[at-l] Maine land prices and ATC pledges

[spiriteagle99@hotmail.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)]

Weary wrote:
>"...I  could  enthusiastically back an effort to provide an AT corridor. I 
>could
>only  slightly less enthusiastically back an effort to "save" as much of 
>Maine's
>"wild"  land as possible. But when the two purposes are combined, then the 
>AT is
>the  loser  because money that should be going into AT corridor protection 
>would
>be  going  to  protect  other  land  which  has  nothing  to do with the 
>AT. The
>combination   of   purposes  WOULD  BE  detrimental  to  the  AT.  That's  
>basic
>Organizational  Dynamics  101.,"  replies  Jim,  who luckily has returned 
>from a weekend  in  the  woods,  that  most  likely  folks  with fuzzy 
>goals managed to protect, despite all the naysayers.

No, Bob - there were no "fuzzy" goals involved in that trail - Sproul State 
Forest was developed long before the trail was conceived.  The Forest and 
the trail were each a specific and separate goal, developed and executed by 
specific (and different) people. They didn't split their efforts in multiple 
directions or stretch their resources beyond reasonable limits as you're 
apparently trying to do.  In getting a business or any other large 
undertaking off the ground, that's a newby's mistake.  Sometimes it even 
works - but very, very rarely.  Why would you want to stack the odds against 
yourself?

>However,  a  clarification is in order. We are trying to protect an AT 
>corridor, which  we  define  as lands adjacent to the existing trail 
>corridor and the most important viewsheds from that corridor.

Interesting - first you claim to be working to provide a corridor for the 
AT, then you start talking about buying 40,000 acre tracts, then you decide 
that loop trails in Maine would be a good thing so you need even more land, 
and now you've decided to change the definition of "corridor" to include 
"viewshed" (everything that can be seen from the AT?).  As I said - "fuzzy 
goals".  LOL!!!

When you figure it out, let us know - until then I have better uses for my 
money.


>Several  groups  are already involved in "an effort to "save" as much of 
>Maine's
>"wild"  land  as possible." Competing with these folks is the last thing we 
>want
>to  do, though we certainly welcome those efforts and some of us even 
>contribute to those efforts.

Many of us contribute to them so don't be getting pious on us.  It don't 
float.


>Having been involved in these matters for more years than I like to think 
>about, I've learned a few things --

The years you've been "involved" don't impress me.  What impresses me is 
what people accomplish and what they learn and become.  And what you HAVEN'T 
learned is when to keep your mouth shut.  See the next paragraph ---


>One. you can always find a lawyer or a scientist to
>tell  you  what you want to hear. Two. People who do not want to part with 
>their hard-earned cash, can always find an excuse.

Under the circumstances and given the context I believe I can legitimately 
consider this a personal attack.  Snide and sneaky - but definitely a 
personal attack. Do I have to explain that?   What I will explain is that by 
October I need to double what I've been giving to charitable organizations - 
and I'm looking for where to put that money.  Unfortunately, I didn't find 
what I'm looking for here.

Now, my question, Bob, is this - given that you've broken the rules under 
which the ATC pledges were made - just what do you think I should do about 
the $100 pledge that I made for this month?  Why do you think "I" should sit 
still for you to insult me (and others) - and then pay for the privilege as 
well?  What makes you so special that you can't be civil when (at least 
until last weekend) the rest of the list has managed to do so?

And then Rafe said -
>And by the way, what happens or doesn't happen (with regard to pledges) 
>doesn't need to affect, in the least, how much money gets transferred from 
>Jim/Ginny Owen to the ATC.  That part is your choice, entirely.

Sorry, Rafe - but you're both right and wrong.  The pledge I made to ATC in 
this regard was over and above what I would have given them otherwise - it 
wasn't planned or budgeted and it comes out of entirely different buckets - 
which means that some other part of my life  suffers.  I made the pledge 
based on specific and particular criteria.  If those criteria were fulfilled 
I would (and did last month) give that $100 to ATC.  I was prepared to do so 
again this month.

So, now that the criteria for this month has NOT been met - now that Weary's 
words (as well as the general tone of the list over the last few days) have 
freed me from the obligation to fulfill that pledge, tell me - why do YOU 
think I should send the money?  Why do YOU think I should reward those who 
lack the self-discipline, maturity  or ethical sense to keep their word?

Anyone else who wants to express an opinion?  - Let's hear it.  Some of you 
seemed to be free enough with your opinion about what I should do with my 
money when you e-mailed Red a couple days ago - so lets hear from you now - 
publicly.


>I  urge everyone to contribute what they can. More importantly, I urge 
>anyone with the name, address or  connection  with  people with the 
>resources to do an extraordinary important thing, to please let us know.

I might know people - but until and unless you and the Land Trust get your 
act together and get focused on something real, I wouldn't bother them with 
this.  What would I tell them was the purpose of the exercise?  Greed, 
maybe?  That doesn't fly well in a business plan.

Walk softly,
Jim

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com