Jyl Livengood posted a messge regarding Takings. I think it is as important
as she does. Although many of us are frustrated with one or more of the
following issues (perhaps on different sides on many): building codes, zoning
laws, environmental and endangered species protection, regulation of business
locations and types, billboards, home-based businesses, cc& r's, etc., I
don't think any but the most greedy or uncaring would be willing to give up
the idea of public good coming before individual benefit. The so-called (and
I think mis-named) wise-use movement aims to destroy the basis of
environmental protection and restrictive zoning. The belief is that by
exchanging money for land one gains the right to do whatever one damn well
pleases with that land. Any one who restricts that useage is taking
something away from the owner.
It reminds me of an argument I had years ago, when someone told me that
environmentally responsible behavior for businesses was impossible because it
would put them out of business. He said the economics were such that it was
one or the other-environment or business- and he chose business. I suggested
that there were actually at least two economies that I could see. One was
the one he spoke of - our arbitrary, invented, and agreed upon monetary
system which depended entirely on our belief and confidence and agreement in
it to function. If everyone chose to change their minds, or if they lost
faith in the system as happened in the great crash at the outset of the
depression, the system would no longer function (at least for most people -
some made out like bandits during the depression).
The other economy is the one that gives us air to breathe, clean water to
drink, food, etc. - the natural one. You don't have to be an
environmentalist to recognize that the natural systems that cleanse and
recycle the water, atmosphere, soil are vital to human existence here. Yet
we are willing to allow our belief system about money to supercede the
natural systems that we depend on for our very existence on the planet.
I heard Howard Odum the guy who literally wrote the book on ecology, speak
right after the reopening of Biosphere 2. He talked of many interesting
things relating to that project, but the most interesting was that it might
now be possible to begin to model the economic worth of natural ecosystems.
He said that by having to recreate the systems which provide the wind, water
purification, CO2/Oxygen cycles, temperature, rain, etc. we could start to
comprehend what these natural systems provide us for free. Using the
information about the costs of artificially replicating these systems, we
might be able to put a dollar value on an acre of wetlands, rainforest,
desert, etc. Then there would be a way to enter the real value of the
natural environment into the economic equation and stop ignoring or
drastically undervaluing the benefit to everyone of these systems and the
land where they exist.
The wise use movement is about greed and power and nothing else. It will
always deny or ignore these issues. It is only wise (a misnomer) for those
individuals and corporations who stand to benefit financially. Are you
willing to throw away all governmental laws regulating what happens next
door, downtown, upstream, upwind? That is what's in the pandora's box and
powerful people are prying the lid open.
What if I own a piece of property next door to you. I want to build a
factory, a high-rise, a nightclub, an x-rated theater next door to your
house. No problem, right? Hey I can make a lot of money doing that and if
you get the government to intervene, through zoning laws, building codes,
restrictive covenants, whatever, it is reducing my right to make a fortune
off this piece of property. Somebody's going to pay. I don't even have to
build it, the potential is enough to get money from the government (Hey
that's us isn't it as far as who pays it) for the reduction of my land's
value.
Why have we convinced ourselves that for the exchange of some paper, we have
the right (some would say God-given) to destroy whatever is on it, no matter
how many million years it took to create. We are a momentary blip in the
cosmic scale of things but find nothing wrong with or troubling about this
incredible arrogance. You don't even have to care about the animals or trees
or flowers or beauty. Just think about your children and their children.
If we don't behave as a community, as commonwealth, with the ability to
transcend our personal gain for the gain of the whole, we aren't going to
make it here, or anywhere. We really need to fight hard against the tendency
to trash our common interest in favor of individual gain.
Thanks Jyl. Enough rant for tonight.
David Eisenberg
as she does. Although many of us are frustrated with one or more of the
following issues (perhaps on different sides on many): building codes, zoning
laws, environmental and endangered species protection, regulation of business
locations and types, billboards, home-based businesses, cc& r's, etc., I
don't think any but the most greedy or uncaring would be willing to give up
the idea of public good coming before individual benefit. The so-called (and
I think mis-named) wise-use movement aims to destroy the basis of
environmental protection and restrictive zoning. The belief is that by
exchanging money for land one gains the right to do whatever one damn well
pleases with that land. Any one who restricts that useage is taking
something away from the owner.
It reminds me of an argument I had years ago, when someone told me that
environmentally responsible behavior for businesses was impossible because it
would put them out of business. He said the economics were such that it was
one or the other-environment or business- and he chose business. I suggested
that there were actually at least two economies that I could see. One was
the one he spoke of - our arbitrary, invented, and agreed upon monetary
system which depended entirely on our belief and confidence and agreement in
it to function. If everyone chose to change their minds, or if they lost
faith in the system as happened in the great crash at the outset of the
depression, the system would no longer function (at least for most people -
some made out like bandits during the depression).
The other economy is the one that gives us air to breathe, clean water to
drink, food, etc. - the natural one. You don't have to be an
environmentalist to recognize that the natural systems that cleanse and
recycle the water, atmosphere, soil are vital to human existence here. Yet
we are willing to allow our belief system about money to supercede the
natural systems that we depend on for our very existence on the planet.
I heard Howard Odum the guy who literally wrote the book on ecology, speak
right after the reopening of Biosphere 2. He talked of many interesting
things relating to that project, but the most interesting was that it might
now be possible to begin to model the economic worth of natural ecosystems.
He said that by having to recreate the systems which provide the wind, water
purification, CO2/Oxygen cycles, temperature, rain, etc. we could start to
comprehend what these natural systems provide us for free. Using the
information about the costs of artificially replicating these systems, we
might be able to put a dollar value on an acre of wetlands, rainforest,
desert, etc. Then there would be a way to enter the real value of the
natural environment into the economic equation and stop ignoring or
drastically undervaluing the benefit to everyone of these systems and the
land where they exist.
The wise use movement is about greed and power and nothing else. It will
always deny or ignore these issues. It is only wise (a misnomer) for those
individuals and corporations who stand to benefit financially. Are you
willing to throw away all governmental laws regulating what happens next
door, downtown, upstream, upwind? That is what's in the pandora's box and
powerful people are prying the lid open.
What if I own a piece of property next door to you. I want to build a
factory, a high-rise, a nightclub, an x-rated theater next door to your
house. No problem, right? Hey I can make a lot of money doing that and if
you get the government to intervene, through zoning laws, building codes,
restrictive covenants, whatever, it is reducing my right to make a fortune
off this piece of property. Somebody's going to pay. I don't even have to
build it, the potential is enough to get money from the government (Hey
that's us isn't it as far as who pays it) for the reduction of my land's
value.
Why have we convinced ourselves that for the exchange of some paper, we have
the right (some would say God-given) to destroy whatever is on it, no matter
how many million years it took to create. We are a momentary blip in the
cosmic scale of things but find nothing wrong with or troubling about this
incredible arrogance. You don't even have to care about the animals or trees
or flowers or beauty. Just think about your children and their children.
If we don't behave as a community, as commonwealth, with the ability to
transcend our personal gain for the gain of the whole, we aren't going to
make it here, or anywhere. We really need to fight hard against the tendency
to trash our common interest in favor of individual gain.
Thanks Jyl. Enough rant for tonight.
David Eisenberg