🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <SLAGLE.92Jul15200705@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:

[Commenting on toxic waste dumps on private land...]

>He probably would not say that, because he could show specific
>damages to himself and his property as a result of your activity.
>But you can't show the same in the case of those who would log
>private timber lands.

Hogwash. I suggest you take a drive to some of these timbered private lands
before and after they have been logged. Not only are there aesthetic
changes that reduce the value of a neighbors property, there are
physical effects such as increased runoff, habitat destruction, climate
changes, negative riparian effects (where applicable), and the increased
dust and noise levels during the actual logging operation.  

Mr. Slagle, please show how each one of these effects DOES NOT have
a negative impact on the adjacent property owner.

>Many, maybe most, but not all cities have zoning laws.  All zoning
>laws protect the existing property owners from change.  That has
>both good and bad results, but it's hard to argue that they act
>to benefit all residents of the city, much less that they are
            ^^^
>necessarily a good thing.  At the very least, they are a themselves
>a result of "thinking selfishly", which you otherwise deplore.

More hogwash. Zoning laws and city/county plans are drawn up during
a process by which all citizens of the area in question have a right
(and I would add, an obligation) to support or not support specific
proposals. These agreements are reached by concensus, which as you
may be aware, is what democracy is all about. I happen to live in
the historical district of Nevada City and I have to ask the Planning
Commission for approval on the color I wish to paint my house. Many
residents complain about this, but I tell them they should move if they
don't like it. They were either around during the process by which
these regulations were drawn up, or they moved into the district after
the regulations were in effect (I fall into the latter category).
Either way, as you can see they have no right to gripe. It's like
people who move next to an airport, then compain about the jet noise.

Mr. Slagle, please show how planning agreements do not benefit a 
majority of residents [your requirement was "all" as noted above;
even a me-firster like you should recognize the unworkability of
such a requirement], and how they are not a "good thing," whatever
that implies. Your contention that agreements reached by the 
democratic process are selfish is contradictory. Clear this up please.

>Now you are shifting the argument to the matter of Federal lands.
>The argument to which you responded concerned privately held
>timber lands.  Is your position so weak that you must change
>the subject to mount a defense?

Hogwash times three. You're out. Is your position so weak that you
must nitpick such a small portion of his response to you? And, I would
argue that since Federal lands are often adjacent to private land, what
is done on or to them is appropriate to the discussion since in total
all land is connected; no plot is an island.

Mr. Slagle, please discuss the matter at hand, which is whether or not 
logging private land effects the neighbors. So far you have said
nothing that provides evidence that it does not.

								MPA