[Nuke'm Glowing]

I think it is still alive as they were trying to tack it on to a different bill (Homeland Security) at one point. I have no problem with this. If that's the way they want to play the game, then they will have to deal with the grass roots reaction. The problem I have with this, is that this is another example of social engineering and property management by the government using the tax laws. Granted, these people can sell to whoever they want to, that's free enterprise. But why should the seller to an envirocommie group get a tax break instead of a property owner wanting to sell to someone who wishes to build a hospital or a school? The issue I have is .gov interference with the private enterprise system again. The slippery slope is greased. And I can see a terrifying pattern of restricting our freedom of movement in this country. If you or I want to buy a farm, a ranch, or a home in the country soon, we will end up having to have an "enviromentalist background check" to insure we've never obliterated a cockroach or a flea. Mark my words, that day is coming. Unless of course you just want to move from city to city. Then that's ok. There is a tinge of the grand design to restore the urban areas by squeezing us out of the boonies. But that would be communism then, wouldn't it?

[Ben Ficklin]

As for the "grass roots", notice in reply 14 that voters approved 2 to 1. The vote in the city of Austin to buy land in the recharge zone of the Edwards Aquifer have been similar.

Don't overlook the fact that these sellers can almost always make more money by developing the property. If they are close to a population center that would be high-end residential and accompanying commercial. If the property is remote, it would be mini-ranches and mobile home estates.