Taking of public property by private entities

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderators: Global Moderators, Discussions Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby oVo on Sun Mar 24, 2013 4:29 am

If I dig around there is bound to be info remaining on the web about [what I considered] the abuse of authority in New Jersey to take possession of those people's homes. It seems like the logic behind the city's action was "increasing the tax base" or some such BS, which is still not a legit use of eminent domain. The heavy handed politics feels more like socialism than the capitalist democracy that is supposed to be the rule of the land. I'm left wondering if political donations or some similar factor could have played a role, since it's difficult for any individual to compete with corporate clout.

The land that the Forest Service allowed to be clear cut is located in Idaho and included more than half of the acreage donated by my friend. Not sure what the government thinking there might have been for managing a pristine forest... maybe out of sight, out of mind.
User avatar
Colonel oVo
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Antarctica
Medals: 10
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Mar 24, 2013 4:31 am

There's been a sharp uptick in eminent domain cases, ever since Kelo v. City of New London (2005)
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 3577
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sun Mar 24, 2013 4:58 am

oVo wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:No, the point was it was not the Forest Service... and it was not current, either.

I said nothing about the "Forest Service" and the point was relative to the subject line in that it pertained to the taking of personal property (family dwellings) by commercial developers using eminent domain. Eminent domain is a tool of government and this New Jersey action was unprecedented in acquiring private property for use by commercial interests and not a necessary use by the city, county or state

Yeah, I thought that was the case.

Each agency within the government is managed very, very differently with very different guidelines. One agency works essentially adversarially with other agencies, though not necessarily antagonistically. I won't get into all that, but the Forest Service is one of the agencies that manages public forests for public multiple uses.

They purchase and trade land, but not as you described. It is a real issue, just a completely different one. Really its like if I were to say "hey there is a problem with the NFL football"... and you came back with "but Baseball uses bats".

oVo wrote: The people trying to save their homes appealed to representatives in higher government --Republican Congressmen and the President to stop this process and prevent developers from "acquiring" their residences in this manner-- and got nothing.
Again, this is a real issue, but not pertinent to this thread.

oVo wrote: As far as the government protecting the environment goes, a friend gave several hundred thousand acres of pristine forest land to the US Forest Service thinking they would provide good stewardship of the land. The Forest Service in turn sold the logging rights and the entire region was clear cut while Shrub was in office. Legal proceedings are slow when dealing with the government, but you may eventually see this in the news too.

Now that is a Forest Service issue. However, the mistake that your friend made is in assuming that the Forest Service would not log. Logging is a big part of their mandate. In fact, they often get criticized for putting that above other multiple uses. That is a tangled debate and mess. (I can absolutely get into it, just not sure you really want to do so).

If he wanted to protect the land, he should have donated it to either another agency OR The Nature Conservancy (but they might not have kept that stretch unless he got an agreement for them to do so – they target specific areas for priority protection and will sell off many of the smaller, impractical holdings to buy other lands or will trade lands. There are some protected lands within National Forests, they are classified as wilderness. Recreation areas can be logged as well, but have a slightly higher level of protection and a slightly different mandate.

In rough, the parks are living museums , forest/rangelands are for those uses with other uses secondary (though that is a point of legal contention), wildlife reserves are to keep specific habitats for (a) specific animal(s). .. etc.
Sergeant PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2324
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sun Mar 24, 2013 5:11 am

thegreekdog wrote:Look Player, from this point forward, I'm going to ignore your arguments unless you provide something other than your own personal views on things. You need to provide some evidence of your claims or else you're not going to convince anyone of anything.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Nope, that WAS the case, though not really, because the demands were actually reasonable, not prohibitive, now its "tough sh*t" for the public.

its like they are claiming that the only way to get their minerals is to strip mine and so too bad if the forest is lost in the mean time... and that is not a huge exaggeration.


How do you know this


Oh for heaven's sake. I did post articles, apparently you did not bother reading them. I also am living it. You can go into basically any local paper in Northcentral PA and southern NY and find a plethora of information on this. You don't find too much in scientific publications because things are advancing way too rapidly for that. It takes around 2 years, as a minimum to get something published in a scientific jourjnal other than quick blurbs in "science" and "nature".


