Obama expected to sign wilderness bill

[Andy]

There is one problem with your reasoning when it comes to California. Despite the population of 35 million, there really is a lot of empty land in this state, much of it in private hands. The limiting factor here is not space, but water. There could well be thriving cities in the Coast Range mountains, for example, if a practical way could be found to bring water there. There would be a lot more land under cultivation, too, if there were more water.

Practical is a moving target. As more and more people move into an area, the raising taxes and related economic activity the follows the growth of a population, would make a system of providing water, more 'practical'.

And now, after the housing bubble burst, the average home price is once again comparable. High housing costs here were fueled mainly by speculation.

No offense, but you are nutz. I checked out a similar sized condo to my own.

My Condo, 800 sq ft, 2 bedroom, 1 - 1/2 bath, full basement. $425/mo mortgage.

California Condo, 780 sq ft, 2 bedroom, 1 bath, no basement. $1075/mo rent.

California Condo, 760 sq ft, 1 bedroom, 1 bath, no basement. $100K (double what I paid for mine.

And these were the more reasonable prices I could find. Some were smaller, one bedroom condos with prices nearly four times higher than what I paid for my Condo. The Condo right next to mine, has 3 bedrooms and a two car garage, and a full basement, plus a larger area, and sold for $100K, just like the condo in California above.

Trust me, the prices there are insane, and it's mainly due to open space laws, and public land laws.

Who should have been the owner of public lands, then? Homesteaders? The highest bidder? Who?

All of the above. It would be owned by the people of the state to which it belongs. Now if the people of Alaska want to give their state the right to take their own land away, that at least is a constitutional breach of their rights.

But the federal government has no constitutional right to take land, ever.

If drilling in ANWR is cost effective, then yes, of course it would have been done by now.

Are you suggesting it would not be cost effective? Because Canada has been expanding it's drilling operations in the are to the east of Alaska for many years. They seem to find it cost effective. Why would we not?

Because the federal government, in other words, you and I, are the owners of that land. Are you suggesting it be given away?

LOL Don't be silly. Technically speaking, we're owners of the social security "trust fund" too. And we're owners of PBS, yet they never play what I want. And we're owners of the national budget, deficit and the national debt. I can see how much control we have over those things. We own the FBI, and the EPA. We own the public school system. How much control do you see we have over all those things?

When the federal government "owns" something, then everyone owns it. If everyone owns it, then really... no one does. Because the politicians can always find someone somewhere that wants to do with object X whatever they wish to do with it.

Can you imagine 10 people jointly owning a car? What would happen? You can't use it because I might need it. Well I want it, so you can't have it. Well I have work, so neither of you can use it. Well I have work too, and I need to go shopping. And on and on and on. The end result is no one owns it, and no one uses it, and it's effectively useless to everyone.

Look at what happened in ANWR. They created ANWR specifically to explore it for Oil back in the.. 70s? early 80s? For 30 years now, they have all bickered back and fourth over who can and can't do what on the land. Instead of it being a benefit to the entire nation, it's a benefit to no one.

So, if that's what you consider "us owning the land", then yes, I'm for giving it away. What did the federal government do with the Louisiana purchase?

What did they do with all that? They gave it away. What happened? It became the back bone of American agricultural production. What would have happened if they had kept that land under federal control?

That's ANWR where we are NOT drilling for oil. That could be the entire mid-west if the government was in charge.

 

[PLC1]

Practical is a moving target. As more and more people move into an area, the raising taxes and related economic activity the follows the growth of a population, would make a system of providing water, more 'practical'.

But there is only so much water. I suppose if a desalination plant could be built, but that's way expensive.

No offense, but you are nutz. I checked out a similar sized condo to my own.

My Condo, 800 sq ft, 2 bedroom, 1 - 1/2 bath, full basement. $425/mo mortgage.

California Condo, 780 sq ft, 2 bedroom, 1 bath, no basement. $1075/mo rent.

California Condo, 760 sq ft, 1 bedroom, 1 bath, no basement. $100K (double what I paid for mine.


And these were the more reasonable prices I could find. Some were smaller, one bedroom condos with prices nearly four times higher than what I paid for my Condo. The Condo right next to mine, has 3 bedrooms and a two car garage, and a full basement, plus a larger area, and sold for $100K, just like the condo in California above.

Trust me, the prices there are insane, and it's mainly due to open space laws, and public land laws.

I can only go with places where I have had experience. Here's a house in Oroville, CA, where I just sold a house (I hope, still in escrow).

My own house is worth about half what it was before the bubble.

