🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <SLAGLE.92Jul17173744@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:

>If you are the adjacent property owner, then you may take your
>case to the courts for redress of your alleged damages.  If you
>are not, then you are just blowing hot air.  In either case, you
>have no fundamental right to a view that includes keeping the
>property of you neighbor in pristine condition.

And that is exactly what neighbors and other interested parties are
doing. The courts are being flooded with such cases. Unfortunately
the deluge is so great that expediency is winning out over careful
review of each case. Often, technicalities of law and precedent
overtake the grander issue of whether the timber harvest will
adversely affect surrounding property.

As for blowing hot air, one of the problems here is that not enough
science has been conducted to prove that the destruction of habitat
will negatively impact the food chain, or composition of chemicals
in the atmosphere, which sustains human life. As the evidence mounts
that these negative effects are occurring, those who see the handwriting
on the wall are trying to get in their licks before they're told to
stop because science says they must. 

Talk about being neighborly. 

>The hogwash is your own.  Just because you get a big enough
>"concensus" together does not nullify the property rights of
>others.  In case you had forgotten, this country is founded on
>the proposition that there are some inalienable rights, among
>them the right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers,
>and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."
>These are rights that you and your gang can't take away just by
>getting enough votes.

Thank you Mark, I've read the Constitution. I'm not seizing your
property, just telling you that you can't cut all the trees down
because it's killing off all the animals, and destroying the
carbon dioxide balance in the atmosphere. 

If you think that the present timber harvest restrictions came 
about (and are coming about) due to a mobocracy, you need to look
at them more closely. They are based on science.

The folks who are arguing your position claim:

	1) People who work developing forest products would never
	   destroy their own industry. 

		* The damage spans generations. Also, a tree farm
		  fosters much less life than an old-growth forest.

	2) Regulation of the timber industry will continue to hurt
  	   the economy.

		* Classis "us against them" tactic. I still have yet
		  to hear the forest products industry address the
		  issue of raw-log exportation and mill jobs moving
	    	  to Mexico.

>My city right or wrong.  Love it or leave it.  Right neighborly
>of you.  And you think that kind of intrusive government is a
>good thing?  Astounding.

I live in a small town. If someone wants to paint their house fuchsia
they can...three miles down the road. Your argument is a straw man
not only for that reason, but because if people want to move to
Nevada City and change the rules all they have to do is get involved
with city gov't. In fact, that is happening today in Nevada City.
I never said love it or leave, just don't move next to the airport
and complain 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
>
>Can't you have a discussion without indulging yourself in name
>calling?

[From a paragraph further down...]
>on you and your busybody cohort to demonstrate that standing.

Hypocrite.

>There is nothing contradictory whatsoever about the proposition
>that democratically enacted laws can be selfish.  Most are,
>although I don't think that that is necessarily as bad a thing
>as you seem to believe.

I have no problem with selfishness as long as it doesn't backfire.
Let's say I selfishly cut down all the trees on my land. This
causes the micro-climate to change, and my neighbors and I can
no longer grow certain crops. The gov't needs to be there to
protect against this.

>The issue is not whether logging private lands "affects" the
>neighbors.  Most human activities affect the neighbors in
>some way or another.  The issue is whether you have any legal
>or moral standing to prevent owners from harvesting the timber
>on their own lands in their own way.  The burden of proof is
>on you and your busybody cohort to demonstrate that standing.
>Otherwise, you should just mind your own affairs and leave
>others to theirs.

Wrong. The burden of proof is on you. I have made a good case that
your private-property timber plan will damage the food chain and
add carbon dioxide to the air. I am not proposing to change anything,
you are the one who wishes to make changes.

The greatest mistake you are making is in saying that each individual
has inaliable property rights, and that these rights apply in a singular
fashion. 

If one property owner cuts down all of his trees, no big deal. If all
property owners cut down all of their trees, we have a big problem.

Mark, how do you propose to address this cumulative effect with the  
principle of individual property rights?

								MPA