[at-l] entirely deletable department Re: Today in western NC

RoksnRoots at aol.com RoksnRoots at aol.com
Wed Nov 1 10:37:08 CST 2006


In a message dated 10/31/2006 8:30:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
jim.bullard at gmail.com writes:
*
*
*
The amount of building in the Adirondacks is a serious problem, as is
the nature of the population shift from locals to wealthy part-time
residents. The latter raises the cost of living through higher
property values, higher taxes, etc. which tends to exacerbate the
trend by pricing the traditional residents out of the market.
*
*
*
        Well, whatever civics dynamic is responsible - it makes no 
difference. It's all very simple Jim, if you have a place that is designated to preserve 
a wilderness area and you start developing it you are killing the purpose for 
that area. That is what needs to be addressed. To me, sterile outlining of 
the organized pattern in which this happens only serves those who are experts at 
formulating the excuses for destroying that cause. Since government is the 
ultimate decider on this sort of thing, whether it is an extension of the people 
or not, makes no difference - government is responsible. Governments are 
ultimately responsible for wars, but it is people who get killed. Same with 
wilderness. 

        But it would be more honest to accent the background in which this is 
happening. It would be remiss to not mention that the pure interpretation you 
put on it is now being challenged at many levels. The current party in charge 
is threatening the previous interpretation of government as set in our 
constitution. The reasons are clear. To empower a certain segment of our "people" 
over the rest. This movement is directly transposable to the environmental area. 
We have a certain segment wanting a more primitive interpretation of land 
rights and environmental regulation in order to bypass previous checks and 
balances. Again, the reason is clear. Government ultimately can't afford to keep up 
with inflated "land rights" values. Therefore it is eager to install a new 
ethic that spares it from having to deal with or (fund) - (or be expected to) 
environmental conservation. This is the right wing purist scam that is being 
foisted on the public by the republicans in charge. It basically makes everything 
a competitive free-market and asks the environment to compete or take its 
place in this natural order. It all makes sense, right? These people would sell 
their grandmother's daughter of the revolution girdle for stock options. So, if 
you want to talk civics - at least color it accurately.

         What is happening in the Adirondacks is our "New Deal" here in 
America. Government is really looking to defeat the expectation of funding 
conservation. They get away with it by running people around in disingenuous 
philosophy about people's land rights vs preservation. But the intended trend is clear 
- it is to weaken and eventually defeat conservation in order to keep things 
efficient. After all, efficiency is a corporate buzzword. Our government has 
clearly been corrupted by the corporate model. What's most important in what you 
wrote is that wealthy development raises the cost of living on the previous 
locals. The right-winger's job is to come in and tell those persons that it 
isn't exploitation of the wilderness area that's causing it, but those 'liberals' 
who fail to allow a purist free-market definition. They know the old 
philosophy mill will always work in their favor. Wilderness be damned. Government 
knows it always collects on any activity. It has an incentive not to act. To draw 
attention away from itself it pumps a smokescreen of politics and philosophy 
to avoid this simple formula from becoming too obvious. Our corporate media 
kicks in and helps it. After all, they're all in the same business. In the end, 
the constitution just can't compete on a pure market basis. Neither can 
wilderness.

          I'm sorry, but if people in the Adirondacks are upset about 
restrictions caused by living in a wilderness zone they should perhaps consider 
living somewhere else. There has to be a point where it is reasonable to suggest a 
pure land rights concept isn't appropriate in wilderness areas. The ultimate 
irony is the wealthy are in the best position to afford not to harm these areas.






*



More information about the at-l mailing list