Houses in some areas are still expensive. San Fransiscso, for example, still has some pricey real estate. Not much public land there, nor is there in Oroville, nor is there here. Almost all of the public land in this state is in the Sierra Nevadas. I have to drive at least an hour to reach public land, other than a municipal park of course.

Comparing California and Alaska is comparing apples and oranges anyway.

All of the above. It would be owned by the people of the state to which it belongs. Now if the people of Alaska want to give their state the right to take their own land away, that at least is a constitutional breach of their rights.

But the federal government has no constitutional right to take land, ever.

It actually belonged to the natives at one time, and was taken from them by force. It never has belonged to anyone else since. Maybe we should just give it back to them.

Are you suggesting it would not be cost effective? Because Canada has been expanding it's drilling operations in the are to the east of Alaska for many years. They seem to find it cost effective. Why would we not?

I don't know. Cost effective at $140 a barrel, as it was during the heyday of oil speculation, or $40 as it is now?

But, sure, the oil in the ANWR should be exploited, so long as it is profitable to do so, and most likely would be if the feds would allow it.

LOL Don't be silly. Technically speaking, we're owners of the social security "trust fund" too. And we're owners of PBS, yet they never play what I want. And we're owners of the national budget, deficit and the national debt. I can see how much control we have over those things. We own the FBI, and the EPA. We own the public school system. How much control do you see we have over all those things?

When the federal government "owns" something, then everyone owns it. If everyone owns it, then really... no one does. Because the politicians can always find someone somewhere that wants to do with object X whatever they wish to do with it.

Land is not the same. The federally owned land here in California, ie national parks and national forests, are a treasure for all of us. I for one would be adamantly against giving one inch of it away. It is mine.

Building houses on it would do nothing to bring down the cost of houses here, but the end of real estate speculation has brought down prices dramatically.

 

[Pandora]

That does sound quite amusing.

Not quite, he was drinking. And for the record, he was a known alcoholic, multiple DUIs, left treatment programs, but Exxon still left him in command of super takers. The simply fact alone that Exxon let someone who had a suspended driver's license in charge of this sort of vessel should have resulted in the full punitive damages awarded in 93, but Alaskans got utterly screwed over on this USSC decision.
Here is Sarah's reaction.

Dang I was sure he was smoking pot. was there another oil tanker spill someplace that the guy was high on pot? I am sure there was, but then again I was sure it was this guy so hrmm...

Ill look later to see if I can find the story I am thinking of.

 

[Andy]

But there is only so much water. I suppose if a desalination plant could be built, but that's way expensive.

Las Vegas anyone? Trust me, when the capitalist system is unleashed, and people are free to develop without government intrusion, the people find a way. If Las Vegas can grow to 1.8 million people, yet still supply water in the desert, then it can be done. Now will water prices be higher in a desert? Sure. Will it cost a lot? You bet.

But if people have the money to pay for it, and they do, then it will be done. In 1920, Las Vegas was nothing more than a gas station in the middle of the desert. There was no water. They created lake Mead, the largest man made lake, in the world I think. The just built it. If we can build a man made lake in the middle of a 102 degree desert, then water in California can't be much harder, now can it?

I can only go with places where I have had experience. Here's a house in Oroville, CA, where I just sold a house (I hope, still in escrow).

My own house is worth about half what it was before the bubble.

Houses in some areas are still expensive. San Fransiscso, for example, still has some pricey real estate. Not much public land there, nor is there in Oroville, nor is there here. Almost all of the public land in this state is in the Sierra Nevadas. I have to drive at least an hour to reach public land, other than a municipal park of course.

Comparing California and Alaska is comparing apples and oranges anyway.

That looks rural. It even says rural. And it says the place is in poor quality. I paid less than that price, for a spot in the middle of an upper middle class area, near the heart of the city, and less than 15 minutes from down town Columbus. Not to mention my place was, and still is, in excellent condition. A similar rural home in my city, would be about half of that.

But I don't see that comparing California and Alaska is as different as you claim. You are looking a the micro-view. The close up on a specific issue. I thinking more of the wide angle view. What is the long term big picture effects of these policies. Who benefits from government regulation on land?

I don't see Exxon being killed by the lack of supply of oil from ANWR. They seem to be handling the reduced supply pretty well. I don't see the Rich in California doing so badly by Open Space laws. Same cause, different effects. Obviously in Alaska with a small population, and a massive amount of land, the constraints on land for homes isn't going to have an effect for many years.

It actually belonged to the natives at one time, and was taken from them by force. It never has belonged to anyone else since. Maybe we should just give it back to them.