PLAYER57832 wrote:It’s a tangled mess.

The 1981 ruling had largely to do with people who were actually homesteading on “mining claims”, particularly in northern California, but also elsewhere. The Allegheny Forest has been drilled almost since its inception, in a couple of cases maybe before (records are not clear on that, but oil and gas drilling began in the general area well before 1911). There are multiple high power gas lines running through the forest, other issues. None of them are managed without controversy, but the forest has largely “grown up” despite that. One reason a lot of activity was far less controversial here is because almost this entire forest is second growth (honestly, the small “old growth” patches are more of an eastern joke than anything biologically real). Given that the area looked a lot like a moonscape, people were more happy to see trees and wildlife return than upset that a few patches were interrupted by drill rigs. BUT, and this is very important, most of them were also largely hidden, small in size. Really, there was more impact from the clearing necessary for the high power lines running through the forest than for the drilling rigs, as far as most people were concerned.

There is just no comparison between those impacts and the impacts of the new frackers. Furthermore, each and every attempt local individuals AND now the US forest service are making to regulate these operations for pure safety and environmental concerns are being thwarted.


It's not really a tangled mess. Private owners come in, take the resources out of the ground, and put everything back the way it was.[/quote].
What on earth makes you think this is the case?
It certainly was not the case during most of the last century, when most logging happened and is not really the case on National Forests today.
In this case, that is plain not possible, AND the companies are fighting every kind of restriction “tooth and nail”.

thegreekdog wrote:If they don't, there should be consequences. If there are not consequences, who do we blame? We blame corporate cronyism (not Republicans, not Democrats... the government). As oVo said, apparently New Jersey took private property and gave it to other private citizens; although he posted no links so I have on idea if that's true (but that's neither here nor there).

Point to where I said this was a specific Republican or Democratic issue before you start harping on that. Really, it seems as if you have not even read most of what I wrote, never mind the links I posted.

And yes, it IS a tangled mess.

In this case, the issue is whether rights to take the minerals mean that all surface damage can be ignored. According to PA law, it can be. You may think otherwise, but that IS the law. The Federal government , the Forest Service, has been managing the forest under federal forest guidelines, BUT as the article I posted stated, that is what is being contested.

The judge who’s order got me to start this thread specifically stated that the company is free to ignore the surface and that the forest service cannot say anything.

In addition, the Corbet administration has eliminated the rights of local municipalities to have any say, even if their direct resources, like water and such are potentially impacted. “potential” has no sway. Even most actual damages are being ignored.
Sergeant PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2324
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sun Mar 24, 2013 5:18 am

oVo wrote:If I dig around there is bound to be info remaining on the web about [what I considered] the abuse of authority in New Jersey to take possession of those people's homes. It seems like the logic behind the city's action was "increasing the tax base" or some such BS, which is still not a legit use of eminent domain. The heavy handed politics feels more like socialism than the capitalist democracy that is supposed to be the rule of the land. I'm left wondering if political donations or some similar factor could have played a role, since it's difficult for any individual to compete with corporate clout.

I am not going to get into that because its just a completely different topic that belongs in its own thread.
To use that as an example of how the Forest Service is not public use is just wrong.

oVo wrote:The land that the Forest Service allowed to be clear cut is located in Idaho and included more than half of the acreage donated by my friend. Not sure what the government thinking there might have been for managing a pristine forest... maybe out of sight, out of mind.

No, logging is a major mandate of the Forest Service. It was created to provide timber lands to supply the country's timber needs because companies were not able or willing to do so.

Part of that was that up until Gifford Pinchot began his campaign of teaching forestry, few thought timber could be truly regrown. Part of it is what we have seen all over the west in the past few decades.. namely that the profit margin for even big corporations like Domtar and Willamette is so slight that they can wind up selling land. Tax policies and land use rules have both helped and hindered the situation. In general, the tax policies favor the big guys can can penalize small holders like your friend.
Sergeant PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2324
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby thegreekdog on Sun Mar 24, 2013 7:38 pm

Okay, I clearly didn't get my point across.

(1) I have no problem with the private owner taking their resources and then putting the land back the way it was.

(2) I have a problem with the private owner not being able to take their resources merely because there is a threat they wouldn't put things back the way they were.

