[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [at-l] Eminent domain

At 05:28 AM 8/23/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Sloetoe writes:
> >     Think about it. The simplest term for what we're hashing about here
> >     is a "public good" and the simplest definition is that a public
> >     good is something which, if provided for one, may be provided for
> >     all (at no extra cost). National defense, education, town squares,
> >     highways, and yes, recreation resources like our own AT, are
> >     different examples of "public goods."

One thing that surprised me....we do tend to think we're the good guys but
WF posted alleged samples of letters in opposition to alternative one.  I'd
like to repost them here but due to legal concerns, I can only say that folks
backing development refer to development as in the greater public good
because, according to them:

that there are many more skiers than hikers

they restrict the access of the majority of users in favor of an 
overpriviledged minority group.

it would be limiting access to our great natural resources for all, while 
only permitting a
limited few have it for their narrow use.

end almost quoted material

The above statements are altered very slightly so as to be legal to post 
but I think
you get the jist.  To some people, we are the minority, our use is narrow,
and development is in the public good,  So we gotta be careful with that public
good line because I fear we lack the numbers.

I think that is the reason the ATC is backing #2 as
it provides for a fair and balanced
proposal that permits  hikers and skiers to "share the mountain" and conserves
many of the unique natural, scenic and recreational  experiences on this
spectacular 3.5-mile segment of  the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. *

*More almost quoted material

Funny.....I don't feel overpriviledged.............

* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List |  http://www.backcountry.net  *