We could always give it back to Spain. Or give it back to the UK. We could give part of it back to the French. We could give back to the Persians most of Europe, and give back the Babylonians, of course the Aztecs are dead, but we could dig up someone related, and give it back to them. We should also give back most of the middle east to the Ottomans. Maybe we could give back eastern Europe to the Soviets?

How about this... let's live in the present instead of the past, and move forward.

I don't know. Cost effective at $140 a barrel, as it was during the heyday of oil speculation, or $40 as it is now?

But, sure, the oil in the ANWR should be exploited, so long as it is profitable to do so, and most likely would be if the feds would allow it.

Actually they have been expanding oil production back in the 90s, and have continued to do so till now. When the price is high, or the price is low, in either case, it has been cost effective.

Land is not the same. The federally owned land here in California, ie national parks and national forests, are a treasure for all of us. I for one would be adamantly against giving one inch of it away. It is mine.

That's your choice, but it should not be forced on the rest of us by a federal government. That's what our constitution says. Just because you want to pay 3 times as much as me for a shack, doesn't mean I wish to do the same. I for one, love the fact I can buy a nice large home for about a 3rd as much as you. I've heard the same from other Californians who've moved away from there.

This is one of the biggest problems with social policies. You don't realize that you are paying for the effects of those policies.

Building houses on it would do nothing to bring down the cost of houses here, but the end of real estate speculation has brought down prices dramatically.

They will shoot back up, I promise you. Unless your state government jumps up taxes so much, as to drive business away, and kill your local economy, then prices might stay low.

What's really amusing me about this conversation is, you claim price have dropped dramatically, and yet their 3 times higher than prices here. What does that tell you about prices in California? They are INSANE. Yet you want to claim government regulations and land controls are not to blame.

This is exactly like Democrats claiming Obama's doubling of our debt, can't possibly have a negative effect on the economy.

 

[Bunz]

It would be owned by the people of the state to which it belongs. Now if the people of Alaska want to give their state the right to take their own land away, that at least is a constitutional breach of their rights.

But the federal government has no constitutional right to take land, ever.

A few things I will say here before I address the Alaska issue. Firstly, there are eminent domain laws that are in the Consitution, the Government just has to pay for it. But even then, it can simply be taken if the offer is refused, happens regularly.
But I think it is worthy to note that more or less all of the land involved in the current United States, was more or less taken. While it might have been "purchased", that was simpy purchasing stolen property.
The long standing line of thought in many circles of Alaska, is that the United States bought something from the Russians, that the Russians didnt own.

But either way, the period of time from 1867 when Alaska was bought, until 1959 when we became a state, we were entirely owned by DC. Administered, governed, and the resources included managed from about 3,000 miles away.
There were times when this made for some very difficult times in Alaska. Like when land was granted to gold seekers and natives forcefully removed from areas they had lived in forever.
Then there is the case of the Aleuts being removed from thier home islands during WWII in the face of the Japanese invasion. Which I can understand to a point. But moving them from one area, and then leaving them in another with little other means of support, which resulted in treatment and conditions far worse than the Japanese internment camps.

In the post war years, there was serious discussion of Alaska being used as the new homeland for the Jewish people instead of what is modern day Israel. Eisenhower originally wanted Alaska to remain under control of the US military and for it to not become a state at all. Then later in his Presidency he didnt want have Alaska become a state because it would have likely meant more Democrats in Congress(boy was he wrong).

So my point in this whole thing is that Alaska has an interesting relationship with DC. But we pursued statehood to have more say over local affairs, which has largely happened. But the Feds have retained ownership of lots of land in the process. Much of it becoming National Parks. Which for plenty of reasons I can understand. Denali, Katmai, St. Elias, Kenai Fjords, Lake Clark and a few others being preserved for future generations because of its uniqueness and unquestioned beauty. Also, having visited the Grand Canyon and Zion National Park in 2007, those places also I can see as very special.

Either way, and getting back on topic is that Alaska is a young and evolving state. There are some things we need DC for, and others where DC should simply butt out. But most of us have come to understand, short of seceeding from the union, we need to make the most of the situation we find ourselves in.

Are you suggesting it would not be cost effective? Because Canada has been expanding it's drilling operations in the are to the east of Alaska for many years. They seem to find it cost effective. Why would we not?

Sure it could be cost effective, but a few things need to happen before this all happens, besides the consent from DC, which is that Exxon needs to step up to the plate and actually develop the PT. Thompson oil field. Which they have held the leases to for nearly 3 decades and refused to budge on when it comes to developing the subsurface.
Pt. Thompson is the closest area to ANWR, and would be necessary to make economically feasible not only directional drilling in ANWR, but also a natural gas line that has enjoyed widespread Alaskan support, but with zero progress.