(3) I have a problem with the private owner being permitted to take their resources without putting things back the way they were.

So far, I don't see any evidence of #2 or #3 happening.

Here's a more onerous example of taking of public property by private entities.

http://www.stuarthsmith.com/feds-pave-w ... s-history/

Believe it or not Player, people that are like me (and BBS) have a super major problem with taking private property including taking private property and giving it to other, different private owners. Suffice it to say, private companies cannot get other peoples' lands without either paying for it or getting the government to give it to them. We see the latter happening more often here in Pennsylvania with the natural gas pipelines.
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby thegreekdog on Sun Mar 24, 2013 7:45 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:There's been a sharp uptick in eminent domain cases, ever since Kelo v. City of New London (2005)


Public reaction to the decision was highly unfavorable.[19] Much of the public viewed the outcome as a gross violation of property rights and as a misinterpretation of the Fifth Amendment, the consequence of which would be to benefit large corporations at the expense of individual homeowners and local communities. Some in the legal profession construed the public's outrage as being directed not at the interpretation of legal principles involved in the case, but at the broad moral principles of the general outcome.[20] Federal appeals court judge Richard Posner wrote that the political response to Kelo is "evidence of [the decision's] pragmatic soundness." Judicial action would be unnecessary, Posner suggested, because the political process could take care of the problem."[21][22]

Opposition to the ruling was widespread, coming from groups such as AARP, the NAACP, the Libertarian Party and the Institute for Justice. Many owners of family farms also disapproved of the ruling, as they saw it as an avenue by which cities could seize their land for private developments.


On June 23, 2006, the first anniversary of the original decision, President George W. Bush issued an executive order[29] instructing the federal government to restrict the use of eminent domain

...for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.


Apparently doesn't much matter because the federal government doesn't do a lot of taking, but... whatever.

I also recall this with some fondness.

http://rense.com/general69/souter.htm
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby oVo on Sun Mar 24, 2013 8:33 pm

Putting the land back as it was is a big problem. Once a mountain has been topped or an open pit mine has been dug, the land will never regain it's former beauty. Likewise an "old growth" forest is not something that can be easily restored and it's difficult for anyone to justify clear cutting as responsible use. Particularly when their destruction is driven by greed and instant financial gratification with no regard for the environment once the resource is extracted and spent.

A similar abuse was the plowing up of the prairies after WWI that created the Dust Bowl. A decade of huge paydays finally went bust. In Texas alone there exists less than one tenth of one percent of the native prairies, which were once --along with the migrating herds of buffalo-- an entire ecosystem of their own.

The EPA and other federal agencies have made some progress in the areas of responsible land use post WWII. Except these organizations can't keep up with the demands of monitoring the vast industrial complex that harvests, manufactures, distributes, pollutes and employs new technology all across North America.

Fracking is just one more industry with many unanswered questions about the process and results. Billions of dollars have been spent to promote a positive identity and reassure citizens who have doubts about it's effect on the environment.
User avatar
Colonel oVo
 
Posts: 3119
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Antarctica
Medals: 10
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Mar 24, 2013 9:15 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:There's been a sharp uptick in eminent domain cases, ever since Kelo v. City of New London (2005)


Public reaction to the decision was highly unfavorable.[19] Much of the public viewed the outcome as a gross violation of property rights and as a misinterpretation of the Fifth Amendment, the consequence of which would be to benefit large corporations at the expense of individual homeowners and local communities. Some in the legal profession construed the public's outrage as being directed not at the interpretation of legal principles involved in the case, but at the broad moral principles of the general outcome.[20] Federal appeals court judge Richard Posner wrote that the political response to Kelo is "evidence of [the decision's] pragmatic soundness." Judicial action would be unnecessary, Posner suggested, because the political process could take care of the problem."[21][22]

Opposition to the ruling was widespread, coming from groups such as AARP, the NAACP, the Libertarian Party and the Institute for Justice. Many owners of family farms also disapproved of the ruling, as they saw it as an avenue by which cities could seize their land for private developments.


On June 23, 2006, the first anniversary of the original decision, President George W. Bush issued an executive order[29] instructing the federal government to restrict the use of eminent domain

...for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.


Apparently doesn't much matter because the federal government doesn't do a lot of taking, but... whatever.

I also recall this with some fondness.

http://rense.com/general69/souter.htm


Right, right, but that's at the federal level, and only for federal government dealings. The issue largely revolves around municipal courts cases--which apparently are not within the realm of federal government's direct dealings.

I went to a lecture and had a conversation about this--about 3 years ago. The Kelo case is controversial because many municipal governments use it to justify their use of eminent domain. Since that case, the number of similar cases has quickly gone up (can't remember exactly, but it's about 3 or 4 times as much--because that case is used as precedence for violating private property rights).
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 3577
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:29 am

thegreekdog wrote:Okay, I clearly didn't get my point across.

(1) I have no problem with the private owner taking their resources and then putting the land back the way it was.

Impossible, not just difficult, but impossible.


thegreekdog wrote:(2) I have a problem with the private owner not being able to take their resources merely because there is a threat they wouldn't put things back the way they were.

How about because they are actively damaging other people's use.

Also we are not just talking about the "threat" we are talking about specific mitigations that will ensure the land can be restored to the extent possible... not full return is not possible.. This is not just some esoteric idea, it is proven truth and reality.\

thegreekdog wrote:((3) I have a problem with the private owner being permitted to take their resources without putting things back the way they were.

Ecosystems have tipping points. They can take a LOT of damage, but exceed that tipping point and there is no restoration.

Beyond that, we have no way to remove most of the chemicals used in the fracking process from water once they enter. We are talking PERMANENT here. By saying this is OK, you are saying that its perfectly OK for a company to come in for a few years, do what they feel they can afford (they are specifically ignoring many USFS requirements, do't have to honor municipal demands at all.. and if 5, 10, 50 or 100 years down the road our water happens to be infiltrated and poisoned... tough luck on us.


thegreekdog wrote: ((So far, I don't see any evidence of #2 or #3 happening.

Read the articles again.

thegreekdog wrote: Here's a more onerous example of taking of public property by private entities.
http://www.stuarthsmith.com/feds-pave-w ... s-history/

I will look at that separately.


thegreekdog wrote: Believe it or not Player, people that are like me (and BBS) have a super major problem with taking private property including taking private property and giving it to other, different private owners. Suffice it to say, private companies cannot get other peoples' lands without either paying for it or getting the government to give it to them. We see the latter happening more often here in Pennsylvania with the natural gas pipelines.

The problem is that you believe this to be true, and basically don’t understand why its not true because it involves natural resources.

Natural resources are not just replacable and reparable. The Allegheny is unique in that it began as an almost entirely second growth, denuded forest. What was here originally is already gone. Cut a stretch of timber, and it CAN be largely regrown, regenerated. Species here, for the most part, can withstand some major impacts because they have already done so. However, there is still a tipping point. Also, it has taken a LOT of unified effort and unified work by not just the federal government, but by state, local entities and private individuals to bring the forest back. These companies are not only not going to do that, they are arguing they are not required to pay any attention to any requirements or even requests made by any other entity.

They are arguing that their right to access these minerals supercedes everybody else’s rights.. including the public’s right to access water resources, which do not stay on a single site.

So, its not even just the surface rights and uses that they are ignoring, but also our rights to water, one of the most basic and fundamental.. and soon to be most limited resources in the country.
Sergeant PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2324
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:45 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:Impossible, not just difficult, but impossible.


Oh for f*ck's sake, it's not impossible. It may be impossible for fracking (we won't know), but it's not impossible. Stop it.

PLAYER57832 wrote:How about because they are actively damaging other people's use.

Also we are not just talking about the "threat" we are talking about specific mitigations that will ensure the land can be restored to the extent possible... not full return is not possible.. This is not just some esoteric idea, it is proven truth and reality.\


I'm more concerned about the effect fracking would have on human beings other than people who enjoy the forest or people who enjoy the views or whatever. In any event, this is not what this thread is about (although it's your thread, so we can make it about something other than taking of public property (which is not even what the article is about)).

PLAYER57832 wrote:Ecosystems have tipping points. They can take a LOT of damage, but exceed that tipping point and there is no restoration.

