🚀 go-pugleaf

In ca.environment  
 
 
>Rick Herrick (rherrick@us.oracle.com) wrote:  
 
>: I mean, basically what you said is that private ownership of property 
>: provides for more public oversight than public ownership.  That is
really 
>: a wrong assertion.  Yes, there is exploitation of public lands that is 
>: accomplished through manipulation of the political process, but there
are 
>: also a lot of publicly held lands that are NOT exploited because of
public 
>: ownership of the land. 
 
 
dlow@ppg01.sc.hp.com (Danny Low) said: 
 
>You are getting close but still miss the point.  
> 
>			   Danny Low 
 
 
 
My interpretation is that Danny Low thinks that the best way to control
land is through private and corporate control and Rick Herrick thinks that
there is a place and a substantial one at that for public ownership as long
as public ownership is held accountable to those who actually own the land.
 
 
If this is the correct interpretation I tend to agree with Rick more than I
do with Danny. The reason for this is the short term attitude of business.
A company that is in the business of selling and producing oil or selling
and producing lumber has a great deal of pressure to insure profits for the
next 3 months and the next year. I grant that many corporations have some
concept of a long term plan but they are very often hard to see. For
instance a company such as Maxam (sp. ?), who purchased Pacific Lumber
through the selling of "junk bonds", increased the amount of clear cutting
it did in the short term to pay them off. What ever concern the corporation
has for the long term, especially in terms of the planet, is overshadowed
by the need for short term survival. Oil companies tend to drill or not to
drill based more on spot prices than they do based on the energy needs of
the planet in the 21st century. There concern for the environment in Alaska
or off the coast of Santa Barbara is determined by the cost of litigation
and the cost of lobbying. As a consequence we see our government allowing
our land and environment to be degraded and sold off for the short term
profit of multinational corporations.  
 
Private ownership by individuals may be better but is often not. If I buy
some small piece of land it is part of some larger "ecosystem". People tend
to want to do their own thing with land which is fine according to private
property rights within certain quidelines. We have zoning restrictions and
environmental restrictions. As long as we can come to agreement on what
values and costs are transferred beween the private owner and the community
we should be able to function with private property and environmental
wellbeing. In order for this to be done effectively the value of the
environment needs to be considered in the price of land when it is bought
and sold. When the value is changed do to actions which are considered to
be a good for the society (those that we agree upon through our
government), the private owner must be compensated or charged for the
effect it has on the value of the owners property. This can not be a one
way street for it to work correctly. If the government decreases the value
the society should pay the private owner. If the government increases the
value the society should collect from the owner.  
 
If we are to maintain a vibrant ecosystem we will need to set aside large
amounts of land that are contiguous. We need the preservation to be thought
of in terms of the life span of trees rather than the fiscal years of
corporations. The only other solution would be to have alot of restrictions
on private owners and this would seem to be less acceptable and require
more regulations than simply having the goverment, as our collective agent,
do those things which are for the benefit of all. If we don't allow our
government to act outside of the free market by selling off our
environmental assets at well below the true value and require private
businesses to pay the full cost of use we will see a remarkable
improvement... <more to come later>