Don’t forget Midnight Basketball and building sports facilities for teams long gone or about to leave like the Warriors, Raiders and soon Athletics.
Does seem disingenuous to declare and legally defend sanctuary city status and then pitch a fit when those seeking sanctuary arrive.
Any forest landowner who has ten plus acres can get tens of thousands of USDA dollars to thin their forest either by contract chainsaw or mastication treatment. A forester has to write a management plan and the purpose just has to be to improve timber production, wildlife habitat, or reduce hazardous fuels. Of course most landowners aren’t living below the poverty line.
I think that you have been given bad information regarding thinning your forestland. Yes, threatened and endangered species habitat has some legal restrictions on management and logging of large trees, but I’ve never seen a T&E species recovery plan that doesn’t have provisions for hazardous fuels thinning. I know you can do that in California spotted owl habitat because we do this on National Forest lands in CA, under consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service. I recommend talking to someone with your state forestry department or a consulting forester.
Are you saying that the landowner must be living below the poverty line to qualify? What does 'Living below the poverty line" actually mean?
Certainly possible on the info.
It’s starting to look more and more like “middle class” the way we are going.
The other thing noteworthy about our nearest giant city (Philly) is that they survive off of money from the suburbs. The suburbanites go to the city and blow millions and millions on pro sports tickets, parking, museums, the arts, etc., but most of the city residents and politicians hate the suburbanites.
I don’t know about lands that fall under urban boundaries. I’ve never worked in those areas. But in any case, consulting with a local licensed consulting forester or state forester will give you the best advice.
No, I’m pointing out that these programs are largely focused on people who are not living below the poverty line (middle class and wealthy). Few poor people are forest landowners. But these programs aren’t based on income, they are based on the land conditions and needs for treating the forest.
Most urban 'cities' are money rat holes.
Ok, so that was very confusing for a country boy like me. So if these programs are not targeted toward economically disadvantaged areas or individuals it sounds like you were trying to state a half-truth to bolster a point about federal money going into rural areas.
No targeting of people or classes of people. The focus isn’t on people; it’s on getting forest lands managed. The qualifying criteria is whether or not your forestland meets productivity standards and whether it needs thinning to improve timber production, wildlife habit, or needs hazardous fuels reduction. Not much different than the CRP program for farmlands, except the forestry programs focus on productive lands and CRP focuses on unproductive lands. There isn’t any half truths here. There are lots of USDA programs that funnel federal funds to rural areas. Here’s a huge one: all state forestry departments receive the bulk of their funding for forest management, landowner assistance, and wildfire management as federal funding though my agency (USDA Forest Service). Not state legislatures. And these programs are largely focused on rural concerns. Except for the food assistance programs like SNAP, USDA is an agency focused on helping rural lands and people. And we’re talking $billions$.
You say largely but not entirely because you know those programs are initiated in rural areas, of course, because that is where our food is grown. The money continues to extend across the entire country and especially into inner cities. Huge welfare programs are mostly needed in inner cities. Sanctuary cities especially consume huge amounts of those tax $$.
No doubt that cities receive a lot of tax dollars. So do our rural areas. The rural area programs are a large amount per recipient. Let’s just acknowledge that federal dollars fund both urban and rural communities. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. It’s investing in America and rural/urban needs are different but both are important to our country.