Beyond that, we have no way to remove most of the chemicals used in the fracking process from water once they enter. We are talking PERMANENT here. By saying this is OK, you are saying that its perfectly OK for a company to come in for a few years, do what they feel they can afford (they are specifically ignoring many USFS requirements, do't have to honor municipal demands at all.. and if 5, 10, 50 or 100 years down the road our water happens to be infiltrated and poisoned... tough luck on us.


See above.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Read the articles again.


Nah. I don't need to. The articles I read (which are from some environmental wackjob website that looks like wikipedia) don't have any evidence, they just have theories.

PLAYER57832 wrote:I will look at that separately.


I'll save you the trouble. After the Kelo case was decided, a group of people tried to get a city government to use the eminent domain concept on Justice Souter's house.

PLAYER57832 wrote:They are arguing that their right to access these minerals supercedes everybody else’s rights.. including the public’s right to access water resources, which do not stay on a single site.

So, its not even just the surface rights and uses that they are ignoring, but also our rights to water, one of the most basic and fundamental.. and soon to be most limited resources in the country.


This is going to be one of those times where you say something and the law disagrees with you and then you get mad at me when I tell you that the law disagrees with you. I should probably just bail out now, but I won't because I'm a masochist; it also doesn't help (apparently) that I generally agree with you on your position, but the law doesn't support your position (or mine). Anyway, here goes (again)...

Case law, federal law, and regulations, proscribe that a private company that owns the minerals underneath land owned by the government can extract those minerals from the ground so long as they put the land back where it was. The Forest Service cannot unilateraly overturn case law or federal law; therefore, it doesn't win this case. In order for the minerals to not be extracted, there must be a federal law; since there isn't going to be one (because there is no one in Congress or the White House that would support such a law), the land is going to be given to the private company. It is all legal.

I'm not sure what else you want me to tell you, except that this, this situation right here... this is what happens when you have a big government, rent-seeking, and corporate croynism. This is the kind of government, you Player, support. If you want someone to blame after you're done screaming ineffectually at politicians and judges, go look in the mirror.
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:46 am

oVo wrote:Putting the land back as it was is a big problem. Once a mountain has been topped or an open pit mine has been dug, the land will never regain it's former beauty. Likewise an "old growth" forest is not something that can be easily restored and it's difficult for anyone to justify clear cutting as responsible use. Particularly when their destruction is driven by greed and instant financial gratification with no regard for the environment once the resource is extracted and spent.
I am in no way disagreeing with this. As I say above, the Allegheny is different when it comes to logging, but not other impacts.

Per the mountain top removal... I still say that your friend donated the land without really paying attention to what would happen. The Forest Service is about logging, primarily. (yes, its multiple use... but trying to stay simple here). I realize that just logged land looks pretty bad. However, if you look beneath all those slash piles and so forth, you should either see young seedlings regenerating or you will see seedlings being planted. It is not going to go back to old growth, but it will become a new forest, just like a plowed field.

Just like with plowing a lot depends on the techniques used. You mention the Dust Bowl before. That won't happen again because farming practices now differ... (we are backsliding some thanks to industrial farming, but that is another story). There are absolutely bad logging practices and good ones. I don't know, without seeing the land, if that pieces was done well or not. However, I would say that if it was truly Forest Service land than there are now so many regulations and controls that it is unlikely to have been done very poorly. Whether it was an excellent job or just a decent one is another story .

oVo wrote:A similar abuse was the plowing up of the prairies after WWI that created the Dust Bowl. A decade of huge paydays finally went bust. In Texas alone there exists less than one tenth of one percent of the native prairies, which were once --along with the migrating herds of buffalo-- an entire ecosystem of their own.

The difference between commercial plants and native prairies was part of the problem, but so were poor plowing practices, ignorance of landform impacts, etc.

At any rate, the Department of Soil conservation and a couple other agencies came in and taught farmers new techniques. The Dust Bowl will not be repeated, in part because the Federal government supported education, research and mandated certain management practices. They did this on private land, because it was necessary. The ethos of the time meant that a lot of this happened through education, but mandates were put in place as well. Today, there is such a huge movement to just plain deny scientific results of impacts or folks who basically say “I could care less about other people’s harm… my right to make money is more important”.

oVo wrote:The EPA and other federal agencies have made some progress in the areas of responsible land use post WWII. Except these organizations can't keep up with the demands of monitoring the vast industrial complex that harvests, manufactures, distributes, pollutes and employs new technology all across North America.

