[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[at-l] The Reverend and sundry matters
In a message dated 5/20/01 8:25:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kahley7@ptd.net
writes:
< some
people have strong issues concerning rights and freedoms re land ownership
even if they treasure the Trail.
~~~ My only thought on that would be that neither system is perfect.
Property ownership rights should not be the end all to the task of trying to
create a wilderness corridor. If this argument was taken to its extreme all
corners of the earth would be seen simply as guarded property that nature had
no right to impose itself over. We would strangle ourselves with that one (as
we presently are actively doing). Where they conflict I err on the side of
reparations to nature and hope that the offended owner would somehow be
compensated and cooperate. The ideal situation would have the
Trail-interested put their money where there mouth is and initiate a buyout
program for the border lands. This way all interests would be satisfied. I
hope the public would see the wisdom of this and participate vicariously by
approving public funding of easement buyouts or swaps. MacKaye would be
compensated that way for the wilderness' he was denied that now become more
significant in our age.
You can read my other post to see that I feel this concern was misplaced
at Saddleback where the owner was more of a hostile speculator than a
cooperative landowner.
>helping the State of North Carolina
>in revoking the mining permit, which can be legally touchy in such a case
So what you are saying is that the state of N Carolina did an illegal thing
because of public support. Yep..that's pretty much sums it up.
~~~ Well no, if it were strictly illegal the owner would have stood his
ground. The area AT boundary monitor must not have noticed the development.
I believe the case was won due to a lapse in the chain of procedure
during the permit approval process by the state. Apparently the written codes
allow the AT to assert a claim of incompatibility with natural viewshed in
the approval consideration process. I guess enough concern was raised by the
mine opponents that a retroactive consideration or review of approval process
was done. Therein it was found that the Trail's needs had enough seriousness
that they were worth reconsidering and the [e-mails] were the proof of public
concern that made it easier to do so. The issue then became one not of the
property owners rights per say, but of the lack of proper procedure during
the approval process. It was then found that the State had failed to properly
consider the AT when it approved the mine. -If only Maine were the same way.
What is not considered, and should be, in this logic of fairness to
locals is the question "is the AT corridor the best or only place this
development can be done?" The need for the AT to remain wild is not a weak
issue. Believe me, many of the developers do not reciprocate the sense of
fairness than you extend towards the Trail.
A footnote: The Gulf Tract was influenced by non-constituents because it
was found that a majority of locals preferred preservation and there was no
conflicting local interest. But, Washington still needs tangible public
desire to appropriate funds, so the e-mails did help there.
Have you considered that the decrease in support, from issue to issue, was
not
a dan hate thing, but a reflection of the personal views re the "rightness"
of each
cause?
>>
~~~ The Trail should be a sacred place to the American public separate
from such inappropriate, indecent assaults on what should be almost a holy
place. It should be a symbol and icon standing for a way to get us out of our
trend of environmental destruction. Property rights will be of scant
significance on a denuded and scorched earth. The fact that we are unable to
create one simple conservation zone in the single most obvious place to do so
in a period of record economy is testimony to what we are and why the AT
needs to exist in the first place.
Thank You.