Re[2]: [at-l] Eminent domain

[tmcginnis@ucclan.state.in.us (Thomas McGinnis)]

     Two thoughts on this worthy consideration:
     1) "hiking" is not the only use we're "protecting" with regard to 
     Saddleback. There is significant scientific portent to the proceedings 
     which remains (to me, frustratingly) out of the discussion.
     2) related to 1) above, "hiking" (versus skiiing) is acting as a 
     lightning rod on this issue ONLY BECAUSE hiking is the least 
     physically intrusive on the resource as it stands now. Botany, 
     archaeology, zoology, history, geology, meteorology, birding, 
     pharmacology, snowshoeing, forestry, mature zone ecology, alpine 
     studies, etc. all depend on having the Saddleback ridge remain as 
     close to natural as possible. "Hiking" is only the first on the list, 
     and were the AT not there on the summit, it might be *hoped* that the 
     other reasons for conserving such a region would be pushed to the 
     'fore by their various "constituents." And before anybody bites, yes, 
     I agree that if the AT were not on the summit, it would also change 
     the complexion of the proceedings entirely, and the owner would have 
     sold by now.
     My point is that Saddleback is a desireable conservation land mass for 
     reasons besides "hiking the AT", and that the AT/hiking is acting as a 
     lightning rod.
     
     Sloetoe
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: [at-l] Eminent domain
Author:  kahley7 <kahley7@ptd.net> at ima
Date:    8/23/99 6:53 AM

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> 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.

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.
     
Funny.....I don't feel overpriviledged.............
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List |  http://www.backcountry.net  *
* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List |  http://www.backcountry.net  *

==============================================================================