What is Digg?Sponsored by FUNimation Enertainment
I Think I’m A Clone Now view!
funimation.com - Watch the First 8 Minutes of Evangelion 1.01 You Are (Not) Alone anime movie -- Available Now DVD.
85 Comments
- Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Also a victory for carbon dioxide and oxygen! Yay trees.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20This was made possible because of you guys. YOU, the time person of the year. Thank you!!!
- Migdilio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Although I want to rejoice at this news, I am cautious. What about the recent Supreme Court ruling that gives the government power to annex private land for privately-funded development? As I understand it, this would make any of this privately-owned "protected" land fair game for the government to take and re-distribute as it sees fit.
Thoughts? - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Despite the gratuitus plug, there is an oxymoron in your statement...
There is no such thing as "permanent conservation". Conservation is wise use of resources. Preservation is not using said resource.
Just wanted to clear the air. Now please continue. - burkinaboy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13The Nature Conservancy is helping private land owners to protect their lands for future generations with conservation easements, one of the most powerful, effective tools available for the permanent conservation of private lands in the United States. The use of conservation easements has successfully protected millions of acres of wildlife habitat and open space, keeping land in private hands and generating significant public benefits.
Learn more about conservation easements @ http://www.nature.org/aboutus/howwework/conservationmethods/privatelands/conservationeasements/ - noodlez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8eminent domain is not an issue. anyone trying to eminent domain-ize this land would likely have it blow up in their face. too many powerful people are backing it, and there's likely no reasonable purpose at all to seize this land.
- TheNoz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The Nature Conservancy is intellectually honest. If they want a piece of land to remain undeveloped, they BUY it. They don't use government to steal it from the owner. They don't concoct elaborate arguments about why the owner shouldn't use private property for private purposes. They don't pretend anything. They BUY it. And that is why other people actually DONATE their land, and other people donate their money, to the Nature Conservancy.
- MarvelingOne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Yes trees are good, but sometimes the government has some bad policies. In Minnesota I know the DNR is doing a reclamation project to make their land appear as it did about 200 years ago from what I got told from one warden. Basically anything not native to this area is being cut down even though, the places that I know they have started the project with no one planted the trees besides birds. I have seen about 25 acres of just trees cut down out of about 200 acres in one area. Just makes me sad to look at it, I'll have to take pictures the next time I go visit my folks and throw them up on the internet see what comments I get from people.
- member57, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This has nothing to do with President Bush, it's State level, not federal, moron...
- blapierre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Funny thing is, government is actually taking away people's property to give to big corporations.
- Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5They didn't rule that the federal government had explict rights to do this, they ruled there were no laws prohibiting it.
As such, one of the bright things my state (Michigan) did this past election, is enact via public vote a law preventing the government from doing that.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/ED-138_State_Prop_11-06_174276_7.pdf
(page 10, proposal 06-4, passed overwhelmingly)
Excerpt: Sec. 2. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation therefore being
first made or secured in a manner prescribed by law. If private property consisting of an individual’s
principal residence is taken for public use, the amount of compensation made and determined for that
taking shall be not less than 125% of that property’s fair market value, in addition to any other
reimbursement allowed by law. Compensation shall be determined in proceedings in a court of record.
“Public use” does not include the taking of private property for transfer to a private entity for the
purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues. - scuzzman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8In that case, I'm going to bury you.
- Tebixan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@fark
Geeze, calm down. California gives more to the union than they take out, and produces more than any other state. Before you start flipping out because they want to keep the state beautiful, maybe you should learn a little about what you're being so critical of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California
btw, I'm from Florida, not California, so I'm not biased. You're just kinda dumb - Atom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Please, you have no idea who I am. As a registered Republican I relate to the fact that a man has every right to do what he wishes with his own land. However, as a Californian, I realize that the shrinking size of open air and wild life population are taking severe hits. Housing developments affect the ENTIRE community and not just the private land holder, therefore we should all have a say to whether or not we want to deal with the increased traffic, population, and pollution.
