Re[2]: [at-l] AT Fund On Income Tax Form

[RoksnRoots@aol.com (RoksnRoots@aol.com)]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
In a message dated 12/17/2002 9:18:58 AM Eastern Standard Time,
thornel@attglobal.net writes:


> This is the "selfishness" that makes for poor PR. The AT, as well as this
> list, exists within an environment. Obsessive exclusion of reality in the
> service of any cause dooms any project to failure. Realpolitik has been
> around for awhile, and will continue to rule - at least in the real world.



        *** The Trail obviously needs protection above and beyond what it is
currently getting in order to achieve its goals. If I were to go into what
types of "selfishness" affected the AT and what their results were it
probably wouldn't be to popular. One particularly obvious brand of
selfishness is trying to keep the land protection side of the AT off AT
forums - or consistent negative comments about such. These also serve as bad
PR.

         The real world is exactly what Benton MacKaye was answering to when
he formulated the AT. "Realpolitik" is Saddleback and the raceway. The real
world solution to endless sprawl was the AT - if you bothered to read about
it short of seeking out its potential flaws. I continue to be astounded at
what can only be seen as AT members trying to sell the Project as an
unworkable aberration in face of real world reality. As if the tide of nature
consuming progress were the acceptable norm and the AT had to wait to see how
it could properly suit its demands and somehow find its place. Myself, I find
that backing the Trail's idea and cause as a member to be more serving of its
cause. I can't imagine how backing what threatens it would be helpful to an
environmental project that continues to be eaten away by encroachment. The AT
is very much a "real world" plan with real goals. Urging people away from
participation and still expecting good results for the Trail is the
unrealistic event here...





>
> We have many national interests including healthcare, public safety,
> homeland security, transportation, education - all based within our
> borders. We even have the threat of war and real concerns about our
> national defense. If these issues are not addressed as a very high priority
>
> - often higher than AT corridor issues - there will only be a memory of an
> AT.



             ***   WW2 almost destroyed modern civilization. The Trail
survived it and no Trail backers used it as an excuse to drop its support. If
you read MacKaye closely you would see that he addresses how all the social
problems you list end up being dealt with by growth. Growth means land
destruction.

       The AT will still be there and these are excuses. I assume the
national matters you outline above are still going to be dealt with if the
Trail is protected. None of the things you cite above are reason to not have
a donation check-off on a tax form...



> What is "on topic" is the fact that you offered this little rebuttal in a
> coherent and more measured style. It still comes across as "holier than
> thou" when you attack the idea of maintaining a balance among issues. I'd
> like to understand how a national earmarked fund would provide additional
> efforts to stop encroachment or race tracks - specifically why millions
> would be needed for this. I suggest that millions of dollars for the AT
> would result in the paving and destruction of the trail as it has
> developed. I suggest that creating a very "deep pocket" would doom the AT
> to more Saddleback Mtn. blackmail schemes. Yes, we could love the AT to
> death.
>


              ***  You have to ask the land speculators around the AT why
millions are needed. An earmarked fund could be directed towards the most
impacting threats. This is a "real" existing condition on the AT. Ask ATC.
Raceways and ski areas result in development and paving. Land acquisition
results in preservation. To not understand why the monies are needed or
suggest that it would result in paving is indicative of a lack of
understanding of the Trail. Which is really the problem in the first place,
isn't it?

         (And thanks for admitting Saddleback was a blackmail scheme. Before
we were stuck on property rights before "selfishness")...