"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats" --H L Mencken, quoted at AOSHQ in the masthead.
Yes. Well. Watch the video here. See how the Park Service lies through its teeth, stopping only to think up MORE lies--or to lie about FOIA rejection-reasons, putting 30 people out of work permanently.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
First, a quick primer on how businesses work for Dad29. All businesses start with two options.
1) You purchase a facility and equipment.
2) You lease a facility and equipment.
Any company that chooses option number 2 runs the risk that their lease will either be terminated early or not renewed, regardless of whether the government is involved and/or makes the decision!
Second, a history lesson for Dad29. In the late 1950′s farmers, ranchers, and oyster harvesters (with the help of the Sierra Club) negotiated a deal with the National Park Service to protect and preserve the agricultural nature of the Point Reyes Peninsula, in perpetuity. The purpose was to prevent developers from purchasing their land and building 425,000 homes on the historic ranches of Point Reyes. The farmers, ranchers, and oyster harvesters sold their lands to the National Park Service in exchange for renewable leases.
The Lunnys wrongly assumed that they could keep their property forever. They were well-aware that the property was designated by Congress as a potential wilderness site in 1976, with the lease being possibly non-renewed.
In California, this situation is par for the course—somebody owns a large amount of acreage, does not have the credit resources or outright capital to engage in a given business, so they transfer/sell the land to the federal government and have it deemed an open preserve or natural preserve long with an OPTION for renewal.
So where is the outrage, Dad29, for this type of arrangement in the first place, especially since the person or business pays NO property taxes and a LOW lease rate? It basically amounted to enabling the Looneys to make a profit harvesting oysters at taxpayer expense. Do not conservatives generally condemn such deals on principle? What would be the reaction had an alternative energy firm was in the same predicament as the Lunneys? Would you come to their defense that the “gummint was overstepping its bounds”? Part of being a conservative—an adult—is taking responsibility for your own decisions, correct?
The Lunny’s sold their land of their OWN FREEWILL. They understood the potential consequences of their actions. They made an assumption that the lease would automatically be granted. Whether the National Parks Service should be able to make such purchases—or that the federal government should be able to terminate leases—are ENTIRELY different questions.
This case clearly demonstrates conservative principles like ‘the rule of Law’ and ‘Basic Contract Formation′. Contract signed…duties
performed….monies paid….contract ends. There is no contractual obligation by the Feds to automatically renew a lease. Frankly, such an obligation would run contrary to the whole concept of a lease, which is a temporary right to use and occupy property, ”temporary” being the operative term.
For a family to then go to great expense to hire scientists and a video production company, one would think they could have spent their money best on a contract attorney to make their case. One would think there would be a physical contract they could have waved in front of the camera showing the merits of this rather dubious claim of government “promises”.
Ultimately, there are serious and very real examples of big government eco-radicals eroding private property rights, but…this…case…is…NOT…one…of…them. There is no violation of property rights, rather, it is a reinforcement of property rights and contract law.
Gee. When I took BusAd, "businesses" did NOT "start" with owning or leasing land, facilities, and machines/equipment.
They started with filling a need.
But that's a quibble.
Now an English lesson for AnonyPants: "In perpetuity" means something, and it does NOT mean "until we lie and cheat you out of the deal."
Further, you are assuming facts not in evidence, specifically that the family did NOT have the credit or capital to preserve their own operations. You are also assuming that they did NOT hire lawyers (your favorite people, eh?). Or do you KNOW that?
Finally, it appears to be the case that the family intended to 'preserve the agricultural use...' of the property per the terms of the "in perpetuity" agreement.
We agree that Fed ownership of land is questionable--but not necessarily wrong in all cases.
But making up, from whole cloth, a 'violation' of the lease-terms is a clear abuse, and cannot be tolerated as 'business as usual,' no matter who does it.
Try again.
"Now an English lesson for AnonyPants: "In perpetuity" means something, and it does NOT mean "until we lie and cheat you out of the deal."
The deal was from 2004 to 2012, with the federal government, according to the leasing agreement, having the final call whether to continue it. In perpetuity, in the context of the 1976 law, means the National Park Service is well within its purview to expand the wilderness areas, to preserve the entire area, in perpetuity. There are NO stipulations to the contrary. The land is within the boundaries of the national seashore, which is visited by 2 million people a year, providing $85 million in economic activity and 1,000 jobs to surrounding communities. The law states that this area can be returned to its normal state, in perpetuity. Quibble with the law, not those applying it. LEGALLY, the federal government holds the cards regarding the lease, well within their right to make this judgement call.
"Further, you are assuming facts not in evidence, specifically that the family did NOT have the credit or capital to preserve their own operations..."
Care to provide those "facts not in evidence"?
Lunny's farm has an extensive record of violating state and federal agreements and permits. The California Coastal Commission has fined the farm for various violations, issued two cease-and-desist orders and repeatedly requested that the Lunnys acquire a coastal development permit.
http://northbaydigital.sonoma.edu/utils/getfile/collection/EHDC/id/901/filename/902.pdf
"In the late 1950's...."
Now it's "from 2004 to 2012"
If you have a mind, please make it up before submitting 'argument.'
The law states that this area can be returned to its normal state, in perpetuity.
The "normal state" since the 1950's (per your information) was WITH the oyster farm. Further, NPS cannot, by definition, return the land to its "normal state," as there has been disruption by the fact that the farm existed. But maybe that's a bit too abstruse for you.
Violation(s) of permits and C-and-D orders do not an undercapped Company make. YOU said they were under-capped. Show us the balance sheets, not citations from, ahhh...interested parties.
One more thing: if the Feds actually had the right to do whatsoever they damn well pleased to do with the "in perpetuity" lease, then why did they have to lie like Hell about the 'conditions'?
You've done a very nice dance around the lying scumbag behavior of the NPS. It's about time you addressed that--which, by the way, is THE largest injustice in the story.
"Now it's "from 2004 to 2012", If you have a mind, please make it up before submitting 'argument.'"
If Dad29 watched the video or even perused the source given at 4:21 p.m., he would have realized that Lunny bought the oyster company in 2004, knowing the lease expired in 2012.
"The "normal state" since the 1950's (per your information) was WITH the oyster farm."
Nice try. The cultivation of marine life for food (i.e. oyster harvesting) is a temporary, nonconforming condition. The "normal state" of wilderness is devoid of any human intrusion.
"Further, NPS cannot, by definition, return the land to its "normal state," as there has been disruption by the fact that the farm existed."
The land can indeed return to its "normal state"..,no more oyster farming! Think about loggers in a forest. No more logging for 30 years, tree saplings grow, critters find their way to that place. No one knows the difference after that time period. Same thing with the area in question...nature bounces back.
"Show us the balance sheets, not citations from, ahhh...interested parties."
That's YOUR job, not mine.
"You've done a very nice dance around the lying scumbag behavior of the NPS. It's about time you addressed that--which, by the way, is THE largest injustice in the story."
Perfectly legal is that "scumbag behavior". Don't like the law? Work to change it.
The cultivation of marine life for food (i.e. oyster harvesting) is a temporary, nonconforming condition.
Oooohhh! Really? When you run out of food, be sure to look up that phrase in your little Greenie lawbook again. It'll be found under "beliefs of the Cognoscenti who starved."
"lying scumbag behavior" "Perfectly legal"
On the East and West coasts--and in Chicago--lying scumbags are not only legal, but adored.
We know that.
How was there a lie? The lease was NEVER GUARANTEED to be extended, especially to tax scofflaws like the Lunny's.
We know that.
You can watch the video.
Clearly, Park Service was lying like hell about the conditions.
And you claim "it's the law."
Post a Comment