AUGUSTA, Maine — Lawmakers heard hours of passionate testimony Thursday on the economic and cultural importance of Maine’s vast, undeveloped forests as they began work on a bill that could affect planning and permitting on nearly half of the acreage in the state.
To those who helped craft the compromise, the proposal to reform Maine’s Land Use Regulation Commission offers politically tangible fixes to a state agency in need of better balance between economic and environmental interests.
Others, however, decried the LURC bill as either a disguised attempt to dismantle the agency or yet another example of government intrusion on the rights of private landowners.
“The result would be a LURC that would be bigger, stronger and meaner,” said Roger Ek of Lee, one of about 100 people who signed up to testify.
The bill, LD 1798, was crafted by a task force that spent several months studying LURC and possible improvements. Recognizing the passions behind Maine’s regulatory activities on 10.5 million acres of private land, Washington County Commissioner and task force member Chris Gardner urged lawmakers to support a compromise forged by “months of not talking at each other but with each other.”
“We have to leave the confines of our respective beliefs and find compromise in the middle of the road,” said Gardner, who in the past supported abolishing LURC.
The proposal now pending with lawmakers would make several key changes to the agency that oversees Maine’s Unorganized Territory. Arguably the biggest of those would be the makeup of the renamed Maine Land Use Planning Commission.
Currently, all seven commissioners are nominated by the governor and vetted by the Legislature. LD 1798 recommends that county commissioners from the counties with the most acreage in the Unorganized Territory — or their designees — would fill six of the nine proposed commission seats, with the governor nominating the remaining three.
Responding to demands for more local control, the bill also would allow counties to take over some of the permitting responsibilities handled by LURC. The commission would focus more on developing regional comprehensive plans and would hand over permitting for commercial wind power and other large projects to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.
Former assistant attorney general Jeff Pidot of Brunswick, who advised LURC on legal issues for years, warned that the proposed shift to county commissioners could render the agency “ineffective and legally and programmatically dysfunctional.”
“The scattering of LURC programs across counties will inevitably lead to unfairness, inefficiency and ineffectiveness,” said Pidot.
County commissioners were actually divided on the proposal.
Paul Underwood, a county commissioner from Aroostook, supported the move to give counties more control and predicted it would help support economic development in the poorest parts of the state.
“We need to develop and encourage sound economic development rather than throw up road blocks,” Underwood said.
Thomas Lizotte, chairman of the county commissioners in Piscataquis County, said he would not support allowing people in his position to appoint themselves or their pals to the future LURC without legislative review.
“I find that puzzling,” Lizotte said.
Franklin County Commissioner Fred Hardy said the task force appears to have given little to no consideration for the rights of the landowners who pay taxes on land in the UT and allow the public to recreate there. But Hardy’s colleague, Franklin County Commissioner Gary McGrane, submitted testimony in opposition to the membership as well as a process for allowing counties to “opt out” of LURC.
That opt-out clause is arguably the most contentious aspect of the bill.
Counties would only be allowed to withdraw after three years and would first have to adopt a comprehensive plan and create the regulatory system able to administer LURC functions, including a planning board and appeals board.
Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers testified against the opt-out clause, which they predicted would weaken the commission. Supporters, however, said the option was needed to keep in check an agency that some accuse of stifling economic development.
Crucially, the proposal does not recommend the abolishment of LURC — an outcome that disappointed some who testified Thursday.
Ek of Lee said people in his area are upset with the recommendations, which he said will only allow the commission to further “consolidate power” at the expense and liberties of landowners.
Likewise, Anthony Soychak of Rockwood, who claims it took him 15 years to obtain a LURC permit, described LURC and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as being composed of “tyrannical people.”
Others painted a completely different picture of LURC and the commission’s future under the reform proposals.