Being a socialist or conservative have nothing to do with trying to preserve space for ourselves and the future generations. Get over yourself. - mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Here's where this so-called fact comes from. It's an egregious twisting of a baseless claim by an anti-environmentalist nut house.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/technologyandresearch/a/earthday.htm
“Tree huggers’” claims of mass de-forestation are completely unfounded based on the numbers. In the early part of the twentieth century, people cut down twice as many trees as they planted; now the United States grows 36 percent more trees than it harvests. Some researchers believe tree numbers are larger today than when Columbus arrived in 1492!
Source: Competitive Enterprise Institute
http://www.cei.org/ - Atom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4In my city of Santa Paula, we shot down every sing initiative to develop in the canyons surrounding our city. As Californians, we truly appreciate any open space we can get these days.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Old growth forests should be allowed to burn naturally. The Red Woods that people are preserving shouldn't be getting as old as they are. The natives used to burn large areas down, because the left over ashes made the following growth even stronger.
Just because something is old, does not mean it should be protected. - Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Government subsidies are scary, but I know from personal experience some wetlands and prarie areas around me have grown nicely with this law. I have to favor it because I've seen so much good from it. The ecology in the area is doing better because of it.
Also, the law, at least the variant here, requires anyone who wants to go on that land in a safe and non-destructive manner, to ask permission of the land owner but requires the land owner to allow access. This means nice nature walks for those who can respect it. - sse1281, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Note there is a difference between "Tree Hugging" and not wanting the Grand Canyon to become a Wal-Mart.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Fun fact, there are more trees in America today than there were when the first white people landed on the coasts.
Now you know, and knowing is half the battle..
GO JOE! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6As long as someone pays for the land they want to keep "open space" then that's fine. But in most of the country, zoning boards are enacting conservation easements such as saying you can only build 1 house per 500 acres, or you can't build within 1000 feet of any road, or you have to "donate" 10% of any land you want to develop. All of this is done without paying the landowner a dime.
If someone puts their land into a conservation fund by choice, that's one thing. But the vast majority of places around the country are just passing zoning rules that take the land with absolutely no compensation. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This proves that a world with no "public" property would not go to hell at the hands of the corporations. These people saved this land from being developed, not by begging the government, but by investing in the land.
- Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@orielbean
My last comment is part of the Excerpt of the law at the document I linked to. Michigan has specifically declared in it's law that....
" “Public use” does not include the taking of private property for transfer to a private entity for the
purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues." - Kickersny, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Am I the only one that read that as "open source advocates?" I was confused for a second...
- briguymaine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't know if you are right or wrong but I know what you are talking about, the eminent domain law, interesting thought. Assuming that this land is not bordering a growth area, it will probably be safe purely because of location. I just read noodlez comment above, I agree.
A 200+ acre farm near my house was recently bought and preserved, it's a good thing because of the sprawl going on around Portland, ME. A lot of wooded land in northern Maine is being protected and it's causing a ruckus between tree huggers and hunters, the tree huggers have more money so they are winning. - Kingster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Here's another fun fact... there are far more people (of any descent) in America now than there were when white people first landed on the coasts.
So what's your point?
That just because there are more trees now than there used to be that we don't need to conserve? I think that you're wrong there... We need a lot more trees because we need more CO2 scrubbing than ever before... Since we make more of it than any other country in the world (though China is catching up quick).
I guess MY point is that the fun fact you stated is a truly useless fun fact, and something that conservatives can point to and say "SEE!! We really are doing good things!" - loof, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I drive a compact car, have my heat at 60 and use 100% green energy.
What can I do? - libertao, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Anyone living in the San Diego area interested in this should check out the San Diego River Park Foundation.
- Kingster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Not sure where you may be located, but I think that if you go through the zoning laws closely, you'll find that there are a ton of loopholes. Most of those laws require that the land have been bought recently... In essence, this places a burden primarily on a developer. This is a GOOD thing, contrary to what you may believe. It makes the developer think about conservation, in lieu of money. For people that are current home/landowners, and are simply adding a home for family members (splitting a houselot off a large piece of land for a son, for example), this isn't a problem. For people that want to split a 200-acre plot into 500 houselots, this is a problem, and a good one.
It's called urban planning, and there are a lot of things that go into it - school availability, utility availability, traffic patterns, etc. Nothing like living on a road that has a daily traffic of 20 cars, then having a 500 home platte dropped on it, and taking the 20 car per day to 1200. With no traffic light. With people driving 60 on a road meant for 45. Urban planning is a good thing, especially when hooked into conservation. - Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Good stat, I've heard it before but relevant here.
Do you have a source (not questioning you, but looking for related info). What about prarie and marshlands? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7To the person who asked if being restricted from putting a hog farm or slaughterhouse on your land was a government "taking" i would say no- just as putting a toxic waste dump or junkyard.
But let's be honest. All these zoning takings arent about stopping hog farms. They are about stopping housing subdivisions 99.99999999999% of the time.
And I think I should point out that less than 2 percent of the entire landmass of the USA is developed in any way (excluding farmland that is growing crops).. And almost all of that 2 percent is the interstate system and local highways/roads.
People who grew up in cities, or who have never driven cross country, often feel that "oh my god, we're running out of space, we must stop development!"
Take a drive across the country and tell me we're running out of open space. I'll be waiting.
As my father told me, "If you don't own the view, don't fall in love with it." If you build a house next to a farmer's field because you think the barn and cows are quaint and cute, don't be surprised when some day he retires and a subdivision pops up on that land. And don't complain either- it wasnt your land in the first place. You don't have a legal right to a "view"
If you want a legal right to the view, then BUY IT. Otherwise stop trying to steal people's land. - Kamill85, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Odweaver: People? You mean sheeple :) Anyway - at least we will have some green space, unlike your version, with buildings everywhere and just the pictures on our hands.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Most of the landowners in this country are farmers, if measured by acreage. Regular people don't just buy 500 acres of land for the hell of it.
And most farmers are not rich. If they make 30k in a year they're lucky- I grew up in iowa and I know this for a fact.
However with cities expanding, a lot of these farmers find themselves in the lottery-winning position of having land they paid 500 bucks an acre for 80 years ago, suddenly worth 100k an acre.
You know what? More power to them. These people worked harder than urban folks ever worked in their lives. They should be able to sell their land and retire in style and get some payback for decades of cleaning manure, cutting hay, pulling calves out of cow vaginas, and generally doing a ***** job just to make a living. - Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Here is a good article talking about all of the eminent domain laws that were enacted (or failed) AFTER the Kelo v. New London case. These new laws, in most cases, would make the outcome of Kelo v. New London different today.
http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/11212006_Anti_Eminent_Domain.asp - MrDiggle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3HAHA! Every one knows there's no such thing as private land ownership in America.
See: Kelo v. City of New London - dmsean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Re: thcobbs
True, but the context is the key.
We are wisely conserving the land as it has *other uses*. The use here being open space. So we are conserving the land for open space.....The words "permanent conserving" would apply here as we are attempting to permanently conserve its *use* for open space.
Maybe that is an impossibility because it would be impossible to say no force will attempt to change this, but the idea is to make the law as difficult as possible for them to do anything about it. - Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1MrDiggle
There is no law allowing the government to do this. The Supreme Court ruled in Keno v New London that there was no law PREVENTING it. They even opened the door in their comments that states could inact laws to prevent it.
Federal law does not always supercede state laws, just usually. In some situations the Supreme Court will decide that the law is in the state's hands, not the federal government, and throw out the federal law. - Andronicus1717, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"But let's be honest. All these zoning takings arent about stopping hog farms. They are about stopping housing subdivisions 99.99999999999% of the time."
So completely true. The vast majority of the "conservationists" in our area are are transplants from larger metropolitan areas who have recently relocated to the more scenic countryside in the past decade or so. Their policies are not to introduce land effective land management policies, but to prevent ALL development, so other people can't effectively move to the area and disrupt the status quo. - riverside71, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Guess what.. it's not your land anymore.. it's been mortgaged out to foreign 'land owners' cuz they bought your stupid debt that u just can't seem to control.. more and more chunks of your country are now being set aside and you are being locked down in the remaining area forced to live in close quarter cookie cutter subdivisions rejoicing in your 1500 sq ft piece of America..
- otheruser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Your source's frontpage:
"A Skeptic's Guide to Inconvenient Truth"
"Proposed Ban on Trans-Fat Based on Alot of Junk Science"
"Animal Cloning is no Barnyard Bijou"
It's quite clear that they have very strong political/economic interests. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Great, the world just got a little smaller and a bit more crowded...........
- Apreche, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Guess what people, there are plenty of trees out there. You know what there aren't enough of? Houses. I don't know about you, but I care more about human beings than I care about trees. More development means more houses, lower housing prices and less homeless people. More trees is only good for affluent hippies, NIMBYs and BANANAs who don't care about making the country any better as long as they can have a quiet walk in the park.
Here in upstate NY the MTA has constantly been trying to expand the railroad to provide better mass transportation which will make many people's lives easier. It hasn't been done because a bunch of aforementioned hippies don't want loud train noises. They act like environmentalists while they drive SUVs and prevent trains from being upgraded. Give me a break. - thatsiebguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I hope this doesn't include the Act the government passed whereby they pay you NOT to farm/develop your land in order to keep prices/rates high..
- Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't think he was arguing with you MrDiggle.
However, since that case, some states (at least Michigan) have enacted laws to prevent this from happening. See my post above. - orielbean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is the case I referenced earlier. New London govt took the land to give to private developers - they wanted to improve that area and the city liked the private group's plan. This is different from most other eminent domain cases as they took from a private individual to give the land to a private company who will profit from its sales.
- Odweaver, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@loof
Interesting I would like to know how you are browsing and posting on digg using a tree while naked in the woods. and I would also like to hear about your tree car, otherwise it isn't green. - orielbean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ Screwy - you are incorrect on your last sentence regarding eminent domain. The recent case fought in CT was about the city in question taking land for private developers to raze and put up nice condos on. The developers are private groups and will be keeping any profits they make on the construction / sale of condos. It used to be the case, but the new rulings outline that there is not a protection against land being taken for private development. Sad news...
- Chebyshev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Upstate NY? MTA? Are you kidding me? Get north of Albany and you can start to consider being upstate.
Go visit the Adirondacks (where I grew up) and then tell me you'd like to throw houses all over it.
Good point about the trains vs. SUVs though. (not sarcastic) - megaloid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The Nature Conservancy is an elitist globalist organization."
...whose goals and activities, like many such organizations, do occasionally converge with those of the ordinary, non-elitist human. One does not need to be a Henry Kissinger or a Bill Clinton to recognize that the planet, as a humanity-sustaining vessel, is presently running well beyond its designed capacity for said sustenance. Putting large swaths of its surface beyond the reach of resource exploitation is, arguably, a very good step in the right direction. The necessary step beyond that is *repairing* the large swaths of the planetary surface now degraded by human activities.
As for the quite necessary "population control" facet of planetary restoration, well, there are varying notions as to how that might be accomplished. Considering the utilitarian ethical framework some of these rich folk have, there are reasons for a moral, non-elite person to dissent from their schemes, but they do happen to be correct in addressing in a focused way the environmental crisis besetting planet Earth. I'm not rebuking you for pointing out the elitist origin of the Nature Conservancy, and in fact it is necessary at this point for ordinary people to help expose the actual, elitist, power structure of human society, but the closed-system nature of the planetary environment puts everyone, more or less, in the same boat. The mere fact that we're on the Internet, talking openly about this stuff, bodes well for our race. - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm not disputing that what you're doing is a noble gesture, but be honest. You are attempting to PRESERVE the land as it is.
As long as you don't try to lock the wildlife into the area, I have no problem with it. Teddy Roosevelt tried it once and it failed miserably. I just want honesty in a discussion. Not the popular catchphrase of the day. -
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is