🚀 go-pugleaf

   I wonder if the environmental movement has not also become
   incapacitated with fear over this issue?  Perhaps we need
   to start listening to the honest needs of this so-called 
   Private Property movement?

   Yep, Brenda wrote to All on 22 Mar 95  14:48:01 
   in SIERRAN about:   What are they "taking"?:

 Br> So "who" is "taking" "what"?

 Br> pass themselves off as champions of small property
 Br> owners, in fact most of the support for this effort on
 Br> a national basis comes from a powerful coalition of
 Br> industry groups looking out for the economic interests
 
   Brenda, I hope you've seen the League of Private Property
   Voter's (LPPV) 1994 Congressional Voters's Index (available 
   from One World BBS as PRIVATE!.ZIP).  Even in their own words
   on cannot escape that conclusion.  A recent TIME article 
   suggests the LPPV is the most powerful, best funded arm of
   Wise Use.
 
 Br>  the American Mining Congress, the National
 Br> Coal Association, the American Petroleum Institute,
 Br> the National Cattleman's Association, and the Chemical

 Br> There should be no question that respect for private
 Br> property and the ability to protect one's land and home
 Br> is a basic tenet of American government. 
 
   We must emphasize this point.

 Br> limited by our responsibility not to impinge upon our
 Br> neighbors'property or the rights of the community as a
 Br> whole.  This concept, which forms the basis for things
 
   Indeed science says the human race (and the economy) is utterly 
   dependent on a healthy "Nature".  The poorly educated are not
   aware of this, or in the Limbaaaah army, they think scientific
   consensus is mere woo-woo talk.  (They call it "psycho-babble"
   and also believe in some sort of science conspiracy.)
 
   This is our problem.  While killing Nature to the educated is 
   obviously an act against humans and the rights of the community, 
   many think it is just bad manners or some such.

   That army is not mean-spirited, just ignorant of scientific 
   consensus (the facts). What we have is a failure to communicate.  
 
 Br> . If passed, "takings" laws would force
 Br> regulating agencies to compensate those who do not wish
 Br> to abide by community standards if their profits are
 Br> reduced by government actions designed to protect the
 Br> public welfare. 
 
   If we are merely talking about community standards and values, 
   then we are not talking in the same ballpark as human and 
   economic viability, health and safety.
   If we are merely saying that; "A park (Nature) would ne nice." 
   then Wise Use has a point, perhaps they should be compensated
   so that we may enjoy our "park".
 
   This so-called "Private Property" movement has now acquired a
   life of its own independent of the Wise Use propaganda that
   spawned this "urban myth".  Sadly, we can no longer deal with 
   it by dealing only with Wise Use, there are now honest and well
   meaning people chanting the mantra.  Killing Wise Use would have
   little effect.   Politicians must also deal with it.  What are 
   the choices politicians have available to them?   Sadly, 
   politics has evolved from problem-solving to people-appeasement.

   Perhaps we had better work on giving politicians a choice also?

 Br>  Put simply, we would all be forced to
 Br> pay polluters not to pollute. Taken to its logical
 Br> conclusion, "takings" legislation would require the
 Br> government to pay private landowners not to fill
 Br> wetlands or dispose of hazardous chemicals on
 Br> their property. Such legislation would also render
 Br> community zoning ordinances unenforceable. 
 
   That is the goal of Wise Use and many Libertarian extremists.
   That is what we fear.  But let's assume this is not the goal
   of the ignorant masses who support it.  Yet what choice do these
   people have?  Have we given them a choice at real legislation
   that would address their honest and reasonable fears, yet still 
   allow reasonable legislation protecting the common good?
   I think not.  
 
 Br> Imagine
 Br> taxpayers being forced to pay a property owner not to
 Br> site a factory in a residential area, or a porno shop
 Br> next to a church, or a bar next to a school. Given the
 Br> enormous financial cost of such a scheme, the real
 Br> result would be the end of not only environmental
 Br> protections, but also other regulatory tools
 Br> involving things like health, safety, consumer
 Br> protection, and civil rights.

 Br> . Proposed legislation runs
 Br> contrary to decades of court interpretation of the
 Br> Fifth Amendment and serves to elevate the rights of
 Br> individual property owners above the community good.
 Br> Lawmakers at all levels of government must oppose
 Br> legislation which might serve to define or categorize
 Br> compensable regulatory "takings."

   Perhaps mere opposition is too late.  Let's appease the masses
   by writing some legislation that directly deals with their
   reasonable concerns, yet preserves the common good.  I believe 
   that we need to give Wise Use some competition.
   --Doug


...  False economic assumptions are the root of all environmental problems