“This bill is an attempt to gut LURC by 1,000 cuts,” said Bob Guethlen, a resident of Tomhegan Township on Moosehead Lake. He described the proposed changes as promoting an ideological political agenda and said the result will be a “great big rubber stamp” for applicants coming before a board composed of largely county commissioners.
Former Sen. Howard Trotsky of Bangor, meanwhile, pointed out that less than 1 percent of Maine’s population lives in the 10.5 million-acre UT but all of the state have an interest in the “treasure” contained in the natural areas that are key to Maine’s economy and identity.
“This bill will weaken LURC and, at this time, we don’t need to weaken LURC,” Trotsky said.
The public hearing was still going at roughly 8 p.m. Thursday, six hours after beginning. The Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee is tentatively scheduled to hold a work session on the bill beginning at 1 p.m. on Thursday, Feb. 23.
Reporter Kevin Miller covered the hearing by listening to it through the Legislature’s online broadcast. Reporter Eric Russell contributed material from Augusta.
It’s human greed vs. the beauty of nature. And greed is the new god.
Nature worship is the new god to which it is demanded we sacrifice. Defending private property rights is not “greed”. The drive to control millions of acres of other people’s private property for wilderness devotion is.
Don’t like LURC? Incorporate a town.
There are unincorporated areas all over this nation that function quite well through county government and do not require a centralized, inefficient approach, such as LURC.
What is with your sad belief that incorporated towns are the only way to administer government? It’s really very closed minded and an ignorant position in general.
In states where county government plays a significant role in local administration, that’s true. Maine, however is not and never has been one of those states. Can you name even one of your county commissioneers? How about listing three things that county governement has done for you or your town in the last year?
I didn’t think so.
The “Earthing3” is the last to tell others that they are ignorant. It has no idea how much any of us knows about our country government and no business spouting off with nothing but its imagination and speculation. “Earthing3” is one of the little tyrants with a record in repeated comments on web articles promoting LURC and Federal control taking other people’s private property for forced wilderness.
I love how your posts demonstrate over and over your paranoia and ignorance, and when you are called on it you immediately resort to baseless character attacks rather than responding to the actual issues. I should expect no less, since there is no other recourse available to you. You can’t back up stuff that you make up.
The greed is that of the environmental industry that says “Here, let me hold that double latte for you while you write a check to us to make you feel better the next time you fill up your 400 horse Hummer.”
Greed is no more of a God to them than Nature is a God to some others.
Why would someone from out of state be concerned about LURC ? Let me guess, If LURC was locally controlled Quimby ( Restore ) would never get the 3.2 million acre park that would take thousands of jobs from Northern Maine !
The viros have tried and failed to convert LURC into a Federal Greenline park agency. They also tried to get LURC to Greenline private property under state legislation, decreasing vast areas of private property to be unusable. This mentality is why LURC power has grown for decades into progressively more control and restrictions. They still want LURC to tie up the land until they can get the Federal government to take it over. That is why they went berserk over Plum Creek’s well-planned private settlement project.
WRONG….government is the new god
go read some Nietzsche and get a clue
Neitzsche was only one element of the irrationalist counter Enlightenment in
Germany. Read Hegel’s mysticism in the name of “science” and his “organic theory of the state”, which also influenced Marx. The European counter Enlightenment heavily influenced intellectuals in 19th century America, causing the rise of Progressivism.
I think you should spend less time reading Hegel and Marx, and more time outside, and around other people (preferably female people whenever possible, IF that’s possible in your case).
Dude, go read OK Magazine…or People…and relax and enjoy yourself.
It’s Hurrah for me and to Hell with you. That’s the bottom line.
Of the three levels of government we have in this state county government is the weakest and most redundant. I believe as time goes on and there is less and less funds available county government will eventually be phased out. Where would that leave the crucial need for controled and systematic growth in the UTs ?
