Global Warming News

[2manyrocks]

I have this creeping sense that we chase endless rainbows for greener grass, only to find out we are pursuing hollow dreams. .

The entire book of Ecclesiastes discusses this.

 

[IH3444]

"The Truth is out there" Mulder

Climategate professor Phil Jones admits sending 'pretty awful emails' | Mail Online

 

[dcyrilc]

I think that you hit on the key problem that I have with the whole "Green" "AGW" mentality.
For sake of argument lets call it the "Green" movement. "Lets save the trees, ocean, air etc. Okay?
In their attempt to save these things they have invented a whole new category of a thing called `'stewardship" That we as a "community" have a "duty" to later generations "save the planet.
Agreed?
I think up to this point you will not find too many people in disagreement.
My question to you and other "Greens" would be, Do your stewardship rights take priority over my property rights?

Here's a double edged sword if I've ever seen one.

You're getting into the area of the "Green" movement where I have a problem also. If history says anything, then the answer would have to be "yes" as more and more laws are passed which hinder or omit our rights for the purpose of protecting the environment. I agree with working to improve our impact on the environment, but at what cost?

About ten years ago, the farmers here in Snohomish County got together, gathered enough signatures, and got a law voted on and passed adding a section to the Unified Building Code (UBC) stating that "Normal farming operations are exempt from the UBC". The reason for this was because the county was requiring farmers to get a "clearing & grading permit" to plow their fields stating sections of the UBC adressing bare earth exposure as the reason for requireing the permit. Not too big a deal until you find out that one of the county requirements to obtain this permit was to place 2% of their owned land into "Native Growth Protection Areas" where it cannot be touched or used every time they went to get a permit.

At the time, I was trying to get a permit to put a house on my farm. When the county came out to do the site inspection, I was sited for illegal cutting in a wetland for mowing around my fruit trees. The were threatening me with $100/day fines if I did not resolve this to the county's satisfaction. They wanted the fruit trees removed and the area placed into "Native Growth Protection" to resolve the issue and eliminate the possibility of being fined. When that law was passed, the county closed my case. However, after what I went through, there is no way that I will ever file for any type of permit again. If I have an open permit, the county has the right to enter and inspect my property. Without a permit, it's criminal tresspass. I don't want our county anywhere near my property.

I try to do my part in lowering our impact on the environment. We have a salmon stream which crosses a corner of our property. When we bought the property, 25 years ago, we fenced 15 to 25 feet off the creek to keep animals out of the creek. The were no laws requiring this at the time. We did it because we enjoy the salmon and don't want their breeding beds destroyed. I am also absolutely againt governmental control over what I can and cannot do with my property however. Zoning, in its simpler forms, makes sense as it groups areas together, IE: residentual, industrial, agricurtural, etc. The building codes, as they were origionaly developed, also make sense. They were intended to promote safe forms of construction. With where the laws are going today, I have problems with them.

I'm going to stop here as I have forgotten where I was going with this and I am beginning to simply rant and rave.

 

[Loren49]

Cyril,
I understand the frustration. I believe that all of building codes and most of the zoning laws are not related to environmental concerns. What is difficult with zoning is how it restricts us but when we're faced with a neighbor doing something with their property that seems to have a negative affect on the area we look to government to address it. If your neighbor was ruining the salmon stream you would want something done.
Did you have to move your fruit trees? I really dislike the restrictions on my property and building rights. We have nothing like what you described. I feel there is a need for some guidelines but its gone overboard!

Loren

 

[20 20]

zoning laws are nothing more then money makers. Not saying that some things need to be regulated, but the laws today are for $$$$ not environment. I have respect for anyone that does their part to live with{not against} the environment{building salmon fences, proper wood management, recycle etc...}. Paying the government $$$ for this or that permit does nothing but line their pockets.

 

[Ken45101]

The more apt question is not are there more hungry people in the world but is the ratio of fed people to starving people better today or yesterday?

In the past, most of the locations with the poorest fed populations had plenty of food at the seaports. The problem was that the local corruption prevented the food from getting to the people who needed it. Back 30 years ago when people were starving in India, food was rotting on the docks.

Look at the really sad locations today, and you see the same exact problem: food is available, but restricted by local government corruption or thieving.

The problem is not an ability of the globe to grow food, it's an issue of distribution. Many areas of starving populations used to grow their own food until corrupt leadership or civil war destroyed the farm base. It has nothing to do with global environmental issues.