 

[Bunz]

Dang I was sure he was smoking pot. was there another oil tanker spill someplace that the guy was high on pot? I am sure there was, but then again I was sure it was this guy so hrmm...

Ill look later to see if I can find the story I am thinking of.

Pandora, trust me here, the skipper(Joe Hazelwood) had been drinking. There might be another case where someone was stoned, but Hazelwood had admitted he had been drinking in the few hours before he boarded the ship.
He was aquitted of basically maritime DUI because the breathalizer test came after the period of time that was acceptable in court.
There is also rumor in Alaska that Hazelwood likely threw an open container overboard in the few minutes after the event happened, but it has never been proven.

Of course he was fired by Exxon over what happened, even if he was aquitted, he was still in violation of the 12 hour bottle to throttle policy most shipping companies had in place at the time. Most of them have gone to a 24 hour policy these days, as has Exxon.

 

[Bunz]

It's funny, but the Rich love public lands too. Have you ever done research on the effects of "open space" laws in California? Ever wonder why California land is so expensive, that no one but the rich can afford to live there? There's a reason.

Well there are no open space laws to speak of in Alaska. That really isnt an issue. Divided evenly, Alaska has roughly 700 acres per person.

Again, my point is, it should never have been in federal hands. The reason your state did not benefit from the roads it needed for the past ten years or more, is because you allowed the federal government to dictate to you what you could do with your own land. You got exactly what you deserved.

Again, as I said before, Alaska before 1959 was entirely under federal control. So this isnt true.

Same thing with ANWR. You gave the federal government control over a huge chunk of Alaska, and then bewailed the fact that you couldn't extract your own natural resources for 20+ years.

Once again, ANWR was created next to state land that was developed for oil and gas use, as something of a compromise.

While you play politics with who "allowed you to use your own land", you ignore the fact, it should never have been in their hands to begin with.

Well this dates back to Native ownership before the Russians, British, and then Americans arrived.

And in the name of prevent the Rich from using it? Are joking? The Rich are benefiting the most from this. Higher cost of goods, due to a lack of a service road, means more profits for the Rich. Higher cost of oil, due to a lack of getting the oil we have, results in higher profits for the Rich.

You are not stopping the Rich, you are literally lining their pockets.

I dont have a problem with the rich using it, I want it open to recreation for everyone. Rich and poor alike. As for the locals finally being abled to build a road, I think it is a good thing, but the concept of the corporation benefitting, results in the locals benefitting, for a few reasons. Firstly, the share holders are largely locals, and they will see not only higher potential benefits through dividends, but also a lower cost in goods.

 

[Bunz]

Now, that's quotable!

Speaking of the Pebble Mine, just what is the status of that project? Does it look like those pesky left wing radical environmentalists will win, or will it be the evil despoilers of nature?

In other words, is one of the world's treasures still in jeopardy?

Well I dont feel like getting down the Pebble track right now. It is off topic and it gets me entirely too wound up. As of right now though, the status is that they are completing thier pre-feasibility study. As for the notion that those leading the fight against Pebble are left wing radicals is hardly the case. In fact the most prominent opponents are hard core Republicans.

I would encourage you to do some research and create a thread on the issue, I will reply there for sure. On a local level I will say that the companies wanting to develop the project did two things in the last week. Firstly they sent thier chairman of the board to my hometown, and were recieved with what most would say was a hostile environment.

Then two days later, they awarded a million dollars in charitable but highly controversial grants to the region that would be afflicted. The far majority claim it is nothing but a bribe, but again, I would encourage you to read up about the situation and learn for yourself, and then start a thread and I will dive right in.

 

[PLC1]

Well I dont feel like getting down the Pebble track right now. It is off topic and it gets me entirely too wound up. As of right now though, the status is that they are completing thier pre-feasibility study. As for the notion that those leading the fight against Pebble are left wing radicals is hardly the case. In fact the most prominent opponents are hard core Republicans.

I would encourage you to do some research and create a thread on the issue, I will reply there for sure. On a local level I will say that the companies wanting to develop the project did two things in the last week. Firstly they sent thier chairman of the board to my hometown, and were recieved with what most would say was a hostile environment.

Then two days later, they awarded a million dollars in charitable but highly controversial grants to the region that would be afflicted. The far majority claim it is nothing but a bribe, but again, I would encourage you to read up about the situation and learn for yourself, and then start a thread and I will dive right in.

I will. Since you answered Andy for me so well, I have time to look into the Pebble Mine.

 

[Andy]

Well there are no open space laws to speak of in Alaska. That really isnt an issue. Divided evenly, Alaska has roughly 700 acres per person.