As an owner of property in the UT in Aroostook County I was very concerned with the comments by Mr Underwood. At the present time Aroostook County government does not have the staff nor the financial means to develope a comprehensive plan or take care of any type of develpement in the UTs. That being said where will they get the funds to develope a plan and hire staff ? I sincerely doubt that the communities in Aroostook County want to donate more funds to county government when they are already struggling to meet their home town needs. And those of us in the UTs do not have adequate funds to give county government to play with.
Having the counties more involved in the present format is a great idea. Having the county commissioners set the make up of the committee sounds a little chancey. I would think having them provide the governor with a slate of people for him to chose from would be a better idea.
Lastly turning the function of LURC to the counties is going to see multiple plans for the UT s. Many of the UTs hold benefit for the whole state not just the UTs or counties.
Fine tune , restructure, and redirect what we have. Why are we trying to recreate the wheel?
No one is “re-creating a wheel”, only trying to restore representative self-government, which needs to be recognized and returned to. Where the counties and the state are “redundant” it is mostly the state authority that should go. There is no statist “crucial need for controlled and systematic growth in the UTs”. This is supposed to be a free society, not a “controlled” one.
It’s NOT supposed to be a free society. It’s a Constitutional Republic. Individuals give certain rights to those they elect to govern.
It most certainly is supposed to be a free society, in contrast to statism and collectivism. A constitutional republic was the form of government devised to protect the rights of the individual. No one “gives rights” to those who govern. Government does not have “rights”. Only individuals have rights. A constitutionally limited government in a free society acts in accordance with what it must do for specific legitimate purpose, not exercising power by “right”. In a free society protecting individual, limited powers are delegated for the protection of rights, not given up, to government to do that and nothing else.
We give decision making powers to elected leaders. Olympia Snowe doesn’t do what YOU want, she does what she thinks is best. If you don’t like it, you vote her out.
“Decision-making powers” are supposed to be for legitimate functions of limited government. No one gives up his rights to statists, they only take it.
To say there’s uncontrolled growth in the UT is like saying that Gisele Bundchen needs to go on a diet.
In response to the” County Government being the weakest form of Govt”….. consider this;
a hundred years ago, county Government was the strongest form of Govt., it has been the last 30-40 years that the STATE has moved in to over ride, over rule , underfund,… and systematically render useless, these county govts…… and who has (mostly) been in control of the State house in the last 30-40 years?….
If the County Govts were strong when LURC was first imposed,… we would not be having this discussion right now!
Not necessarily. The statist and collectivist cultural trends that have led to the power in Augusta are at work everywhere, and would have also affected county government for the worse prior to power being further “consolidated”. Elected government accountable to the people governed makes protection of freedom politically possible but does not guarantee it.
How do you think that land was first acquired just a few years ago? Ask a Native American and this might be his Answer: Taken by some arrogant white jerk who merely said this land is mine or that it was given to him by the King of England who didn’t own it. Read the “tree growth” law and the Great Ponds Act of 1975 and you will see why the people have the right of trespass and the right to regulate what goes on. Heaven forbid that a greedy, conscienceless corporate landowner would build a nuclear facility or some other nauseous thing as some landowners think they have a right to do.
This racist smear about “white jerks” on behalf of primitive tribalism is an overt attack on private property rights and civilization. Indians had no concept of private land ownership. They exercised a primitive form of tribal political control worse than the feudalism of the King of England. Private property and the founding of this country eliminated both. The viro eco-socialists are “nauseous” over private property rights — especially private homes and the right to prevent trespass. Their motive for wanting the iron grip of LURC control is not hidden.
It IS the truth. Europeans TOOK the land. You can’t argue that.
Native populations lived more within their means. “Civilized” populations do little to control their population. Instead, they increase food production, and thus, resource use.
Resource use, more like resource abuse. Precisely why we need a strong LURC.
Private property is not “resource abuse”, which he equates with “use” as if human life were an inherent form of pollution.
Do you read history? This is what humans do. You are trying to do it to us right now – and we are fighting back.
You can’t “control yourself?”