 

[tallyho8]

No one has yet mentioned the effect on population growth that prosperity has. The more prosperous people become, the fewer kids they have, except where custom or religion mandates more. That's why most of Europe, the US and Japan have stable or declining populations. Until those 3rd world countries get their economic and political act together, we'll see starving kids on the tube. But the food exists, it just doesn't get to them.

At some point, if they don't learn to prosper, we could run out of our ability to supply food to the world, but prosperity is the key.

And imagine a world where prosperity is everywhere. OK, there will be a greater demand on some resources, and we'll have to learn to recycle more, but we'll have a lot more smart people, businesses and labs to help solve our problems. BTW, those solutions = technology.

Worldwide prosperity is a dream only and can not be achieved. A tribe with all Chiefs and no Indians can not exist.

If everyone were the same as in the communist ideology, everyone would be poor.

You can not be prosperous unless you are more prosperous than someone else.

The least prosperous person on earth today would probably have been considered the most prosperous person on earth a few thousand years ago.

Someone will ALWAYS have the food while others are wanting.

The only way to make the less prosperous more prosperous is to take from the more prosperous and give to the less prosperous which only makes everyone unprosperous.

I read an article that stated that the world's income divided by the world's inhabitants equals less than $5 a day. So if we were all equal, we would all get $5 a day. Would this make us prosperous?

--------------------------END OF RANT---------------------------

 

[dave1949]

I think that an atomic bomb would count as destructive rather than constructive.

Aaron Z

Yes, thanks Aaron. What I am getting at, is 99.9% of the time, we have never met a technology we didn't like.

That's not so odd since most technology is developed as a response to a perceived or created (marketing) need, but who ever looks down the road and tries to evaluate or quantify the long term consequences?

Closest I can think of is the evolving field of medical ethics in regards to cloning and gene manipulation.

Excuse me, but I have fondness for death bed jokes; they bring a lot of clarity to the thoughts and values processes. Here is one: No one ever laid on their death bed and wished they had spent more time updating their iPod.

Dave.

 

[dave1949]

In the past, most of the locations with the poorest fed populations had plenty of food at the seaports. The problem was that the local corruption prevented the food from getting to the people who needed it. Back 30 years ago when people were starving in India, food was rotting on the docks.

Look at the really sad locations today, and you see the same exact problem: food is available, but restricted by local government corruption or thieving.

The problem is not an ability of the globe to grow food, it's an issue of distribution. Many areas of starving populations used to grow their own food until corrupt leadership or civil war destroyed the farm base. It has nothing to do with global environmental issues.

In general I agree with what you are saying about shortages in the past and present.

What I find worrisome is that inorder to meet the global demand for food products, the agricultural methods being employed could be making us all sick. Please hear me out, I realize how 'out there' that sounds.

I am not a 'crunchy' person, but I follow the organic scene just to keep informed. Since well before there could have been any profit motive, organic growers have been warning us about our food. They have been saying for a long time now, the large scale ag practices of the past 5-6 decades are not healthy. Not for people, not for the soil, not for farm animals, not for the environment. That opinion correlates with medical observations of the incidence of heart disease, cancers, diabetes and high blood pressure rising among any ethnic group which adopts a 'western' (highly processed, high sugar) diet. From the Aborigines to US, the evidence is mounting.

Some firmly believe the deficiences go all the way back to the soil - that you can't just add more artificial nutrients or supplements to food and make up for the sterile soil. If that is true, large scale ag methods will have to be rethought and redeveloped. It could mean lower yields although that is not certain. It certainly will mean more foods have to be eaten in their natural state, not chemically transformed.

Poor quality food is better than no food, but the goal should be wholesome food. How much wholesome food can we produce? Bushels or tons per acre may not be the whole story. We have one of the lowest ratios of food costs - as a percentage of income - in the world. It is beginning to look like you get what you pay for.

Dave.

 

[Ken45101]

the large scale ag practices of the past 5-6 decades are not healthy. Not for people, not for the soil, not for farm animals, not for the environment. That opinion correlates with medical observations of the incidence of heart disease, cancers, diabetes and high blood pressure rising among any ethnic group which adopts a 'western' (highly processed, high sugar) diet.

I think it has a LOT more to do with our eating habits than how the food is grown. We are now a "land of plenty" with a generally sedentary life style. Go back several generations and there was less junk food and people did more physical work (beyond exercising their fingers on the keyboard or tv remote).