Yes, though according to the right wing, the “problem” is too much “government interference”, not too little.

oVo wrote: Fracking is just one more industry with many unanswered questions about the process and results. Billions of dollars have been spent to promote a positive identity and reassure citizens who have doubts about it's effect on the environment.

Billions of dollars on an industry that has really only been around for about 5 years, research largely conducted by the very industry wanting to promote itself, at the very time when so much government funding and research is being cut and ignored.

One problem is that while shallow fracking has been around for decades, what we see now is a new, very, very different technology. The impact of ordinary fracking is pretty well understand. DEEP fracking is the technology associated with things like Earth quakes in Ohio and methane leaking into people’s water systems. The companies, of course, deny many of these impacts, but the truth is they are asking us to just go on faith, not facts.

Local doctors have begun compiling some data just to correlate medical problems with rises in various illnesses. But not only does it take time to compile that data, many are getting direct and indirect pressure to not reach any “bad conclusions” – any conclusions that might harm the industry.
Sergeant PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2324
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:58 am

thegreekdog wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:Impossible, not just difficult, but impossible.


Oh for f*ck's sake, it's not impossible. It may be impossible for fracking (we won't know), but it's not impossible. Stop it.

Prove it.
There are several problems with your claim.
First, the chemicals used in fracking are not even identified fully, but what we do know of are things we cannot currently remove from either water or soil.

The impact of running so many vehicles over land presses it down, flattens it and removes the various bacteria and other micro flora/fauna necessary for productive soil. We know enough to know that complex exists, but not enough to know how to fully recreate it. That is why some sections of the Allegheny are still denuded, still not restored over 80 years. The impact there was heavy chemical burning.. not actually as long lasting as the chemical impact we see from fracking.

The area involved here is so extensive there is very little of the forest not impacted. Even the so-called "wilderness" areas are impacted. Deer can adapt somewhat. (its one reaons some biologist disparage them as "rats of the forest") Other species not so much. The Allegheny is home to several endangered and threatened species. In the East, there just are not a lot of large forested areas left, so the Allegheny is ecologically significant.

I can go on, but the point is you don't really want to bother getting a degree in ecology or any related natural resources field. That's fine, but you should be listening to folks who have them.


I am working on the rest of your post, but the above is the fundamental flaw in your assertions.
Sergeant PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2324
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:13 am

thegreekdog wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:How about because they are actively damaging other people's use.

Also we are not just talking about the "threat" we are talking about specific mitigations that will ensure the land can be restored to the extent possible... not full return is not possible.. This is not just some esoteric idea, it is proven truth and reality.\


I'm more concerned about the effect fracking would have on human beings other than people who enjoy the forest or people who enjoy the views or whatever. In any event, this is not what this thread is about (although it's your thread, so we can make it about something other than taking of public property (which is not even what the article is about)).

They are one and the same.
You cannot neatly divide the world into “things that impact nature” and “things that impact people”.
The failure of so many in this country to understand that fundamental FACT, particularly in the past, but more and more among the current population, is part of why we are in such trouble today.

thegreekdog wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:Ecosystems have tipping points. They can take a LOT of damage, but exceed that tipping point and there is no restoration.

Beyond that, we have no way to remove most of the chemicals used in the fracking process from water once they enter. We are talking PERMANENT here. By saying this is OK, you are saying that its perfectly OK for a company to come in for a few years, do what they feel they can afford (they are specifically ignoring many USFS requirements, do't have to honor municipal demands at all.. and if 5, 10, 50 or 100 years down the road our water happens to be infiltrated and poisoned... tough luck on us.


See above.

Yes, do.
Ignorance is not an excuse. The data, the knowledge is there. That it happens to be inconvenient doesn’t mean its not true.
You can look at the bee population, water, endangered species or many other issues… it is ultimately human beings who are being threatened, not just species and ecosystems and the Allegheny was part of the solution.

[/quote]
PLAYER57832 wrote:Read the articles again.