I don’t think we have to read history to see that he is trying to take the land and a lot more. The long history of gangs overrunning each other was supposed to end, at least here, with the founding of the American system of government and with the recognition and protection of the rights of the individual including property rights. The viros are a retrogression, not that they are the only ones committing injustices, but they are the most misanthropic.
“Instead, they increase food production, and thus, resource use.”
LOL….this is due to the warped, progressive Keynesian view of economics wherin perpetual expansion and “growth” of the economy is required to keep the fiat currency debt scheme afloat.
Many of you folks posting here are sooooooo ignorant of reality it is just outright sad….especially considering you are sitting in front of a computer and have greater access to information at any point in human history
He is attacking productive economic growth in civilization, not — or not necessarily — inflationary manipulation of a economy that productive people created. Or maybe he can’t understand the difference, but the root of his motive is hatred for man as a rational individual living life on earth in support of his own productive achievement and happiness.
Large scale agriculture was around way before John Keynes, but I think you’re off on some OTHER errand.
Primitives lived with less because they were capable of less. That is not a state of existence to emulate. Civilization is the process of freeing of individuals from control of others; it is the opposed of “controlling the population”, which makes it a positive force for the good. Freedom makes the production of food and much more possible. Man is distinct from other creatures because he uses his rational mind to figure out how to modify the environment for his own use instead of adopting to it or dying. To attack humans for eating and using “resources” is nihilistic and misanthropic — which is the root evil in the viro ideological movement, including Quimby and the rest of them who want oppressive control through LURC and/or the Federal government to keep the UT in perpetual “darkness”.
Primitives were capable of quite a lot. You wouldn’t last a month in the Pleistocene, let alone the 17th century.
Freedom is not about making tons of food, or Twinkies, or snowmobile trailors.
Man CAN modify his immediate environment, but is not immune from adapting to it.
I’m against excessive, irresponsible use of resources.
Yet there you are using a computer to post on and internet forum. Go figure.
Go figure what? Just using a computer doesn’t represent excessive and irresponsible use of resources. The problem is, how much is too much? In our age of increased development, it becomes increasingly important to set aside natural areas. This doesn’t prohibit responsible resource use.
LTGV objected to food production because it uses natural resources: “Instead, they increase food production, and thus, resource use.” That is misanthropic.
Food production is one result of freedom by productive people. He does not decide for others and impose what he deems to be “excessive” food production.
Now he claims that primitives were capable of “quite a lot” because they sometimes survived in mostly short brutal life spans under primitive conditions, as if we were inferior because we don’t have to as a result of producing so much more.
He denounced Europeans for settling in the wilderness as “stealing”, wants “population controls”, extolls primitives for not using “resources”, objects to what he deems to be ‘too much’ food production, apparently demands that we “adapt” to the environment like animals, and wants the National Park Service to seize private property. Such is the ugly nihilistic man-hating nature-worship mentality that we are told to regard as “idealistic” as it tries to impose a viro eco-utopia on us under centralized state control.
In relation to “primitives,” take a look at what happens when the electricity goes out. People have a hard time dealing with that. So many people are removed from the production of their own food and shelter. Do I think stealing, excessive population, and excessive resource use are bad things? Yes. Not sure where you’re getting “man-hating,” “nature worship,” and “eco-utopia.”
Europeans did not take the land, they replaced a primitive, mystical, tribalist rule with a civilized culture and what became the freest, most productive nation on earth, with benefits to people, including Indians, previously unimaginable. Descendents of the native Indians, who otherwise would have been living short brutal lives in the tradition of thousands of years of tribalist primitivism, have the most to be grateful for.
Europeans lived short, brutal lives up until the last couple hundred years, or so. I don’t ANY Native Americans would agree they should be grateful.