Also, go back a few generations and people died before they got old enough to develop most of the problems we have today which are tied to living longer.

Do the aborigines you mention have a 70-80 year life expectancy? I doubt it.

Go back 200 years when our food was grown the way you prefer and I think the typical life expectancy was more like 40 years or so.

Life expectancy increased significantly over the nineteenth century, from about thirty-five years in 1800 to forty-seven years in 1900.

and

The gain in life expectancy at birth over the twentieth century, from forty-seven to seventy-seven years, far exceeded the increase that occurred from the beginning of human civilization up to 1900.

Are you sure you want to go back to the old ways?

Ken

 

[Chuck52]

Don't know if you guys have seen this:

Sugar: The Bitter Truth - UCTV - University of California Television

There are a number of studies which indicate a link between the fructose content in our diet, which is much higher than in any "historic" diet, and obesity and various other health issues. It is surprising how many processed foods contain high fructose corn syrup. There's a commercial out now for some sweet drink aimed at kids where one mother questions another mother about the beverage and is then unable to come up with a reason it might not be good for the little ones.....she should watch this.

Though "science" has become a dirty word in this thread, I would comment that the science behind this little ditty is pretty solid.

Chuck

 

[dave1949]

The more apt question is not are there more hungry people in the world but is the ratio of fed people to starving people better today or yesterday?

Another question to ask is: If food production has dramatically increased, then why are there still hungry people? It's a rabbit hole. All we are accomplishing is increasing the real number of hungry people perhaps?



I think that you hit on the key problem that I have with the whole "Green" "AGW" mentality.
For sake of argument lets call it the "Green" movement. "Lets save the trees, ocean, air etc. Okay?
In their attempt to save these things they have invented a whole new category of a thing called `'stewardship" That we as a "community" have a "duty" to later generations "save the planet.
Agreed?
I think up to this point you will not find too many people in disagreement.
My question to you and other "Greens" would be, Do your stewardship rights take priority over my property rights?

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.

 

[dave1949]

I think it has a LOT more to do with our eating habits than how the food is grown. We are now a "land of plenty" with a generally sedentary life style. Go back several generations and there was less junk food and people did more physical work (beyond exercising their fingers on the keyboard or tv remote).

Also, go back a few generations and people died before they got old enough to develop most of the problems we have today which are tied to living longer.

Do the aborigines you mention have a 70-80 year life expectancy? I doubt it.

Go back 200 years when our food was grown the way you prefer and I think the typical life expectancy was more like 40 years or so.

Are you sure you want to go back to the old ways?

Ken

It really has little to do with my preferences, I prefer donuts , I'm just relaying info here. It's not about a return to the 'old days' either.

In the 'old days', there were many deaths from infectious diseases, complications from injuries, tuberculosis, etc. It certainly was not uncommon to see a 20% mortality rate among young and adolescent children. The medicines and vaccines we take for granted just didn't exist. Penicillin was not widely available until the mid-1940's. Polio vaccines were first widely administered in the mid-1950's. People had no effective treatment for malaria. Preventative medical care was probably seldom used and diagnostics as we know them didn't exist. You could die from an abcessed tooth or compound fracture.

It is hard to ignore those facts when comparing life expectancy then and now.

Whatever the life expectancy of the Aborigines, they develop chronic health issues that aren't common amonsgt them before eating 'western' style diets. Chances are pretty good diabetes although treatable, will shorten your life.

Yes, we live a sedentary life and longer, but that isn't the whole story. The argument being made is that although we live in plenty, it amounts to plenty of junky food which is missing key nutrients. Some would even make the argument that today's developing obesity levels are directly related to what one eats as much as how much one eats.

When you visit the grocery store, just how many food products are available to you in their natural state? Dried beans, some of the rice, some of the flours, grass-fed beef if present, maybe a dozen fresh fruits and veggies each, many of which are carrying pesticide and herbicide residues and were grown on industrial ag soil, and are varieties selected for appearance and shipping hardiness - not nutrient values. Pretty much the rest of the items are all highly processed foods. No matter what you like to eat, those are the choices.

There is huge confusion about what is and what is not good to eat. This fat, that fat, no peanut butter, then yes some peanut butter is good. No alcohol, yes a glass of red wine. Eat margarine, oops those nasty hrdrogenated fats - butter is healthier. Coffee is bad, oh it fights colon cancer - two cups per day.

