Replies

"Now, the Everglades restoration will go forward because Florida is going to need the water."

That is a total falsehood. None of the restoration process is designed for the providing of drinking water, etc. This has nothing to do with the "water". It is an engineering attempt to restore a part of the Everglades that has not existed in some areas for centuries. The Everglades is like an ocean and it ebbs and flows. The problem is not that. The problem is government and do-gooder meddling attempting to regulate it's flow and redesign it for their own needs (i.e., property control, growth management, socialism). If they win in South Florida there is NOTHING stopping them from clearing the coastlines of Florida. NOTHING stopping them from taking farm or ranch land away to restore the "grasslands" (the latest tact of the anti-meat vegicommie crowd). Ben, if you don't live here, don't try to get into the arguement. It's a devasting project down here. There have been NO legitimate enviromental impact studies because they can not determine the results of their redesign of the Glades then a hurricane or two overfilling it. They could actually re-introduce flooding into cities that have not seen that problem since the 20's! AAA is correct. This is a property rights issues in black and white. There is no middle ground.

I think I can understand what you are saying. Both you and 'Ben Ficklin' have valid concerns. I think it depends on the area. But there are two extremes working in the country. One extreme is the development people, the other extreme is the rabid environmentalist. We have a problem with the environmentalist, yes, but the developers are literally taking over the Wasatch front in Weber County! Everywhere you look, farms and ranches are being ripped out for the 'redevelopment' projects. There's tooooo much development!

It's getting so people are actually grateful for 'open space'! They (the developers) get around people by going to the city councils, and getting them to condemn people's property if it's in the way of their dreams of huge developed communities with big houses and huge shopping centers.

If you go on the interstate, and drive out of the city, you find that there are actually small farming communites, and big open ranches and farm properties. This is the land that the big developers don't seem to want, yet. But when they do, they'll be like big bugs with voracious appetites. Don't get me wrong, we need some development at times. But there's too much where we are! There are some places in UT that could use some. But if they don't want it, that's all right!

There are, however, parts of Utah where the environmental activists are making inroads, (obviously). But on the Wasatch Front, as in other parts of the West the big developer is master right now! Seriously, both of you have good points, no need to butt heads!

Sometimes partnerships with landowners and environmentalists, and the developer with trusts and easments are the only way to a solution to avoid a gridlock between the two extremes. To me, that's fine. As long as someone's property rights are not stepped on by either of the opposing interests. As long as people selling are being given what they deserve for their land, and not being coerced into giving up anything.

In some places the developer is very pushy, and will walk all over the landowner. He or she can be as big a problem as the environmentalists!