” Indians had no concept of private land ownership” Good. Same excuse was used starting 400 years ago to steal their lands. “Private property and the founding of this country eliminated both.” Private property eliminated nothing at all. First, private property did not occur when our country was founded. Second, no rights and particularly private property rights are absolute. Three, private property is no where mentioned in the US Constitution. No where at all. Statements, like private property elimininated both, are elitist, arrogant, anti-social expressions of ultra-individualism which have no basis in American history.
The 5th amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
“No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due proces of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Jon, you should really try to read the U.S. Constitution before you go making completely nonsensical claims about the document.
Private property is the bedrock foundation of human liberty and freedom. Your unquestionable objection to the concept merely suggests that you are completely against human freedom and are a supporter of slavery. While there are some in American history that would support your position (mostly the rich white democrats of the south), the majority of Americans prefer freedom over slavery and will stand with arms against those who wish to abridge their god-given human freedom. This is precisely what occured in the American Revolution and is precisely what will occur if people of your mindset continue to push your anti-freedom agenda on an increasingly enraged group of freedom loving Americans.
No one can “steal” property from tribalists who have no concept of ownership. To steal something it must be owned by someone. Tribalist political control is not ownership. Ownership is a concept of individualism. Collectivism is subordination of the individual to the group, not property ownership. Tribalists had no right to prevent others from settling in unowned land in the wilderness; such settlements were not “stealing”.
The principle of private property was fundamental to the American Enlightenment under strong influence of European intellectuals such as John Locke. The principle of the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness was prevalent.
Property rights, like all principles, are absolute. You either have them or you don’t. Like all principles they are also contextual: principles must be applied in the context in which they are meaningful and true. That you don’t have a right to own a slave or shoot someone because you own the gun does not make property rights non-absolute and is not a justification for preservationists and leftists to use the state to steal other people’s property.
If you lived in the UT, I’d like to turn YOUR property (specifically) into a national park. You sound like you deserve to be exploited.
These radical left viros certainly are revealing what they are and why they are a direct physical threat.
“‘This bill will weaken LURC and, at this time, we don’t need to weaken LURC,’ Trotsky said.”
Trotsky isn’t alone, Lenin would have thought so to. The “state treasure” they want to control is other people’s private property.
The “Watersheds” aren’t Private Property!
Roger Ek is an extreme constitutionalist and there are plenty of people in the greater Lee area that do not agree with him. He and his wife are in the real estate business so don’t believe for a minute that he doesn’t have “a dog in this fight”.
Yeah, you have to watch out for those people who believe that we should follow the constitution instead of trampling peoples rights. Are you for real???
A lot of so called extreme Constitutionalists if fact, bend and twist pieces of it to conform to their ideology. That is fact.
Who are you talking about and what ‘bits and pieces’ are twisted? Such sweeping sniping at “a lot of constitutionalists” is not an argument against constitutionally limited government.
I totally believe in and honor the constitution- just not those who bend in and hide behind it for their benefit.
Yes, we shouldn’t listen to property owners. Let’s instead just pay attention to what the totally landless have to say about land management.
Who said anything about not listening to property owners? Do you actually read these comments before responding?
The viros “listen” to landowners when they have to, then do what they can to get around it.
Accusing principled advocates of a free society as being determined by economic class is a Marxist fallacy and an open substitute for the ad hominem argument. Accusing people with consistent principles as “extremists” is a smear.
“Consistent principles” is much different than what we’re talking about with this individual. His principles go way beyond anything reasonable.
What principles does he hold that you claim are not reasonable? You accused him of being an “extreme constitutionalist” without telling us what that means. You insinuate that he holds unspecified bad ideas about the nature of government because of what he does for a living. That is smearing him, not discussing his ideas.
“‘The scattering of LURC programs across counties will inevitably lead to unfairness, inefficiency and ineffectiveness,’ said Pidot.”
LURC is already scattered, unfair, inefficient and ineffective. Centralized, dictatorial, unaccountable control cannot be salvaged, only eliminated.