It goes on and on and really underlines that the people and agencies handing out the dietary advice - don't know what they are talking about in many cases. They may not be having the right conversation even. How many of us really take them seriously anymore?

Dave.

 

[dcyrilc]

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?

Dave.

Let's say you but the same twenty acres in ag zoning to raise corn. Fifteen years after you buy the zoning up to your property is changed to residentual. You receive a letter from the county in the mail telling you that with the new laws you are required to have gotten a clearing and grading permit for the fields you plowed last month because of the bare ground it creates and that you are out of compliance with the law. They also inform you that failing to obtain the permit will result in fines of $100/day until you come into compliance. You go in to get a permit and are told that you must set aside 1/2 acre for native growth protection in order to get the permit. This requirement will be required every year you wish to plow. Now also realize that you must fence off and sign this area, cannot even walk across it other than to ensure the maintainance of the native habitat, and must allow county inspection of it. However it is still yours and you will still be required to pay taxes on it.

Welcome to the mentallity of our county. Then you watch the news on how the county is working to preserve the local farms. Excuse me? I must have missed something in that report.

Western Washington is not the best area to live anymore. One of the neighbors in the housing development behind us didn't believe what we were going through until he tried to permit a one car garage sized storage shed for covering his boat. The quote for the modular structure (Tuff Shed brand) was around $10K. With the county requirements, he would loose the use of half of his back yard and it would cost him nearly $45K for the building and meeting the county requirements. He chose to pass on the building. I don't remember all the requirements, but one of them was to remove his roof drains from the drain field and pipe it to a new drainfield to provide water to the Native Growth Area he had to create.

Another person I know bought property on a small lake many years ago for a retirement home. He permitted and lanscaped the property to the lakeshore the same as all the other owners around the lake. After his kids grew up and moved away, he began the permit process for the house. The county required him to tear out the permitted lanscaping to a distance 100 feet from the shoreline and place all of that property into Native Growth Area. His property was only 150 feet deep. He also never built the house as he did not have enough space left to meet the front and rear setbacks and would have lost 2/3 of his property. He ended up selling the property for a substantial loss as the 150 x 300 foot waterfront lot was no longer buildable. To quote the county when he told them that the had destroyed the value of his property - "The land has not changed and real estate is not a guarenteed investment".

I have issues with laws of this nature. However, Western Washington is populated primarily by people living in cities which want to save the environment. Those of us in the country are out numbered and the politicians listen to the masses.

 

[Pilot]

From the Timesonline (London times) this story of global not warming:
World may not be warming, say scientists - Times Online

Here are a few quotes:

The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change, said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

"The story is the same for each one, he said. The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.

The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.

"We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC´s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias, he said.

To be fair, the story also reported differing views by those who believe warming is occurring. These views are near the end of the story.

 

[dave1949]

Let's say you but the same twenty acres in ag zoning to raise corn. Fifteen years after you buy the zoning up to your property is changed to residentual. You receive a letter from the county in the mail telling you that with the new laws you are required to have gotten a clearing and grading permit for the fields you plowed last month because of the bare ground it creates and that you are out of compliance with the law. They also inform you that failing to obtain the permit will result in fines of $100/day until you come into compliance. You go in to get a permit and are told that you must set aside 1/2 acre for native growth protection in order to get the permit. This requirement will be required every year you wish to plow. Now also realize that you must fence off and sign this area, cannot even walk across it other than to ensure the maintainance of the native habitat, and must allow county inspection of it. However it is still yours and you will still be required to pay taxes on it.

Welcome to the mentallity of our county. Then you watch the news on how the county is working to preserve the local farms. Excuse me? I must have missed something in that report.

Western Washington is not the best area to live anymore. One of the neighbors in the housing development behind us didn't believe what we were going through until he tried to permit a one car garage sized storage shed for covering his boat. The quote for the modular structure (Tuff Shed brand) was around $10K. With the county requirements, he would loose the use of half of his back yard and it would cost him nearly $45K for the building and meeting the county requirements. He chose to pass on the building. I don't remember all the requirements, but one of them was to remove his roof drains from the drain field and pipe it to a new drainfield to provide water to the Native Growth Area he had to create.

