[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [at-l] Eminent domain
- Subject: Re: [at-l] Eminent domain
- From: kahley7 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 06:53:15 -0700
At 05:28 AM 8/23/99 -0500, you wrote:
> > 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 *