pmuellr writes: "I'm not sure what to believe, but cutting trees sounds not great, so the impetus is on the TLC to teach us how it's not as terrible as it sounds."
Is there broad interest in this thought? Perhaps TLC, Duke's Nicholas School, Durham's Open Space and Trails Commission (which I chair) and Farmland Preservation Board (which I sit on) could hold a set of talks some afternoon on the ecological/ecosystem benefits of different land-use types? Also include the ways of preserving land?
I think we can all agree that clear-cutting, mass-grading, and paving a couple hundred acres within a critical watershed is the worst possible scenario.
Preserving acreage in other types of land use like agriculture or selective logging can help provide some income that keeps land alive. Using conservation and farmland easements with public/donor money helps preserve working lands from development. Easements are cheaper than fee-simple purchases, preserve more land, and if a little logging provides management funds or new purchases, that seems like a reasonable thing.
And, IMHO, timbering-done-right (no mass loblolly plantings afterwards) mimics hurricane/tornado blow-downs, which is a part of the natural mosaic. Some species depend on those disturbances being some part of the landscape.
(1) one who does not conserve resources for future generations.
(2) one who doesn't care about those who can't care for themselves.
(3) one who dreams of the tax advantages of a country like Somalia.
...and the poor, poor developer! After it bought/snookered the land from the original landowners under a different legal entity, it's now carrying all those loan costs after having sold the land to itself (under a different legal entity) at a $15 million profit. It might end up defaulting on the loan it gave itself! After all that work it went through to sneakily rezone the land, undermine citizen rights, and remove protections from our region's watersheds. It's just so unfair. Let's have a bake-sale for the billionaires!
Of course, I hear they could still make a profit developing the land at the density the original zoning allowed.
Plus, we're being asked to support a transit sales tax when the county (and perhaps the city) votes to build a new, money-losing city (751ville) outside the present transit service. The sales tax seems like it simply subsidizes the transit problems brought on by the developers of 751ville.
What a mess.
Thank you, Governor!
Voter ID specifically hits poor, minority, and Democrats. Here's one study on Indiana (anyone know of one covering NC?):
Barreto, Matt, Stephen Nuno, and Gabriel Sanchez. 2009. “The Disproportionate Impact of Voter-ID Requirements on the Electorate—New Evidence from Indiana." PS: Political Science & Politics. 42 (January)
Find the paper at: http://faculty.washington.edu/mbarreto/pap…
The paper looks at access to valid photo ID in adult citizens of Indiana. 86.4% of whites have access to valid ID, blacks have 73.4% access.
Republicans have 91.1% access to valid ID, Democrats have 83.0% access.
Folks with less than $40K have 82.5%, folks with over $80K have 88.2%.
They find the same pattern in CA, NM, and WA.
"We find that age, race, and income significantly
impact the likelihood of having proper identification
required to vote under the Indiana statute."
Voter ID bills are Voter Disenfranchisement bills. Gov. Perdue: Thank you!
But unrestrained capitalists will scream "rights to pollute" imbued by this legislature, so even if we retake it, these thieves will demand taking more from education simply to pay them not to pollute. Plus, we're losing workers from DENR, and it just takes time to rebuild an organization.
Love the title...sad to say, even South Carolina seems more progressive than we are.
All Comments »
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation