Global Warming News

[dcyrilc]

Good Morning Cyril,

Sorry I kept you up late last night.

Staying up was my own choice. I allow myself to get into the things I am doing and end up neglectiong my sleep. I pay for it later. Mabey someday I will learn better, but it hasn't happened yet. LOL

I don't know of any parallels to taking the land in the name of Native Habitat. That's out of control. We have a 'Land For Maine's Future' program here. It is funded by bond issues on the ballot in a general referendum. The state supposedly uses the funds to buy land or secure permanent conservation easements on it, to prevent development while allowing traditional uses (hunting, logging). It gets good support at the ballot box. I hope it is working as advertised.

There are also a handful of private organizations that do the same thing through land trusts. They like landowners to leave parcels to the trust in their wills and such. It's not so uncommon for folks to do that here. There can be some estate tax advantages.

I like these ideas for conservation. The idea behind them sounds fair and if they were to try to do something similar here I would willingly support it. I also hope it works as intended.

I hope you don't stress over the situation.
It's been long enough now that I don't really think about it unless something brings it up. Then it ticks me off again. In some ways it's kinda funny, in that I never understood the thinking of people who did things like the Oklahoma City bombing. After what I went through with the county, I understand the sentiment. I still don't agree with it, but I do understand it now.

Those are some nice looking kids in your avatar.

My daughter is 11 and my son will turn 14 this month. They're pretty good most of the time. They enjoy working with and showing the cattle. It makes it harder since we don't life on the farm, but we get through. We're working on improving our stock in the hopes to be able to compete at the National Western Stock Show in Denver within a few years. Raising cattle on 17 acres with the city growing up around you has its challenges.

Cyril

 

[dave1949]

From Cyril,

My daughter is 11 and my son will turn 14 this month. They're pretty good most of the time. They enjoy working with and showing the cattle. It makes it harder since we don't life on the farm, but we get through. We're working on improving our stock in the hopes to be able to compete at the National Western Stock Show in Denver within a few years. Raising cattle on 17 acres with the city growing up around you has its challenges.

That's really great. I am glad they have those interests and you go out of the way to support them. That's good parenting.

I don't mean to hold Maine up as a paragon of good regulation. Just swapping stories with people all over the country is very educational. I have heard of a lot of things I would fight like heck, and a lot of good ideas too. The overall variablity is interesting.

Any virtue Maine has in regulation probably lies in it's poverty. We can't afford it. There could be a loose correlation between the general wealth of a state and the level of onerous regulations it seems.
Dave.

 

[dcyrilc]

From Cyril,

My daughter is 11 and my son will turn 14 this month. They're pretty good most of the time. They enjoy working with and showing the cattle. It makes it harder since we don't life on the farm, but we get through. We're working on improving our stock in the hopes to be able to compete at the National Western Stock Show in Denver within a few years. Raising cattle on 17 acres with the city growing up around you has its challenges.

That's really great. I am glad they have those interests and you go out of the way to support them. That's good parenting.

I don't mean to hold Maine up as a paragon of good regulation. Just swapping stories with people all over the country is very educational. I have heard of a lot of things I would fight like heck, and a lot of good ideas too. The overall variablity is interesting.

Any virtue Maine has in regulation probably lies in it's poverty. We can't afford it. There could be a loose correlation between the general wealth of a state and the level of onerous regulations it seems.
Dave.

I certianly would not be supprised if this were true. I believe population density could be a factor also.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Green movement? Sure. As long as people keep doing stupid things, the green movement will continue.

Case in point, the EPA is not currently prosecuting polluters who are dumping toxic waste into non-navigable waterways. This is since the Supremes ruled that the EPA has no jurisdiction over those waters as the law is written to cover 'navigable' waterways. I don't fault the Supremes for their ruling, they followed the letter of the law. They will only be 'activist' judges for more conservative causes

The waterways being polluted drain into watersheds used to supply drinking water, into fisheries, into navigable waterways, etc. in many cases. A 'green' person will never understand or accept those types of actions. Why should they? You expect them to give others carte blanche to poison the earth they live on?

What did the wingnuts do?, well they ran around the country telling farmers the EPA was going to regulate their rain puddles if given regulatory powers over all bodies of water. The farmers call their congressmen, the manufacturing trade lobbyists make visits and calls to craven politicians. So the end result is, stupid people are allowed to dump crap into the water.

That is insane by any standard. As long as that 'brown' mentality persists, there will be greenies around.

Extrapolate that to property rights. Do you really think a stream running through your property is yours to use as you wish? Just about anything a landowner does, the effects of which travel beyond their boundaries, should expect some resistance if those effects are injurious to others.

If you lived in a biosphere and dealt with everything internally, that would be okay. Don't expect the taxpayers to clean up another Super Fund Site after you are gone.

If I buy 20 acres in a rural/agricultural area - Should I be able build a stamping plant? Ka-chunka Ka-chunka 24/7? Open up a stone quarry? a little blasting and 50-100 trucks per day? Build a waste to elec. generator plant? How about a dirt bike race track? Races every Saturday night, track is open for practice Mon-Fri 8am-8pm? How about a mega-dairy farm which produces millions of gallons of waste which eventually enters the same aquifer my water well uses?

I could go on and on with enterprises that have a place, but most of us would not wish to have as neighbors. I think zoning is intended to address and adjudicate those issues. In every case, the owner of the 20 acres could complain that their property rights are being ignored. Isn't is simpler to create different zones for different uses? And even better, when purchasing a piece of property, align your intended uses with the current uses?
Dave.

Thanks for the reply,
Now that Im back in the Good Ole USA I can resume my toxic lifestyle that I have come to enjoy.HEHE
It is interesting that you bring up examples of uses of property that others find objectionable. Right here in our little burg of Fallbrook we have an example . Liberty Quarry wants to build a huge facility on the north end of town, on the San Diego-Riverside Co line. Huge amount of opposition from the community.
Obviously to be consistent I would have to say that property rights would trump the communities right to stymie the project, As there is no zoning in the area.
But I think in your reply you have set up examples of basically straw men arguments, The example of the EPA NOT prosecuting people is a current
status. In the past there HAVE been prosecutions that were people put into jail or fined millions of dollars for using their property in a way that the government objected to.
I am now in Houston visiting a relative. I always was told that Houston, because it has no zoning laws was a crazy patchwork of highrises next to small single family homes, In some cases this is true, but for the most part Houston seems to be a very pleasant city, and by the way one that is growing exponentially .And for the most part people seem to use enlightened self interest, as opposed to some zoning board to control building that would be detrimental to the community as a whole.
Having just gotten back from London, which probably has among the tightest
building regs around, there is no question as to where most people, if given the chance would choose to live.
In any event, I would repeat my question to you, Can you tell me at what point my property rights are trumped by "stewardship".

 

[Chuck52]

Fall,

You surely are not arguing that property rights always trump public rights are you? If you can't imagine a use a property owner might come up with that would clearly be harmful to his neighbor's interests, or to the environment in general, you must be imagination deficient! An obvious use might be a hazardous waste facility. So, assuming you do have a decent imagination, we are now at the point W.C. Fields reached with the "lady", and we are arguing price. That being the case, why is it Dave's job to determine where the limits are? Isn't that what we are supposed to do collectively, as in a democracy or representative republic or whatever descriptor you wish to use to describe our political situation?

Now, I sure don't want my neighbors to tell me how to use my property, but then I am a reasonable person! Most of them are probably reasonable, too, unless the idiot who bombed my mailbox with a bottle of coke is one of them. Enlightened self-interest is a great concept. That's one of the arguments for carrying a gun, isn't it? To make sure that everyone understands that their enlightened self interest is in not causing you to fear danger from them?

Chuck

 

[dave1949]

Thanks for the reply,
Now that Im back in the Good Ole USA I can resume my toxic lifestyle that I have come to enjoy.HEHE
It is interesting that you bring up examples of uses of property that others find objectionable. Right here in our little burg of Fallbrook we have an example . Liberty Quarry wants to build a huge facility on the north end of town, on the San Diego-Riverside Co line. Huge amount of opposition from the community.
Obviously to be consistent I would have to say that property rights would trump the communities right to stymie the project, As there is no zoning in the area.
But I think in your reply you have set up examples of basically straw men arguments, The example of the EPA NOT prosecuting people is a current
status. In the past there HAVE been prosecutions that were people put into jail or fined millions of dollars for using their property in a way that the government objected to.
I am now in Houston visiting a relative. I always was told that Houston, because it has no zoning laws was a crazy patchwork of highrises next to small single family homes, In some cases this is true, but for the most part Houston seems to be a very pleasant city, and by the way one that is growing exponentially .And for the most part people seem to use enlightened self interest, as opposed to some zoning board to control building that would be detrimental to the community as a whole.
Having just gotten back from London, which probably has among the tightest
building regs around, there is no question as to where most people, if given the chance would choose to live.
In any event, I would repeat my question to you, Can you tell me at what point my property rights are trumped by "stewardship".

I thought I answered the question:

Extrapolate that to property rights. Do you really think a stream running through your property is yours to use as you wish? Just about anything a landowner does, the effects of which travel beyond their boundaries, should expect some resistance if those effects are injurious to others.

I think that is a good starting point. It could be someone who collects junk and breeding rats infest the neighborhood. Somebody starts a motorcycle repair business in their home gargage, sounds harmless until a couple dozen loud bikes come and go everyday in what used to be a quiet residential area. Doesn't have to be the classic toxic waste examples. There are many situations or things you could do on your property that affect those around you. The people being affected have property rights too.

The silly things like size, style or color of your house, clotheslines, natural growth rather than mowed and poisoned-on-a-schedule lawn are examples where people's rights are being trampled in my opinion. However, in most of those cases, people bought property with existing restrictions and don't wish to follow them. Why did they buy the property in the first place? It's an example of 'its all about me'.

Houston and London. I bet the food is generally better in Houston although the yuppified roadhouses wouldn't have the charm of an English pub. I find it odd that you would compare those two cities given their difference in age and historical significance.

In any case, do you think as Houston rapidly expanded into the area around it, there were no conflicts with property owners about to be run over by a city? Even assuming they were well compensated financially, they really didn't have a choice. Check out Cyril's posts from yesterday in this thread.

Fringes are where the majority of land use issues become contentious. A settled neighborhood where current uses are more or less locked in carries a price premium for that reason. Of course, you know that. Am I to believe that if a big box store wanted to locate in the middle of an established Houston neighborhood, there would be no resistance? Zoning or no zoning?

Phoenix, AZ has/had an interesting layout. I suppose it has changed with highways cutting across it now, but originally it was laid out on square grids. All the commercial activites were located on the major surface streets that defined the grid. The grid interior was a network of residential neighborhoods. The streets inside the grid were laid out such that it would usually take longer to cut through as opposed to staying on the major streets. Much can be accomplished with a little thought.

Westbrook, Maine has a rock quarry that has been there forever, the cash flow helped build the town. The quarry wanted to expand it's operations onto land, which they own, adjacent to their quarry. The town and surrounding, newer, light industries fought it. Basically, the town has decided it's too much tax revenue to lose since the quarry operations would drive away other businesses. Plus the new businesses are high tech and not nasty like a quarry. Whose rights are more important? I don't pretend to know. It's not a zoning issue, it is a town revenue issue.
Dave.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

I thought I answered the question:

Extrapolate that to property rights. Do you really think a stream running through your property is yours to use as you wish? Just about anything a landowner does, the effects of which travel beyond their boundaries, should expect some resistance if those effects are injurious to others.

I think that is a good starting point. It could be someone who collects junk and breeding rats infest the neighborhood. Somebody starts a motorcycle repair business in their home gargage, sounds harmless until a couple dozen loud bikes come and go everyday in what used to be a quiet residential area. Doesn't have to be the classic toxic waste examples. There are many situations or things you could do on your property that affect those around you. The people being affected have property rights too.

The silly things like size, style or color of your house, clotheslines, natural growth rather than mowed and poisoned-on-a-schedule lawn are examples where people's rights are being trampled in my opinion. However, in most of those cases, people bought property with existing restrictions and don't wish to follow them. Why did they buy the property in the first place? It's an example of 'its all about me'.

Houston and London. I bet the food is generally better in Houston although the yuppified roadhouses wouldn't have the charm of an English pub. I find it odd that you would compare those two cities given their difference in age and historical significance.

In any case, do you think as Houston rapidly expanded into the area around it, there were no conflicts with property owners about to be run over by a city? Even assuming they were well compensated financially, they really didn't have a choice. Check out Cyril's posts from yesterday in this thread.

Fringes are where the majority of land use issues become contentious. A settled neighborhood where current uses are more or less locked in carries a price premium for that reason. Of course, you know that. Am I to believe that if a big box store wanted to locate in the middle of an established Houston neighborhood, there would be no resistance? Zoning or no zoning?

Phoenix, AZ has/had an interesting layout. I suppose it has changed with highways cutting across it now, but originally it was laid out on square grids. All the commercial activites were located on the major surface streets that defined the grid. The grid interior was a network of residential neighborhoods. The streets inside the grid were laid out such that it would usually take longer to cut through as opposed to staying on the major streets. Much can be accomplished with a little thought.

Westbrook, Maine has a rock quarry that has been there forever, the cash flow helped build the town. The quarry wanted to expand it's operations onto land, which they own, adjacent to their quarry. The town and surrounding, newer, light industries fought it. Basically, the town has decided it's too much tax revenue to lose since the quarry operations would drive away other businesses. Plus the new businesses are high tech and not nasty like a quarry. Whose rights are more important? I don't pretend to know. It's not a zoning issue, it is a town revenue issue.
Dave.

Okay, lots of good points, but let address just one,
I know that you are using the example of neighbors, but lets take it one step further, how about if one country is churning up CO2 in its factories, does it neighbor have the "right" to demand that shut down their factories?
If your neighbor has a pig farm as his source of income, do you have the right to
demand that he install scrubbers on his sties?
As to health and safety issues, I think that reasonable people would agree that these are seperate from "zoning issues", which I would suggest are increasing being used,along with environmental regs ,to if not punish, at least, tax at outrageous rates.
In California, I have heard that appx 25-35000 is the additional cost to the average home due to "environmental impact studies" and the like.
Let me give you a somewhat related example. A case in LA where a smoker is in his apt smoking, but a neighbor, supposedly can smell the smoke on her patio.Does her right to a smoke free environment, trump her neighbors right to smoke in HIS apt?
I know you may think it redundant, but I don't think you have given me a bright line in the sand, where so called environmental laws are trumped by property rights

 

[dcyrilc]

Okay, lots of good points, but let address just one,
I know that you are using the example of neighbors, but lets take it one step further, how about if one country is churning up CO2 in its factories, does it neighbor have the "right" to demand that shut down their factories?
If your neighbor has a pig farm as his source of income, do you have the right to
demand that he install scrubbers on his sties?
As to health and safety issues, I think that reasonable people would agree that these are seperate from "zoning issues", which I would suggest are increasing being used,along with environmental regs ,to if not punish, at least, tax at outrageous rates.
In California, I have heard that appx 25-35000 is the additional cost to the average home due to "environmental impact studies" and the like.
Let me give you a somewhat related example. A case in LA where a smoker is in his apt smoking, but a neighbor, supposedly can smell the smoke on her patio.Does her right to a smoke free environment, trump her neighbors right to smoke in HIS apt?
I know you may think it redundant, but I don't think you have given me a bright line in the sand, where so called environmental laws are trumped by property rights

Personally, I don't think there is a definate and definable line. There should be some give and take I would think. The only problem around here is the small rural landowner is diong all the giving and government and city dwellers are doing all the taking. If owners of city lots had to meet the same restrictions and requirements we have to, the public outcry would be outragous. The county south of us, King County, passed a law that rural property owners of 5 acres or more must put a portion (I think it was 25%) of their land in Native Growth Area just to qualify to get a permit for anything. Could you imagine what the outcry would be like if property owners in Seattle had to meet that requirement to get a remodeling permit? The problem with laws like that is that they single out a small minority to provide what the majority wants and all the cost (loss) is carried by that small minority.

 

[dave1949]

QUOTE=FallbrookFarmer;1898036]
Okay, lots of good points, but let address just one,
I know that you are using the example of neighbors, but lets take it one step further, how about if one country is churning up CO2 in its factories, does it neighbor have the "right" to demand that shut down their factories?
If your neighbor has a pig farm as his source of income, do you have the right to
demand that he install scrubbers on his sties?
As to health and safety issues, I think that reasonable people would agree that these are seperate from "zoning issues", which I would suggest are increasing being used,along with environmental regs ,to if not punish, at least, tax at outrageous rates.
In California, I have heard that appx 25-35000 is the additional cost to the average home due to "environmental impact studies" and the like.
Let me give you a somewhat related example. A case in LA where a smoker is in his apt smoking, but a neighbor, supposedly can smell the smoke on her patio.Does her right to a smoke free environment, trump her neighbors right to smoke in HIS apt?
I know you may think it redundant, but I don't think you have given me a bright line in the sand, where so called environmental laws are trumped by property rights[/QUOTE]

I have to agree with Cyril, there is no well defined line in the sand for many cases. It would be a fool's errand to attempt to codify all of them I think.

As a smoker, obviously the lady on her patio is wrong . But seriously, she probably brings home groceries more injurious to her health than any whiff of cigarette smoke she may receive. Let's be honest, people love to hate smokers. There can be no rational discussion involving smoking. When they are done with us, they will raise the taxes on a Big Mac by 300%. After all, eating like that will increase all of our health costs and what about the residual smell it leaves on your hands and clothing? When I get into an auto where Big Mac's have been eaten, I almost gag. Disgusting habit. :laughing:

I live in a 'tailpipe' state. Whatever pollutants are put aloft across the midwest, they generally drift out to sea through New England. The tailpipe state governor's banded together to sue the EPA for not regulating emissions in upwind states a couple years back. I will have to look up the outcome of that action.

When Texas builds a bunch of coal fired power plants, they enjoy cheap energy while folks downwind suffer the pollution. There is something wrong with that picture. It goes down hard to hear a Texan brag about their low electricity costs. Especially when the EPA tells us our air is too dirty, in a state with a population of 1.3 million, compared to 5.7 million for the Houston metro area alone. Obviously, pollutants have to be dealt with at their sources. I don't know how that would work across borders (country to country), but it should be doable within our own US borders.

Of your examples, the pig farm is the most difficult. There are some management techniques that can reduce the odor, but pigs are powerful stinky critters. The farmer has a right to make a living, but again, he has to be responsible to not damage the surrounding watersheds. I think if you choose to live in an agricultural zone, it basically goes with the territory. As long as the neighbor's health is not harmed. I think it would be similar to living in a paper mill town. It's just part of living there. For the farms with thousands of pigs, there are probably some management guidelines they should be required to adhere to that will control some of the odors.

A part of the challenge is that mega farms did not exist in the past when zoning rules were formulated. There are pig farms and then are BIG PIG farms. Same for dairy operations or egg producers. I know different areas have decided these questions with different approaches. It's certainly arguable that a mega farm creates a huge nuisance that is above and beyond what anyone would expect in an agricultural zone. It doesn't pass the reasonable test.

Truly Green people would say that's not the way animals should be raised to begin with. They have some ground to stand on too. To raise animals in such concentrations usually requires the use of antibiotics (not always, in super hygenic operations). They also commonly make use of growth hormones. All these things are showing up in the water supply, in fish and in people. Most doctors blame the antibiotic resistant strains on the casual use of antibiotics. Growth hormones are implicated the earlier puberty seen among adolescents and fish with indeterminate sex are appearing.

Yes, zoning and health issues are different. It shouldn't matter what the zoning is for something that produces a health hazard.

Do local regulatory boards use environmental rules against people or to get more tax? Probably they do in some cases.
Dave.

 

[dcyrilc]

Dave,
Thanks a lot for reminding me that our state wants to put another $1 /pack tax on cigarettes. Between the state and feds last year we received a $2/pack increase. They claim that this will bring in enough revenue that they should not have to raise taxes. Another example of singling out the minority for the benefit of the majority.