Again, as I said before, I was referring to the general effect of land control legislation. I didn't mean to imply you have the exact same laws, nor the exact same effect. In Alaska, it isn't state open space laws, it's government eco-nut laws.

The effects are similar in that the entire nation is paying a higher price for Oil, in part, due to the fact government will not allow drilling on land that should be governed by the Alaskan people. Of course the rich have no problem with this at all. I can see how BP is really ticked about charging us more money per barrol of oil.

Again, as I said before, Alaska before 1959 was entirely under federal control. So this isnt true.

Same with the Lousiana Purchase. But, in both cases, the land was given to the states to which it belongs, once they were granted statehood. Just like how the government gave away the land from the Lousiana Purchase.

Now once the land is given over to a newly formed state, that state is under the constitution, which states clearly the government has no right to take any land that belongs to that state, unless of course for national defense purposes. Would you like to make a case that ANWR is for defense of the nation?

Once again, ANWR was created next to state land that was developed for oil and gas use, as something of a compromise.

Compromise to what?

Well this dates back to Native ownership before the Russians, British, and then Americans arrived.

Before statehood, to me is a seperate issue. If you are not a member of the union, then you clearly are not under our constitution. Once statehood is grant, you should be granted all the rights the constitution reserves to the states... including the right to your land.

I dont have a problem with the rich using it, I want it open to recreation for everyone. Rich and poor alike. As for the locals finally being abled to build a road, I think it is a good thing, but the concept of the corporation benefitting, results in the locals benefitting, for a few reasons. Firstly, the share holders are largely locals, and they will see not only higher potential benefits through dividends, but also a lower cost in goods.

Of course. That all makes sense to me. I just think it's a huge mistake to leave it in the hands of the federal government. That's why it take 10 years to build one stupid road.

 

[Andy]

Pandora, trust me here, the skipper(Joe Hazelwood) had been drinking. There might be another case where someone was stoned, but Hazelwood had admitted he had been drinking in the few hours before he boarded the ship.
He was aquitted of basically maritime DUI because the breathalizer test came after the period of time that was acceptable in court.
There is also rumor in Alaska that Hazelwood likely threw an open container overboard in the few minutes after the event happened, but it has never been proven.

Of course he was fired by Exxon over what happened, even if he was aquitted, he was still in violation of the 12 hour bottle to throttle policy most shipping companies had in place at the time. Most of them have gone to a 24 hour policy these days, as has Exxon.

This is interesting... I know I had read the same as Pandora, that he was high on pot at the time... curious. Another case of bad mass media reporting? Of course this happened long before Fox News was around, so that can't be it....

 

[Popeye]

This is interesting... I know I had read the same as Pandora, that he was high on pot at the time... curious. Another case of bad mass media reporting? Of course this happened long before Fox News was around, so that can't be it....

Hate to burst your bubble...

He was a known alcoholic...Hazelwood had been drinking on the day of the accident, and his drinking caused him to be absent on the bridge when the accident occurred.

I see you've been getting your history lessons from Faux News.

 

[Andy]

Hate to burst your bubble...

He was a known alcoholic...Hazelwood had been drinking on the day of the accident, and his drinking caused him to be absent on the bridge when the accident occurred.

I see you've been getting your history lessons from Faux News.

You didn't burst my bubble. Already knew that he had been drinking, from the prior post, and my own research into the topic. You are one post too late. Further, if you could really read, and understand what you were reading, you would have figured out that Fox News wasn't around at the time. So clearly they were not the source of the incorrect information.

In short, you still haven't grown up yet. Go back to school. Try "Reading Comprehension" to start off with. Might help you make more relevant posts.

 

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Hate to burst your bubble...

He was a known alcoholic...Hazelwood had been drinking on the day of the accident, and his drinking caused him to be absent on the bridge when the accident occurred.

I see you've been getting your history lessons from Faux News.

As he pointed out Fox news wasn't around at the time....gonna have to come up with something slightly better than that. Although I agree he had been drinking but was not drunk. Was absent from the bridge at the time, yes. However he was acquitted by jury of his peers.

 

[Popeye]

You didn't burst my bubble. Already knew that he had been drinking, from the prior post, and my own research into the topic. You are one post too late. Further, if you could really read, and understand what you were reading, you would have figured out that Fox News wasn't around at the time. So clearly they were not the source of the incorrect information.

In short, you still haven't grown up yet. Go back to school. Try "Reading Comprehension" to start off with. Might help you make more relevant posts.

Just imagine if Faux News had been around during some of the pivotal points in history.

And you'd believe it too...just like you repeat right wing talking points, by way of Faux News, almost verbatim. Just out of curiosity..do you even know what it feels like to have an original thought?