Another person I know bought property on a small lake many years ago for a retirement home. He permitted and lanscaped the property to the lakeshore the same as all the other owners around the lake. After his kids grew up and moved away, he began the permit process for the house. The county required him to tear out the permitted lanscaping to a distance 100 feet from the shoreline and place all of that property into Native Growth Area. His property was only 150 feet deep. He also never built the house as he did not have enough space left to meet the front and rear setbacks and would have lost 2/3 of his property. He ended up selling the property for a substantial loss as the 150 x 300 foot waterfront lot was no longer buildable. To quote the county when he told them that the had destroyed the value of his property - "The land has not changed and real estate is not a guarenteed investment".

I have issues with laws of this nature. However, Western Washington is populated primarily by people living in cities which want to save the environment. Those of us in the country are out numbered and the politicians listen to the masses.

I can see where you are coming from and have no idea how your county can justify their actions. What is the goal of the county? Do they have a master plan or something? I can see why the 'taking' issue is a big one in the west in general, not just Washington, from the stories here on TBN. Like you said last week, your best personal option is to wait and sell it for house lots. It's a shame to see the land go that direction.

A lot depends on the nature of your land, as you said earlier some of it is river bottom land. What are your options other than plowing? No till planting? Can't do that through sod. I think those planters are pretty pricey too.

They sure are in love with the 1/2 acre native growth habitats. I am not sure what that really accomplishes, that's a pretty small plot. What would be native growth in your area?

The situation with the lake front lot would be the same here. If it was never built upon, when you apply for a building permit, it has to conform to the current setbacks and minimum shoreline. Also very picky about clearing native trees, vegetation and brush within the protected zone. An existing building will be grandfathered in although there are strict limits about enlarging it's foot print.

Those rules I have some understanding for and that is a different class of use than your farmland, which is how you make a living. There really is no other way to protect streams and lakes from run off. There is also no natural shoreline habitat without those buffers. From an environmental standpoint, we now know that tearing out native vegetation and replacing it with ornamentals, lawn or whatever, is the wrong thing to do next to water.

I think it's about 50 years too late since most lakes around here are ringed by camps and cottages built close to the water's edge. I looked at a lakefront lot that required a 250' setback from the water. So, I would have hiked to the lake through the woods and be standing next to two older houses when I got there I understand it, and I must say lakes without cheek by jowl camps on them 20' feet from the shore look a whole lot better and are probably healthier for it.

But, it's not fun when you get caught in the middle as your acquaintance did. I'm sure he looked forward to having a house there for a long time and obviously was working towards that goal in what he thought was a responsible manner - that hurts. I think he may have had a chance for a variance here, not on the shore setback, but within the remaining 50' of depth usable for building.

Its no wonder a new militia springs up in Idaho every week Your county has a goal apparently and they want it now, eventhough that really isn't possible and will not produce the intended result. It's sad.
Dave.

 

[dave1949]

The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change, said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.



To be fair, the story also reported differing views by those who believe warming is occurring. These views are near the end of the story.

I wouldn't rely on tainted data either. I don't think one needs to, to make the case for AGW. It's a shame they didn't take better care of it.
Dave.

 

[dcyrilc]

Dave,
I'll try to answer what I can within your quotes.

I can see where you are coming from and have no idea how your county can justify their actions. What is the goal of the county? Do they have a master plan or something? I can see why the 'taking' issue is a big one in the west in general, not just Washington, from the stories here on TBN. Like you said last week, your best personal option is to wait and sell it for house lots. It's a shame to see the land go that direction.

A lot depends on the nature of your land, as you said earlier some of it is river bottom land. What are your options other than plowing? No till planting? Can't do that through sod. I think those planters are pretty pricey too.

They sure are in love with the 1/2 acre native growth habitats. I am not sure what that really accomplishes, that's a pretty small plot. What would be native growth in your area?

1/2 acre in this case was approximately 2% of the hypothetical 20 acre piece. It often is 5% or higher. The county seams to make the rules as they go along depending what they think they can get without having to fight in court. While we were fighting the county over the mowing issue, the offered os the option of tearing out our farm and putting 16-1/2 of our 17 acres into Native Growth if we wished to put in the house. They justified this by claiming that putting the house in would be a change of usage from farming the land.

The situation with the lake front lot would be the same here. If it was never built upon, when you apply for a building permit, it has to conform to the current setbacks and minimum shoreline. Also very picky about clearing native trees, vegetation and brush within the protected zone. An existing building will be grandfathered in although there are strict limits about enlarging it's foot print.

For raw land I don't have issues with new laws, but when it has already been permitted and lanscaped, I have objections. I believe that if the government wants to effectively condemn someones land for the benifit of the general population (this is the claim used for Native Growth in this area), they should have to purchase the land at fair market value just as they do to obtain Right-of-way for roads or schools, etc.