Nah. I don't need to. The articles I read (which are from some environmental wackjob website that looks like wikipedia) don't have any evidence, they just have theories. [/quote]
They are scientific theories, much like the theory of evolution or gravity are “just theories”.
Again, that you dislike the conclusion doesn’t mean its wrong. Data, facts speak for themselves.. or they used to.
Nowadays there seems to be this idea that economics and business interests are able to change basic data.

Business and interests have always influenced what data is collected, but not since the era of yellow journalism era have basic facts been so ignored or altered.

thegreekdog wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:I will look at that separately.


I'll save you the trouble. After the Kelo case was decided, a group of people tried to get a city government to use the eminent domain concept on Justice Souter's house.

Ironically enough, in this case it is the municipalities that are being overruled… and when they have very serious, proven concerns.

thegreekdog wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:They are arguing that their right to access these minerals supercedes everybody else’s rights.. including the public’s right to access water resources, which do not stay on a single site.

So, its not even just the surface rights and uses that they are ignoring, but also our rights to water, one of the most basic and fundamental.. and soon to be most limited resources in the country.


This is going to be one of those times where you say something and the law disagrees with you and then you get mad at me when I tell you that the law disagrees with you. I should probably just bail out now, but I won't because I'm a masochist; it also doesn't help (apparently) that I generally agree with you on your position, but the law doesn't support your position (or mine). Anyway, here goes (again)...

Case law, federal law, and regulations, proscribe that a private company that owns the minerals underneath land owned by the government can extract those minerals from the ground so long as they put the land back where it was. The Forest Service cannot unilateraly overturn case law or federal law; therefore, it doesn't win this case. In order for the minerals to not be extracted, there must be a federal law; since there isn't going to be one (because there is no one in Congress or the White House that would support such a law), the land is going to be given to the private company. It is all legal.

I'm not sure what else you want me to tell you, except that this, this situation right here... this is what happens when you have a big government, rent-seeking, and corporate croynism. This is the kind of government, you Player, support. If you want someone to blame after you're done screaming ineffectually at politicians and judges, go look in the mirror.

Natural resource law is FAR more complex than tax law (and I agree that tax law is extremely complicated!)… let me begin there.
There are multiple and conflicting demands, rules here. The question here is not whether the Forest Service can, as you claim “overturn” federal law (even setting aside that FS rules are, by definition part of federal law), the issue is whether state and local rules, rules from one agency can overturn rules in another agency (often they can) AND whether the weeks act takes precedence or other rules do. (to be very, very simplistic about this). The judge considered only a small part of that.
You are arguing part of what the companies wish to assert, and operating under false understandings of the results, as well as ignoring some other federal regulation that actually does supersede what you are saying above.. or used to, up until this judge’s ruling.
Sergeant PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2324
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:17 am

Player57832 wrote:Prove it.
There are several problems with your claim.
First, the chemicals used in fracking are not even identified fully, but what we do know of are things we cannot currently remove from either water or soil.

The impact of running so many vehicles over land presses it down, flattens it and removes the various bacteria and other micro flora/fauna necessary for productive soil. We know enough to know that complex exists, but not enough to know how to fully recreate it. That is why some sections of the Allegheny are still denuded, still not restored over 80 years. The impact there was heavy chemical burning.. not actually as long lasting as the chemical impact we see from fracking.

The area involved here is so extensive there is very little of the forest not impacted. Even the so-called "wilderness" areas are impacted. Deer can adapt somewhat. (its one reaons some biologist disparage them as "rats of the forest") Other species not so much. The Allegheny is home to several endangered and threatened species. In the East, there just are not a lot of large forested areas left, so the Allegheny is ecologically significant.

I can go on, but the point is you don't really want to bother getting a degree in ecology or any related natural resources field. That's fine, but you should be listening to folks who have them.


I am working on the rest of your post, but the above is the fundamental flaw in your assertions.


thegreekdog wrote:It may be impossible for fracking (we won't know)


thegreekdog wrote:It may be impossible for fracking (we won't know)


thegreekdog wrote:It may be impossible for fracking (we won't know)


Other than that, I will note two more things.

First, there appear to be conflicting reports on the damage of fracking.
Second, YOU asking ME to "prove it" is the height, the absolute fucking height, of hypocrisy.
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6217
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

PreviousNext

Return to Whose Forum is It Anyway?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 2dimes, DaGip, GoranZ and 4 guests

Login