read mine.

I invented a free-market means to "balance" any competing claim on property that are actually just to rural property owners. It allows them to market the natural attributes of their property. It is FAR more sophisticated than anything the environmentalists propose. If you check the Reviews of the book you will note development interests, wildlife biologists, foresters, timbermen, and regulators are speaking nothing but praise for it. Maybe you should be a little more circumspect.

[summer]

Since when should government be deciding how people use their property?

Well, maybe you should write him and ask him. As far as I know, the government CAN, for example, take your property under eminent domain. This governor is reluctant to do that. But, it is certainly a legal concept in this country, even if you think it is illegal or fascism or whatever.

[Carry_Okie]

This governor is reluctant to do that.

Sustainable Florida is precisely that, and it doesn't take eminent domain. All it takes is bureaucratic regulations.

Really, do your homework.

[summer]

Carry, Here's some homework for you: consider for a second, a person like me, who is one of 8 million inhabitants of Manhattan, NY, a very small island only 5 miles long. Do you know what one of the greatest pleasure is in New York? It is to walk in Central Park on a beautiful spring day. Now, who owns Central park? You, Carry_Okie? Who SHOULD own Central Park? A private person? Your concept of only private ownership is the one and only way to live does not wash in a city of 8 million people where the only space that is green is owned by all the people. If I sound like a Commie/socialist/evil pig for enjoying a walk in the park, so be it.

[Carry_Okie]

First, if Central Park was privately owned, the business might be successful enough that there would be more parkland, not less. We have various private parks in Silicon Valley, every bit as big as Central Park, and they certainly are on expensive real estate. Second, the parks are not overused because use is regulated by price. Third, the City could purchase passes for those without the money. Fourth, the park would be safe. If you really think Central Park is that great an asset, try going there alone at night.

You haven't a clue what I propose and are willing to make cases based upon pure supposition. That doesn't say much for the integrity of your arguments, as your positions on education have so aptly demonstrated.

[Ben Ficklin]

Henry Lamb does tend to exaggerate.

[summer]

First, if Central Park was privately owned, the business might be successful enough that there would be more parkland, not less. We have various private parks in Silicon Valley, every bit as big as Central Park, and they certainly are on expensive real estate. Second, the parks are not overused because use is regulated by price. Third, the City could purchase passes for those without the money. Fourth, the park would be safe. If you really think Central Park is that great an asset, try going there alone at night.

You haven't a clue....

Carry, Sorry, but I have no doubt that 8 million New Yorkers and many others would honestly tell you: based on your response above, you are the one without a clue here. (And, yes, I have been to Central Park at night, to see Shakespeare in the Park, free concerts in the park, etc.)

[summer]

Thanks, Ben. I agree with you.

[Carry_Okie]

How many of those 8 million New Yorkers who pay taxes to support that park benefit from it nearly as much as it does the holders of real estate adjoining Central Park? Your portrayal of the park at night as a safe place to be is an obvious sham.

No, you're just another brainwashed socialist teacher, incapable of learning (just like Eska). You only answer the parts of my arguments that you can use and accused me of being against parks as if I don't want space for Nature. You paint yourself a subjective strawman for the purpose and won't read the reviews. You have no idea how real estate scams using public money work, because for now, you think that they benefit you. When they start to close Yellowstone and Yosemite against you, maybe you'll start to figure it out (that's already starting BTW).

[summer]

I never said the park was a safe place at night - I have been there at night for events. Would I go out and walk in it alone at night? Of course not. And your view -- that Central Park should be privatized -- shows how extreme and how out of touch you are on this issue, IMO. Your position is a total sham.

[summer]

And, Carry, I am sorry for saying you are a total sham -- because you in fact believe what you believe. Fine.

But I would never buy your book. And I certainly won't read it.

Because if you can't figure out that public green space is necessary to be set aside on a tiny island running only 5 miles north and south, and 2 miles east and west at its widest point, inhabited by more than 8 millioni people, living on top of each other, then, IMO, you are not in the GOP, not on the right, not even on the extreme right -- you are simply on another planet. That's fine. Have fun!

[Budge]

Summer, I appreciate the oposing view, but know this. I own a sizable chunk of land in Galveston County, Texas. It is/was beachfront property. I lost four houses when hurricane Carla came through in 1961. Those houses were an excellent source of income for me and my family.

We had lost or badly damaged houses in previous hurricanes, but we always rebuilt, at our own expense because we KNEW we could lose it all in any hurricane.

After Carla, and because of beach errosion (which rarely happened before the "cut," explained below), we were forbidden to rebuild because the envior-nazis are afraid we would "damage the environment!" It didn't matter that those houses had stood on that property since the early 1920's, or that they were a major source of income for us. Or that we kept them in tip-top shape, or that we respected the beach and kept it clean for the people who rented from us.

We fought the idiots who wanted to cut a pass (cut or canal) less than two miles west from our property that connected the Gulf Of Mexico with East Bay which was supposedly going to help fishing in the area. We knew it would only cause beach errosion, but even in the 1940's the enviro-nazis had the power to ignore private property rights in the name of "saving" trash fish. They won, we lost, and in twenty years we had lost over 500 feet of our pristine beach.

Without that buffer, hurricane Carla had a direct path to the homes that fronted the Gulf and whipped them out. Not just our houses, but all the beach front houses for twenty miles or more to the east of us.

Today, appoximately 900 feet or more of our property is under water. The portion that is above the high water mark is deemed "protected," and we are forbidden to rebuild on it.

However, even though 85 to 90% of the land is under water, we are expected to pay taxes on all of it.

No, we, the property owners knew more about our land and the effects nature had on it than the little bureaucrats miles away, but they had the power to overide experience and common sense, thus the beachfront property owners lost everything.

The same thing happened in Kalmath Falls, now Florida, and along the Missouri River. In other words, to hell with common sense and experience. Screw the property owners who are supposed to have the rights to the land they own to do with as they wish, right or wrong. Save a trash fish or bug or bird that may be endangered!

There's the phrase: "MAY be endangered." The enviro-nazies always fail to mention that the fish, bug, bird or animal may NOT be endangered and may well be able to adapt.

[Budge]

Jaq, many thanks for the links. They are bookmarked now.

I realize my post #79 happened in Texas and is far from the Florida situation, but it may illustrate just how the enviro-nazis operate. Enviro-nazis do not want you to have property rights.

BTW, I still own the mineral rights to this property, a rarity nowadays. There is oil under it. Does anyone reading this thread think we would ever be allowed to drill for it?