[at-l] Maine land prices

[texas12step@hotmail.com (Texas Twelve-Step)]

RoksnRoots wrote:
> Texas Twelve-Step wrote:

>> Unfortunately for the perservationists, this will
>> mean that they'll actually have to pay for what they
>> want.

>> Legalized force is *so* much more appealing, isn't it?

> This is fantasyland voodoo politics. What Texas won't
> explain after his reckless attempt is exactly how and
> where these funds will come from?

I've explained it many times to both you and others on
this list. The funds will come from those who actually
have an interest in preserving the land. What right do 
you have to force others pay to satisfy your desires?
And if you claim such a right, then by what right can
you oppose someone else forcing you to pay for something
you disapprove of?

And before you go on about how your goals are for the
"public good," I want to know what ethical leg you
plan to stand on when the voters decide that opening
the trail to ATVs is for the "public good?" Or is this 
simply a case of you knowing what's best for them?

> Simply look at Saddleback to see that such an unrealistic
> approach left in the hands of individuals will inevitably
> lead to bloated asking prices well-beyond reasonability
> or means for those attempting to save undeveloped lands.

If someone goes to a car dealer and flashes a dog-choking
motherlode of bills while emphatically saying that he's
just *got* to have a specific, unique car on the lot, 
you can bet that the dealer will charge a hefty, non-
negotiable premium. The asking price for Saddleback was
bloated because the buyer had a thirteen-figure annual
budget and declared that it had legislatively compelled
itself to purchase that particular piece of land.

Trail advocates *insisted* that be the case.

Had Breen instead been approached by potential buyers
of limited means, he almost certainly wouldn't have
demanded such an extravagant price unless he truly
didn't want to sell the land (which we know was not 
the case, or so folks claim). A private interest may 
well have been able to negotiate an affordable price 
for the Saddleback corridor -- perhaps even near the 
legendary $300 an acre.

> What Texas is saying is, that when these deals fail
> and the lands fall into ridgetop condo developments, 
> everything will be pure because they were done through
> the all cleansing medium of free market enterprise 
> which has no bad outcomes through magical business 
> theory thinking.

Where did I say that? I think loss of undeveloped land
sucks. I think a lot of things suck, but that doesn't
give me the right to initiate force (either personally
or by proxy) to coerce others to do what I think is
good.

> This thinking is very attractive because it frees the viewer
> from having to deal with the difficult inconsistencies and
> conflicts involved in actually trying to do right and work a
> balanced right to exist in for nature amongst man and his
> destructive ways.

Nature has no such right. It has no rights, period.

> I think Weary pointed out before, that if this were the 
> desired and fair approach then perhaps big business should
> pay for all the acid rain damage it does and other direct 
> result damages instead of taxpayer funding or passing costs
> onto the consumer. In the same sense, these developers will
> then also have to pay for what they want. Perhaps you have
> something there after all Texas!

Of course I do.

> There comes a time when the government simply must step
> in because the desired conservation outcome will falter
> without their assistance.

Desired...by whom?

> This isn't perfect and not everybody will be happy, but
> it's necessary.

"You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs."

> The falsehood in Texas' method is the trust that the
> individual will do the right thing and work for the 
> best outcome for all. This never works.

I've never claimed that the individual will necessarily
do the right thing.

> What Texas does is suggest a tyranny of the individual
> instead of the state.

How do private individuals tyrannize you?

> In the case of land conservation, the benefit for the
> public outweighs on all counts that of the individual
> in areas where manifest destiny of topography, geographical
> location and quality, dictates natural preservation.

Sez *you.*

> Texas merely invites ruthless speculation in areas where
> it isn't appropriate and abuse of the free market system.

> It's backwards reactionary thinking in an age of global
> environmental decline and antithetical to the AT -which 
> many enjoy but then unexplainably take stances against
> what created it in their personal views...

Force did not create the Appalachian Trail, but force is
quickly destroying that which I value about it.

-TXIIS