{“We have to leave the confines of our respective beliefs and find compromise in the middle of the road,” said Gardner, who in the past supported abolishing LURC.}
In other words come to the middle so that I can drag you the rest of the way over the cliff!
Political compromise is forced on us. Compromising one’s legitimate principle is always wrong.
The viro’s ideological principles are wrong and should never be condoned. Their idea of compromise is to take what they can get and come back for the rest later, which is how the social controls they have imposed on us have progressively grown.
For all their clamor promoting ‘compromise’ and ‘democracy’ as they demand that others give them more and more power, when it comes to real political compromise and meaningful democracy they become hysterical. They don’t want to give up any of the power they have seized. Taking back our freedom and pushing off their boot is not “dragging them off the cliff”. They only feel that way because they are addicted to power over others.
Responding to demands for more local control,
county commissioners from the counties would fill six of the nine proposed commission seats
{with the governor nominating the remaining three.}
How Local is that?
Sounds like there is a little of the Baldacci days still lingering
County commissioners are elected. But they should not become part of a central bureaucracy operating under state mandates. LURC should be abolished.
When Portland developers apply for a permit to build a new mini-mall with the latest trendy boutiques, they don’t have to go to the UTs for approval.
When I want to build a new outhouse at camp, why do I have to go to southern Maine for the right to build?
This elitist thinking that everything in the UTs is owned by “all of us” needs to be stopped.
Abolish LURC.
Do it now.
Make yourself a town. Then you can make decisions.
Make yourself a landowner. Then you can make decisions.
Guess what. For an outhouse you only need a septic design, not a permit from LURC. Try again.
Septic systems require LURC permission. An application for a permit for a house must include the location of the septic system with required setbacks. My original permit included a section entitled “Surface wastewater disposal system application” with the engineering design. To drop the context and argue that you don’t need a “permit” because you don’t need a separate permit for a septic system is to play word games. People don’t normally run around building septic systems with nothing to drain into it with no connection to a house that requires a septic system in an approved location.
Septic systems absolutely do NOT require LURC permission. I can personally testify to over a hundred installed on jobs I had a hand in getting permits for. Not once was a LURC permit needed for the septic system. Each township or plantation in the UT has a plumbing inspector – they usually cover several townships/plantations – who issues a permit for a septic system and inspects it before you can hook up the house to it. LURC has NOTHING to say about it.
Your level of knowledge on this subject mirrors your level of knowledge about LURC in general.
Who did you get the “permits” from?
Building permits (in the UT) were from LURC. Septic/plumbing permits come through the local plumbing inspectors.
We need some of our foresters,wardens,animal and wildlife groups,as well as the fisheries,included at any land use meetings or DEP meetings, We might want to throw in a retired environmental attorney to babysit the greed and corruption, Remember some land owners voices were not heard at random meetings because of lack of invitations that went out. There is corruption everywhere you just have to find it at that particular time and place. One taxpayer can’t fight greed of this kind but you add in one million taxpayers now you have a majority vote. teamwork is the answer folks. Got vision……….
“This bill is an attempt to gut LURC by 1,000 cuts,” said Bob Guethlen, a resident of Tomhegan Township on Moosehead Lake. He described the proposed changes as promoting an ideological political agenda…”
And the creation of LURC was not a promotion of an “ideological political agenda…”? Did you live here when LURC was created? When it first came into existence it was used as a weapon against all so-called evil doers who had their camps up in the north woods or who dared put an addition or improved their older camps.
Not allowing Saddleback Ski Area to expand was not part of an ideological agenda?
Of course this legislation is ideological! We want our freedom back. We are the REAL LIBERALS – not the Orwellian liberals who use double-speak to steal our lives and our freedom.
DEP accepts applications for GRID scale WIND turbines on WIND LAW codes.
How do we change the codes?
3 mile vision limit is not guarding us from night sky intrusion of red flashing lights.
From big name Parks like Kathadin. Appalachion trail.
