It's been 20 years since WXYC was a "college rock" station.
The buyer signed a contract whose strictest standard states that he will keep the Hofman Forest as a legacy forest, and use it for forestry and AGRICULTURE purposes. Of course we all know that means nothing; he does not say it will be a WORKING FOREST with a conservation easement, which NC State could have required by putting in the DEED, not the contract.
The contract lasts only for one buyer, who can roll it over tomorrow, and legacy is only a connotation, not a stipulation. It is interesting that the contract and NCSU spinners use LEGACY, not working forest, which what the rest of the world uses for a permanently managed and legally protected forest.
My 1970 legacy Webster's dictionary defines legacy as: "1: a gift by will esp. of money or other personal property: BEQUEST: 2; something received from an ancestor or predecessor or from the past."
So, the buyer is getting a legacy - a gift of property (at a bargain price); given to him in contrary to the wishes of those who toiled in the past. And of course he does not promise to keep it in a working forest.
In fact I have heard from another very informed source that the buyer has a pending agreement with the DoD that will let him convert any or all of the land to crops, except the 9000 acres for outright development rights, which is not covered at all.
Also, NCSU says this is the first time they have heard of or seen these development plans; the BUYER'S representative says they are plans and renderings that they received from NC State, which they developed 4 years ago. Who is lying here? NCSU or the buyer? It has to be one or the other.
Thank goodness these schemers do not and cannot coordinate all their phony PR. They have indeed spun a wicked web, which becomes even more tangled every day.
Meanwhile, NCSU's legacy will be one of greed, deceit, hypocrisy, betrayal, infamy, and ignominy.
Come on, NCSU leaders. Stop this sale.
Leslie Gura, here are the two most important facts that you need to know:
1. Over the last 3/4 century average outdoor atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 ppm, from ~300 ppm to ~400 ppm. (That period accounts for nearly all of the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 in human history.)
2. We have excellent, reliable, long-term sea-level measurements from hundreds of locations, many of them with continuous or near-continuous readings extending back more than a century. The best of those sea-level measurements and the most comprehensive studies of those measurements show that there has been no measurable acceleration in the globally averaged rate of sea level rise in over 80 years.
In other words, that 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 levels has not, thus far, resulted in ANY detectable increase in the rate of coastal sea level rise.
Albert Einstein supposedly defined insanity as doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. We've done the experiment once, and we know the result. Adding 100 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere has not caused any detectable increase in the rate of sea level rise. It would be very surprising if repeating the experiment were to result in a substantially different outcome.
Predictions that elevated atmospheric CO2 levels will result in wildly accelerated sea-level rise are unscientific nonsense, driven by political and pecuniary interests, rather than sound science. But some activists wanted such predictions to guide coastal planning and regulations.
Contrary to what this article claims, the purpose of HB-819 was to ensure that coastal policies are guided by sound geophysical science, rather than political science. Most NC legislators agreed with that goal. In the Senate, there was only one "no" vote, and Democratic Governor Perdue did not veto it.
What do you think is "ridiculous" about that? Please quote the specific provision(s) of the bill that you think are ridiculous.
Here's a key point we have outstanding: Does this sale trigger the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act of 1971, commonly known as SEPA.
Attorneys for the Board of Trustees and the Foundation argued that the sale itself did not trigger SEPA. SEPA includes two very broad categories that cover virtually every state action: “any action involving the expenditure of public moneys” and “any action involving . . . use of public land” that may negatively affect the environment.
We know it is public land. That appears to be no longer in dispute.
Is sale a use of public land? In a common sense evaluation, it is clear that sale is the ultimate use of public land. It is being used to get money. The money would not flow if the land were not sold. Though SEPA may not directly include the term “sale” in its text, the term “any action” certainly does include sale. Sale of land certainly falls under the descriptor “any action.”
Will the sale negatively affect the environment? Yes. By the buyer's own admission, there will be some development. How much remains to be seen, but more intense land use would clearly negatively affect the environment of this state. As such, the act of sale by the Board of Trustees would set into motion more intense land use, negatively affecting the environment, which would not happen in the absence of a sale. Thus, the action of sale is directly traceable to negative impacts to the environment of the state.
We hope the Court will concur that SEPA does apply to the sale. If it does, the Board of Trustees would have to conduct an Environmental Assessment (EA). Unless they can show a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), they will have to conduct a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). If the Court finds that sale of public land into private hands with no enforceable restrictions (not assurances) on more intense land use, this would set a very bad precedent and leave all state lands open to sale with no Environmental Assessment (EA).
Why are they so adamant against doing an an Environmental Assessment (EA), which is a relatively easy process? They probably already know they can't show a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). That will trigger a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which would reveal the true consequences of this sale.
We need to know what is causing beach erosion, where and why. The CRC Science Panel ( CRC SP) and the Coastal Federation (CF) assert that the Sea Level has been, and will force erosion of the Coast and inundation of the tidelands; however, actual data from the NC Division of Coastal Management (DCM) shows Accretion increasing by 11% and Erosion decreasing by 13% since 1980, with most of the Accretion having taken place prior to most of the re-nourishment projects. This differs completely with the Scare Science of the CRC SP and the CF. Interestingly, the CRC SP has declined to answer questions regarding their science, have declined to do a comparative historical survey of NC Tidelands, and a comprehensive " in-the -Water" study of what is causing erosion has been blocked since the late '90's. Fortunately the General Assembly determined it would be better to have some real science, not TV science, before implementing planning policy that would take people's homes. USLandAlliance.US Bill Price PKS, NC
Passed 68-48 in House. Here is the ridiculous bill.
