From: bafta@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (dragon-monster)
Newsgroups: ca.environment
Subject: Re: "Ecofascists" In Action
Date: 2 Oct 1992 22:21:02 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucscb.ucsc.edu
Keywords: slow-growth, taxes, property


In article <BvB2sB.5nx@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us 
(Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In article <5292@gold.gvg.tek.com> mikea@zorba.gvg.tek.com (Michael P. 
>Anderson) writes:
>>In article <Buv3CJ.Kyu@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. 
>>Yoder) writes:

[example of fisherman vs upstream logger]

>If you can prove the cause-effect relationship, then that's fine.  The fishermen
>should be able to sue.  What shouldn't happen is for the government to say
>"You can't cut those trees.".  If the forest owner could figure out a way to
>cut down the trees without harming his neighbor downstream, he should not be
>prevented from doing it.  The problems is that environmental laws focus not
>on proof and harm to people, but on the supposed intrinsic value of nature.

[review of taking]

>Such laws have been on the books for a long time and I have no problem with
>prohibitions against actions known to violate the rights of others.  Do you 
>think that this standard applies to a farmer who wants to drain a little swamp
>land on his property?  Should someone have to prove a harmful consequence?  Or
>is it just generall bad and therefore justifiably forbidden?

What should really happen is that the burden of proof should be on the
forest owner, to demonstrate that his actions will *not* be harmful.
An action consisting of substatially modifying the existing environment
like that should not be assumed to have no harmful consequences, where
someone else must prove that untrue; (wow,alot of negatives in there) but
neither should there be a blanket restriction.

>>And on and on we go with the same merry-go-round of disagreement. Right now
>>in my neck of the woods the developers are whining that the slow-growth
>>initiatives are "taking" their property which they bought to they could
>>build lots of houses and make buckets of money. What do they say when I
>>tell them that their developments will "take" my property, which I bought
>>with the understanding that I wouldn't have a zillion people driving down
>>my street? "Go pound sand, Mike," that's what they say.

>I say the same thing.  First, I can't see that having a few more people 
>driving down your street causes any tangible harm.  

Maybe when this happens to you and *your* property values plummet, you
will sing a different tune.

>Second, if you really
>wanted that to stay that way, you and your neighbors could have put
>appropriate covenants into your deeds.  

Why?  A slow-growth initiative seems to solve the problem.  :)

>Third, it is generally not "the
>neighbors" who generate these ridiculous "slow-growth" ordinances, but rather,
>city bureaucrats.  If only the neighbors directly involved were concerned,
>the developers might even be able to pay you for your trouble and everyone
>would go away happy.  

I do not know where you get this information.  Where I come from (Oxnard)
the city bureaucrats are always pushing growth.  Growth *supposedly*
stimulates tax revenues, although it seems to me that the growth incentives
offered to the developers in Oxnard seem to have decreased revenue overall.

>Instead, developers are thwarted, their money is
>wasted, housing shortages grow, property prices and rents rise, and those
>at the bottom of the heap end up out on the street.  Do you want to reduce
>homelessness?  Scrap the rent control laws and slow-growth laws.

A recent study quoted in the LA Times looked at ten cities, 5 with no
slow-growth laws and 5 without, and concluded that housing costs rose
more in the cities without the slow-growth laws.

[flames eliminated for the most part]


Mike Anderson goeson to say what he would like to see (restoration of
salmon runs etc).  Brian blasts him for this because he sees no value
in things.  Last year the city of Port Hueneme began to impose a tax
on all housing with a beach view.  How wouldyou feel, Brian,if you
had to pay this tax, and then some developer came and ruined it all?
Obviously the govt feels that there is some value on viewing nature.

	-shari
-- 
 the one, the only, the big n growly  |  If one blows fire against the wind,
 Dragon Monster!  Rawr! Rawr! Rawr!   |   one must take care not to get the
========>bafta@ucscb.ucsc.edu<========|         smoke in one's eyes.
Newsgroups: ca.environment