Should we start another petition to BEP to lower noise ruling again in 2 years?
Governors office- We will provide the resources needed for DEP to assume the targeted responsibilities of LURC. DEP-We are assured we will be provided the resources to assume the responsibilites of LURC. Resouces=money. Why not provide resources to LURC who has been understaffed and underfunded for years. This is the gorilla in the room no one wants to discuss. They have been financially gutted for years and now being decried as a failure at the behest of the people who want to support unlimited development all at the hands of previous legislatures. LURC needs to be fixed there is no doubt. But, their problems have not always been of their own making. Fund them, train them, fix the rules, provide fair local input which focuses on the UT residents and service centers, and give them the direction to accomplish their mission not only to those resident but, also of the people of the State of Maine.
This would fix the bulk of the issues. No one likes regulators but, if they are there to serve the customer and promote planned development in appropriate locations then everyone wins. I sure don’t want the 1% ers ruining my way of life. This admistration seems to good with the smoke and mirrors approach and hopefully the wiser minds will see thorough it and prevail.
Country Commissioners is the death knell of UT regulation. Bad bill. Should be killed or ten years from now rural Maine will be a concrete highway to plastic recreation.
Whose bidding on a million acres in central Maine for the next Disneyworld?
Yes, when gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel is $8 a gallon, thanks to decreasing world oil production, already well in progress, we should all be worrying about another Disney World being built in T7R9.
Ecostatism is not a solution to an aberrant fear of successful productive people or a more rational concern over their opposite: crony fascists influencing and controlling government. You don’t feed and “train” a dictatorial gorilla if you expect civilized behavior and protection of the rights of the individual.
Babble.
When LePage and the GOP kill LURC – their cronies will divide the spoils.
The NO TRESPASSING signs and gates will go up and they will lock Maine people out of the North Maine Woods.
The best will be developed for wealthy Flatlanders and you will NEVER set foot there again.
Remind me again why “sportsmen” vote republican?
So they can turn Northern Maine into New Jersey?
fools
yessah
How many of LePage’s appointees have had issues with ethics? He’s hard to trust.
Question: What’s an environmentalist?
Answer: A person who already has his cabin in the woods.
Now I have to say, I consider myself an environmentalist. I’ve actually worked as a teacher/naturalist on a nature sanctuary of a major, southern New England land preservation/environmental group, but one has to stop and admit that there is some truth in this question and smart @$$ answer above.
Modifying LURC to restore some local control and responsiveness isn’t going to result any destruction of the UT.
Viros do usually have their own cabin in the woods or the equivalent — and want to keep everyone else by force — but liking nature doesn’t by itself make one a viro. Environmentalism is an oppressive ideological and political movement seeking control over their environment, i.e., their surroundings, i.e., everything — and therefore other people. A lot of people enjoy nature and don’t fall into that. Most normal people like scenery, too, but they don’t go berserk and turn it into a nature religion demanding government control for forced preservationism.
“The plans differ; the planners are all alike…” – F. Bastiat
All planners should be held accountable.
“As our standard of living has improved, our desire for environmental amenities has increased. We can expect this demand for natural beauty to continue to grow as our national income increases, for attention to the environment is correlated with higher income.
We can further expect the private sector–both profit and nonprofit–to continue to take the lead in meeting the increasing environmental demands whenever it is allowed to do so.
That does not mean that private organizations will solve all environmental problems. Where property rights are nonexistent, ill-defined, or unenforceable, there will be no owner to insist on protection. Rather than abandoning private management in favor of direct governmental control, however, we should try to find ways to establish accountability (along with the freedom and incentive to innovate) by establishing or strengthening property rights.
We need to compare the problems stemming from imperfect property rights with the “solutions” put into effect by imperfect government. The evidence suggests that the political process has all too frequently caused the greater degree of waste and destruction.”
– Stroup et. al.
http://www.perc.org/articles/article399.php
You have some weird ideas.