Those rules I have some understanding for and that is a different class of use than your farmland, which is how you make a living. There really is no other way to protect streams and lakes from run off. There is also no natural shoreline habitat without those buffers. From an environmental standpoint, we now know that tearing out native vegetation and replacing it with ornamentals, lawn or whatever, is the wrong thing to do next to water.

I think it's about 50 years too late since most lakes around here are ringed by camps and cottages built close to the water's edge. I looked at a lakefront lot that required a 250' setback from the water. So, I would have hiked to the lake through the woods and be standing next to two older houses when I got there I understand it, and I must say lakes without cheek by jowl camps on them 20' feet from the shore look a whole lot better and are probably healthier for it.

But, it's not fun when you get caught in the middle as your acquaintance did. I'm sure he looked forward to having a house there for a long time and obviously was working towards that goal in what he thought was a responsible manner - that hurts. I think he may have had a chance for a variance here, not on the shore setback, but within the remaining 50' of depth usable for building.

Its no wonder a new militia springs up in Idaho every week Your county has a goal apparently and they want it now, eventhough that really isn't possible and will not produce the intended result. It's sad.

The other thing which gives me pause with these laws is that they only pertain to rural areas and are harsher to the small individual. Large developers or the rich who have money to fight the county can do pretty much what they like. If you can afford to give an attorney $100K or $150K the county will back off quickly. If they would impose these laws equally across the board, I could live with that. My biggest issue is a few having to put out enough to make up for the many and doing it at their expense. If the city dwellers had to pick up the cost for our loss, I think things would equalize some. I would have no problem if someone wanted to buy my land and set it aside for wildlife, I just don't want them to tell me that I have to do it at my own expense because they think it is the right thing to do while they sit back in their townhouse saying "This is good".

That's why these new militias keep springing up.

Dave.

I don't have an issue with trying to improve wildlife habitat, conserve energy, reduce emitions, or any of the other things which are hot topics right now. I even looked at buying an electric vehicle, but one which was in my price range ran about five miles short of being able to make a round trip from home to work and back. I work for one of the local cities here and they try hard to encourage alternate forms of transportation, but I could not get them to discuss providing a means of charging a vehicle until after I bought one. I finally purchased a new vehicle about a month ago. Yesterday I was asked if I bought the electric because they are going to look at putting in four test locations for charging electric vehicles. Go figure, I'm always a day late and a dollar short...or in this case a month early. LOL I've been pushing this issue for over a year and my little rice burner with over 230K miles finally gave up the ghost. It still got 32 MPG on the highway when it died. My new one is only getting about 26. Nothing like going backwards.

Well, I need to get some sleep. It's 10:30 here and I have to get up at 4:00.

Sleep well my friend.

 

[dave1949]

Good Morning Cyril,

Sorry I kept you up late last night.

1/2 acre in this case was approximately 2% of the hypothetical 20 acre piece. It often is 5% or higher. The county seams to make the rules as they go along depending what they think they can get without having to fight in court. While we were fighting the county over the mowing issue, the offered os the option of tearing out our farm and putting 16-1/2 of our 17 acres into Native Growth if we wished to put in the house. They justified this by claiming that putting the house in would be a change of usage from farming the land.

Developers get a lot more around here than individuals also. As you say, if they have lawyer money, the issues they are fighting are often not defensible under state law in court. That just isn't right. If you have enough local support, you might be able to fight back by forming an interest group and sharing costs. Not something one should have to do but sometimes that is the only option besides giving up.

For raw land I don't have issues with new laws, but when it has already been permitted and lanscaped, I have objections. I believe that if the government wants to effectively condemn someones land for the benifit of the general population (this is the claim used for Native Growth in this area), they should have to purchase the land at fair market value just as they do to obtain Right-of-way for roads or schools, etc.

I don't agree with the county retroactively re-zoning the lake lot and then having the owner pay for remediation either. Whatever he did was properly permitted in the past, the county should just have to live with their own past decisions.

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.

We pay plenty of taxes here, but despite the complaints, most bond issues get voted in since they get a lot of support from the southern end of Maine where the population is. Sound familiar?

My general point is there are other ways to get to where your county wants to go that don't impact people like yourself. They take time and a long term commitment but produce a better end result.

I hope you don't stress over the situation. Those are some nice looking kids in your avatar.
Dave.