It should be noted, though, that no version of the bill resembled Colbert's parody, and no version of the bill would have "outlawed scientifically sound methods of measuring sea levels along the coast."
You can read the various versions of the bill and see for yourself, on the NCGA web site, here:
I have seen Black Panther In hofmann Forest which is declared extent. This happened on more than one occasion while hauling cotton for Jones County Cotton Gin There should be a lot moor research on this before The sale is allowed.
Thought I'd weigh in since I've written about this for the federation's news organization. The original language of the 2012 bill was very, very limiting and the Senate passed a version that had a few adjustments, but continued to dictate the science and how it could be used. The House rejected that bill and a House and Senate conference committee finally agreed on a four-year moratorium on setting a new state rate of rise. It also spelled out how the state's Coastal Resources Commission should go about developing a new rate. Here are my first and last stories on the legislation from the 2012 session.
Sea-Level Rise Debate May Move to Raleigh
Sea-Level Rise Debate Brings Curtain Down
And here's an interesting analysis of reporting on the issue
When a property owner wants to divest but maintain some protections on a property, an easement of some kind is used. This is very basic stuff, and NC State's administration has no excuse for not using a mechanism like this if they are being truthful about their intentions for the property to remain a working forest. Sadly, I believe this is just another example of North Carolina turning its back on all of the natural values of the state that have made it such a great place to work and live. Bottom line, this forest should not be sold. It brings in 2 million a year in revenue to the College of Natural Resources and serves a suite of invaluable, albeit, harder to monetize functions (e.g. habitat connectivity, military base buffering, water protection).
If you want to read something truly AMAZING you need to read about this genius, Brunelleschi's Dome. This is just a short summary of what he did, I saw the documentary and did some more research on him. I was totally Gob-smacked!!
The article is wrong (and sealevelinfo is right). The law that was actually adopted in NC doesn't limit government to using ONLY historical data on sea level change. The actual law (not the draft that Stephen Colbert and others shamed the legislature into changing) says the NC Science Panel can use predictive models that show the acceleration of sea-level rise, but "[w]hen summarizing research dealing with sea level, the Commission and the Science Panel shall define the assumptions and limitations of predictive modeling used to predict future sea-level scenarios." In other words, scientists making predictions about seal level change in NC must include information in their reports that could be used by climate change deniers to attack findings that predict accelerating change.
Note that the statement by Jerry Walker's group says they have no plans to develop "the property" into a large residential or commercial community. That is not a denial that they won't develop a mere 9000 acres of Hofmann into what they might term a "medium sized" community.
And note that they don't deny the farming plans at all!!!
So we're still looking at 53,000 acres of forest being destroyed.
The key issue here is that the Hofmann LLC prospectus is entirely consistent with the Sale Agreement that NCSU signed with Jerry Walker. So either NCSU's leadership is incompetent and didn't know what they were signing, or they've been lying to us all along.
Either way they need to be held accountable!
If you want to help, please google Hofmann Forest petition, and write the NCSU Board of Trustees and express your profound disappointment in this situation.
Stop the sale!
"sealevelinfo" above is talking out of his nether regions.
The article refers to "North Carolina legislators who, in 2012, outlawed scientifically sound methods of measuring sea levels along the coast." But NC legislators did no such thing.
In fact, they did just the opposite. The bill they passed, with strong bipartisan support, REQUIRES the use of scientifically sound methods for measuring sea levels at the coast. You may read the bill here:
The bill passed by a 40-to-1 margin in the NC Senate, but it irked people like the NC Coastal Federation who wanted political agendas, rather than scientific measurements, to drive coastal policy.
The article also mischaracterizes NC-20 as being "stacked with coastal development and real estate interests." Actually, it is stacked with coastal county government interests. I think there's only one developer on the entire NC-20 board.
Great news! I don't personally ever drink raw milk as I know exactly how to pasteurize milk at home, but I hate the taste of homogenized milk and haven't touched milk in decades. Or maybe they pasteurize at higher than the roughly 190 deg F that I use at home? Anyway, store milk is ruined for me and unless something like this passes, I will touch none of it.
I'd also like to be able to make my own butter and that's nearly impossible at this time since most cream sold has stabilizers that make it too difficult and annoying. This dumbing down of the marketplace is driven entirely by the desire to sell what they want you to buy, and not what you want. Fresh dairy is 100x better than the aged products in stores.
I look forward to being treated like someone with a brain by legislators in the future. I'd like to think that the current Republican swing in NC will help this along.. after all, aren't they the champions of non-regulation? Bu I fear that they may also be in league with the business interests who have been systematically removing choice from the marketplace for a long time now. We will see.
Really glad to see this happening in the Triangle! I've been uncooking since around 1992 when I spent several years visiting Optimum Health Institute in San Diego, once a year for 4 years. I went back around 1998, and each time, a different uncooking trainer was there to teach you how to make your own raw meals at home. I no longer attempt to eat all raw or all vegan, but raw restaurants and the raw foods movement are a beacon of good health and creativity no matter how you normally eat. I hope everyone tries this food and discovers how awesome salad can be. Youtube has some great videos for how to make raw food, even raw pad thai in several versions. Yum!
You're just upset James because it's obvious that this 12 year old is a LOT smarter than the governor.
Great opportunity for the Museum of Life & Science in Durham. Maybe they can screen it at Carolina Theatre.
If the Galaxy hadn't been demolished, that would have been a great Wake County locale for viewing and discussion.
I hope the documentary filmmakers will put this on YouTube and/or otherwise share it with a consortium of non-profit, non-governmental museums. The decision of the Natural Sciences board just gave the film a great boost and whatever organization that hosts it a wonderful fundraising opportunity. Thanks NCMNS!
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation