Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
37 MILLION ACRES protected from development!
csmonitor.com — CELEBRATE! Private land owners protected 37 million acres from development last year -- a 54% jump from 2000 -- with the help of The Nature Conservancy, the Land Trust Alliance, and state/local groups. This is a HUGE victory for open space advocates.
burkinaboy- 707 diggs
- digg it
- 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/- 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. - berwiki, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4If the world lives long enough to become extremely over populated, do you really think we wont build on those areas?
So for now, we cant have a gas station between a certain area, but when we need the land, we will build on it. - 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. - Odweaver, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3thank you for doing such a great service to this country by further limiting scarce resources, so people can take pretty pictures and feel like they have made a difference.
- 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.
- 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. - jeff419, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1The Nature Conservancy is an elitist globalist organization.
- 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/+15Despite the gratuitus plug, there is an oxymoron in your statement...
- interpaul, on 10/12/2007, -21/+3***** YEAH
This being on the front page makes me cream my panties. - Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Also a victory for carbon dioxide and oxygen! Yay trees.
- 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.
- MarvelingOne, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1Damn double click, bury please
- sse1281, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2uh cool. Millions of trees saved.. millions of people are without a starbucks and a wal-mart. life goes on...
- dgaspard, on 10/12/2007, -23/+8Am I the only person who likes cars, air conditioning and electricity?
- mrfoos, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Dude, talk like that just might get you blocked here. Shhhh... it's ok to use all those things and shop at Walmart... you just have to scream against it on the Internet. That's the rules. I didn't make them up.
- bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1My god! You're right! If we protect oxygen giving trees then no one will have cars! Save the cars! Save the cars! Dear God, why won't someone think of the cars!?
/sarcasm
- Jeifurie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20This was made possible because of you guys. YOU, the time person of the year. Thank you!!!
- ItchyMcknobster, on 10/12/2007, -17/+3All of you will be the same people crying over crowds, higher real estate prices, etc. etc.
I'll also bet you have your ac set at 69, your heat at 74, and speed around in your SUV's
If you don't then you can aplaud.
If you are guilty of this then you are a hypocrite.- Lyph4, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Hypocrisy isn't such a bad thing, as I find myself agreeing with either what the person is saying or doing.
- 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? - 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.
- 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?- 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.
- 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. - 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. - 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...
- 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." - 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
- 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.
- mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2You seem to think there's no public interest in maintaining a healthy environment. Do you also object to pollution laws? How would you feel if someone poisoned the ground water, river, or lake that provides water to your house?
- farksucks, 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.- MadKennyP, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Just curious: If I forbid homeowners in my city (let's say I'm the zoning board) from operating hog farms and slaughterhouses on their private property (let's assume each home sits on 1/2 acre), is that a taking of that person's land without compensation?
- 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. - Mekun, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Lame argument MADKENNY. Thanks for pointing out the one percent to make an argument against the majority. Where i live we have lots of land but the local government tells the people what they can and cannot do with there land. But we as voters allowed land owners to recoup losses due to such actions, and now the city has quite a few lawsuits. Oregon the land of tree huggers and earth first and the highest unemployment. We should manage the earth wisely not worship it and hold it higher than mankind.
- morrabrod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@Mekun,
"We should manage the earth wisely not worship it and hold it higher than mankind."
Wiser words have never been written. - MadKennyP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sheesh. It's just a question. I'm just pointing out that this issue is not black and white. Who decides where the line is drawn?
- 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.
- farksucks, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2And as californians, the most socialist state in the union, you don't believe in property rights in the first place so why should you feel even the slightest guilt at telling a private property owner he can't build a house on his land?
After all- in your socialist eye, you don't think he owns the land in the first place anyway! All land is community land. Individual property doesnt exist. COMMUNIST DREAM WORLD. - nickw252, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2what is a sing initiative?
- 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. - blapierre, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2California has tons of open space, what are you talking about? The only places that aren't "open" are San Francisco/Oakland/Berkeley, Los Angeles Basin/Inland Empire, and San Diego. That leaves about 9/10 of the rest of the state as "open space".
- 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 - NoWayDude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0And I live in Camarillo. You DO realize Ventura County already has a SOAR initiative in place throughout Ventura county, right? See http://www.soarusa.org/FAQs.html. Just behind your city is the Los Padres National Forest which includes a lot of wilderness area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Padres_National_Forest) which is monitored by tons of non-profit orgs with tons of cash from rich donors who do nothing but kick any possible human contact out of the area. Don't forget the Santa Monica national park, various state parks, open areas supported by cities such as Conejo Valley (http://www.cosf.org/website/html/home.html). Oh, and cities such as Ojai that have ordinaces against no parking zones for cars greater than 6' tall.
Worried about open space in California?!?! Dude, there's NOTHING BUT open space and shopping malls and houses around here. You cannot do anything here except shop and bird watch or else it's illegal.
- farksucks, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2And as californians, the most socialist state in the union, you don't believe in property rights in the first place so why should you feel even the slightest guilt at telling a private property owner he can't build a house on his land?
- baxtermaddux, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1im sure george bush will find somewhere to make a signing statement, and then use all the land to cover in crude oil and have a nude wrestling party with rummy and the guys from haliburton
- member57, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This has nothing to do with President Bush, it's State level, not federal, moron...
- Switchnig, on 10/12/2007, -15/+1***** trees!
im going to die!- scuzzman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8In that case, I'm going to bury you.
- 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.
- Lyph4, 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.
- blapierre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Funny thing is, government is actually taking away people's property to give to big corporations.
- 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.- mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2If you don't care about the environment, you really don't care about human beings. Humans need beauty to live. If you just keep developing all the open space, there will no longer be beauty and that will not be good for humans.
I don't know what planet system you are from, but if you want to know more about humans, you have come to the right place. There are about 6.5 billion humans on this planet, which we call "Earth". On Earth, there are currently about 18.6 acres of surface area for each human, which comes down to about 4.5 acres of dry land. Some of that land is desert, some is jungle, some is forest, some is for farming. We're just about down to the minimum on farmland now, but we humans need all the other kinds of land too, to nourish our souls and give us peace.
As you tour our planet, be sure and talk to humans about how they feel about these things, and you'll see I'm not the only one. - 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)
- mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2If you don't care about the environment, you really don't care about human beings. Humans need beauty to live. If you just keep developing all the open space, there will no longer be beauty and that will not be good for humans.
- Kickersny, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Am I the only one that read that as "open source advocates?" I was confused for a second...
- Lyph4, 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!- 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? - mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Why should anyone believe that? In grade school I read about the Forest Primeval - where is that now? Where's the forest from "Little House In The Big Woods"? And what makes you think trees are the only measure of open space?
- Lyph4, 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. - 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!" - 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/ - 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.
- Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Good stat, I've heard it before but relevant here.
- 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/+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.
- 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.
- 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- 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.
- MrDiggle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@orielbean
What's your point? My point is that the idea of private land ownership in America is an illusion. We are merely renting space. - 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. - Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1New laws since Kelo v. New London
http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/11212006_Anti_Eminent_Domain.asp
Several of these prevent that case from happening in specific states now. - MrDiggle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Those state laws are a nice gesture but that's all they are. Federal law supersedes state law.
- 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.
- CarolinaHeel23, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1i like money better than trees.
- farksucks, 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.- 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. - FushBuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0We're running out of space. :)
Thirty-five years ago you could drive along a country road and see maybe 5 houses along a 30 mile stretch from one town to another. Now I can drive that exact same road today and see 40 houses. Thirty-five years ago the edge of town stopped at X. Now the edge of town has been filled with crappily made McMansions on zero-lot lines and extends TEN MILES in two different directions, and FIVE MILES past what used to the edge of town in the other two directions.
In the meantime, developers refuse to develope new tracts into small houses because they make more profit off the McMansions. While I can't blame them for wanting to make money, I can't be the only one who'd prefer a smaller mortgage. Around here, your housing choices are mainly limited to: a condo with teh evil homeowner's association, a small house in Crack Land, or a McMansion. A small affordable house in a nice neighborhood is really hard to find. There are some like that, but they tend to cost as much as the McMansions.
Sorry for getting off topic. I'd really like a small mortgage, can you tell?
- 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."
- codyfrisch, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0This is really just a bunch of rich land owner people trying to protect their exclusive power as owners of scare land. Its not about the environment. Just a bunch of rich snobs trying to be even more exclusive and fooling the masses (you) into thinking they are good people at the same time.
- cyn0sure, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1And people like you think you are morally superior and right in telling those "snobs" what they can and can't do with something you don't even own.
- 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.
- dmsean, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1RE: berwiki
maybe this is why god made muslims! to blow up the gas stations!
...get it! - farksucks, 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.- Andronicus1717, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As a son of a 2nd generation dairy farmer in Michigan I'm forced to nit-pick your comments a little bit...
"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."
Farmers have a lot of equity, and a pretty good income, but because of expenses, net only 30K. So net wealth is a bit of a tricky situation. The fact that the majority of a farmer's assets are tied up in land equity is a bit of a dilemma when it comes time that they need money or get too old and want to cash out for retirement.
Farming is definitely not a ***** job (maybe if you have pigs or chickens). My dad works 10-12 hour days as a dairy farmer, but it is some of the most rewarding work you can do. If farming was truly economically feasible these days for smaller farmers, farmland conservation wouldn't be as much of an issue. Looking at your options of either a pretty bleak economic future in farming or cashing out bigtime, many farmers sadly are forced to choose the latter. Zoning restrictions are also set in place many times to devalue land in order to prevent development, which is why my family fights so hard to prevent restrictions to personal property rights because that's where most of our money is, and if absolutely necessary we would like to be able to cash out.
The best thing about the conservancy movement is that it is private and optional. All in all a good movement, but I'd rather keep my options open than commit to something I may regret in the long run.
- Andronicus1717, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As a son of a 2nd generation dairy farmer in Michigan I'm forced to nit-pick your comments a little bit...
- 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..
- farksucks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0riverside71,
most of the farm owners in rural areas near cities don't have debt. their grandparents bought the land for 100 dollars an acre or less, and there is no debt.
don't be jealous that they're going to get insanely rich, just accept it.
- farksucks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0riverside71,
- yomomo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1celebrate if you donated to this organization. Just think how much more they'd be able to grab if everyone who thinks this is good donated to them.
- newport365, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Great, the world just got a little smaller and a bit more crowded...........
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by