From: asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ca.environment
Subject: Re: "Ecofascists" In Action
Keywords: Pollution, Volunteerism, Environment
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:00:06 GMT
            <h2=nrt-.phil@netcom.com>
            <p028tt0@fido.asd.sgi.com>
Reply-To: asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks

Written in article <p028tt0@fido.asd.sgi.com>
 by dauber@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber):

: In article <h2=nrt-.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
:
:> So, 1. Put the property in private ownership.
:> 2. Sue anybody that fucks with your property. This requires a system
:> of justice of course where the "sue-ee" does not coercively own
:> the court system.
:
: I see one major problem with this....  If you put the property in private
: ownership, that owner will fuck up the bay without anyone taking them to
: task.  

There's a couple of fundamental assumptions implicit in this statement.

For one thing, it assumes One Owner, who then would "fuck up the bay."

This may well be true.  It's possible.  But let's ask a couple of
questions here.  Why would somebody own the entire bay in the first 
place?

Certainly not for use as sewage disposal.  Not much profit in that.
So, the answer to this question is obvious: someone owns the bay for
profit.  This person wishes to sell/rent/lease access.

So why would someone own the bay, destroy it, then expect to make any
money from it?  Answer: in general, they wouldn't.  It would be cutting
their own throat.  Most folks don't like doing that.

Suppose a more likely scenario, however.  Many owners, each with a
different piece.  Presumeably one particular owner could destroy their
own piece, and so long as that destruction doesn't spread to any other
piece, that would be fine and dandy.

However, any pollution which enters anybody's piece is bound to spread
thru-out the whole.  This is not allowable, just like you aren't allowed
to drive your 4x4 over someone's front lawn.

Therefore, anyone who buys a piece of the bay for, say, a sewage dump,
would have to invent a way for that sewage to stay in their piece.
Since that would be an expensive proposition (if not outright impossi-
ble), it's not likely to occur.

Perhaps they could invent a way for the sewage to merely stay in their
piece long enough for them to clean it up.  Fine, if they can do it, and
profit thereby, let 'em at it.

Anyone who pollutes someone else's piece is treated much the same as
someone who trespasses.  Say, perhaps, locked up for breaking and enter-
ing, or some equivalent or more serious crime.

If less serious than an actual crime, there's still the lawsuit angle
from victims, ie, the neighbors whose pieces of bay are sullied.  As
opposed to the bay being publicly-owned (read: govt-owned) and you can
not sue the "public" without "its" permission.

In either case, damage to a neighbor from un-clean activities is made to 
be more expensive than simply remaining clean.

Result?  Clean bay.

: Can you think of a single group which could afford to buy the bay who would
: be concerned with the wildlife around the bay, the quality of the water in
: the bay, other people polluting the bay?

Again, why a single group?  Why not parcel it out the way pieces of real
estate has historically been parceled out to ranchers in the past?

Nobody was given the Whole of California back in the Missionary days.  
Spain gave "ranches" out, Rancho Santa Monica, Rancho La Brea, Rancho 
Cucamonga, Rancho Santa Margarita, etc. etc.  In those days, the ranches 
were given to Friends of the King.

We could do the same for the bay.  Only today, we'll add the stipulation 
that a certain percentage must go to certain select environmental groups.

Plus, we can make certain that a certain mixture is applied, ie, we can
checkerboard (gerrymander?) the parcels; one for sale to highest bidder, 
one to an env'tal group, one grandfathered to current residents, one for 
sale, one to a group, one g'fathered, etc.

This mix will prevent "clumping" of polluters.  It would be next to
impossible for someone to destroy their parcel without some sort of
leakage to a neighbor, with a high liklihood that the neighbor is the
Nature Conservancy, or the Sierra Club, or some other group who'd yell
like hell.

Note the "(gerrymander?)" above.  There is the risk that the parcels
will be shaped the way political districts are, such that certain
favored groups get better or connected parcels.  Groups such as, for
example, ones with the best campaign contributions.

But, so long as we remain human, no scheme will be perfect.  I'm 
confident that env'tal groups will be watching the entire process very 
carefully.

: FWA

-- 
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, void where prohibited, taxed, licensed or regulated.
Any simple problem can be made insoluble if enough meetings are held to 
discuss it.
Xref: sparky ca.politics:7044 ca.environment:820