JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Some are still good to have around. Nature Conservancy is my favorite.
Rather than waste time trying to fight developers in court (usually a losing
battle), they go out & buy land out from under them. In a few instances,
they've even set up dummy corporations, posing as developers so they're
allowed into the bidding process for tracts of land. I love it.


I'm 100% in favor of people being able to let their own property go
"back to nature" if that is their desire. My general philosophy is that
you should be able to do what you want on your own ground- up to the
point where it begins having an unreasonable impact on the neighbors.
For instance, if my windward neighbor wants to burn the old tires off
of his car rather than haul them to the dump (and my yard fills up with
foul smelling smoke as a result) then his activity becomes my business.

As a boater, I try to be a good steward of the environment. I don't
dump trash or untreated sewage into the water, I use a vaccum sander, I
don't have my bottom scrubbed without hauling out, and I take pride in
the fact that (for a boat, at least) my trawler achieves exceptional
fuel economy. I even burn a mix of 20% biodiesel. But darned if some
guy in a kayak is going to tell me I can't operate my boat at all
because it isn't entirely environmentally benign.

It would be better if some of these people would simply be honest and
say, "We'd rather have a waterfront park (or, in some cases, a private
residential development) on the shoreline where the marina and
boatyards are now. We don't want to ever hear an engine of any sort on
the water.We don't want to see a bunch of fiberglass hulls blocking the
view of the open water from the public beach. If you're not young
enough and fit enough or don't have time enough to go everywhere by
kayak you have no business at all on the water."

Like most extremists, the major problem with the noisy wackos is the
damage they do to
the image of the responsible people. In the political field, for
example, you have people like Rush Limbaugh who are cartoon stereotypes
doing a disservice to normal, sincere, and thoughtful conservatives, or
Michael Moore types who make it all too easy for many right wingers to
characterize "all liberals" as unbridled extremists.

I think there are a lot of environmentalists who do good work, and we
do need some restrictions against private interests needlessly
despoiling the public air, water, and landscape. The nature of man is
to alter his enviornment. In my opinion, we should use resources
responsibly, rather than try to live an impossible lifestyle where we
don't use any resources at all.

wrote in message
oups.com...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Some are still good to have around. Nature Conservancy is my favorite.
Rather than waste time trying to fight developers in court (usually a
losing
battle), they go out & buy land out from under them. In a few instances,
they've even set up dummy corporations, posing as developers so they're
allowed into the bidding process for tracts of land. I love it.


I'm 100% in favor of people being able to let their own property go
"back to nature" if that is their desire. My general philosophy is that
you should be able to do what you want on your own ground- up to the
point where it begins having an unreasonable impact on the neighbors.
For instance, if my windward neighbor wants to burn the old tires off
of his car rather than haul them to the dump (and my yard fills up with
foul smelling smoke as a result) then his activity becomes my business.

As a boater, I try to be a good steward of the environment. I don't
dump trash or untreated sewage into the water, I use a vaccum sander, I
don't have my bottom scrubbed without hauling out, and I take pride in
the fact that (for a boat, at least) my trawler achieves exceptional
fuel economy. I even burn a mix of 20% biodiesel. But darned if some
guy in a kayak is going to tell me I can't operate my boat at all
because it isn't entirely environmentally benign.

It would be better if some of these people would simply be honest and
say, "We'd rather have a waterfront park (or, in some cases, a private
residential development) on the shoreline where the marina and
boatyards are now. We don't want to ever hear an engine of any sort on
the water.We don't want to see a bunch of fiberglass hulls blocking the
view of the open water from the public beach. If you're not young
enough and fit enough or don't have time enough to go everywhere by
kayak you have no business at all on the water."

Like most extremists, the major problem with the noisy wackos is the
damage they do to
the image of the responsible people. In the political field, for
example, you have people like Rush Limbaugh who are cartoon stereotypes
doing a disservice to normal, sincere, and thoughtful conservatives, or
Michael Moore types who make it all too easy for many right wingers to
characterize "all liberals" as unbridled extremists.

I think there are a lot of environmentalists who do good work, and we
do need some restrictions against private interests needlessly
despoiling the public air, water, and landscape. The nature of man is
to alter his enviornment. In my opinion, we should use resources
responsibly, rather than try to live an impossible lifestyle where we
don't use any resources at all.


I agree with all of this. I'll add one thing, though: In some cases,
environmental groups are up against something insidious, but all too common:
Local officials who are "all for a great project" because they're being paid
to support it. This was debated here for quite some time when the city of
Rochester got itself involved with a fast ferry project that died a grisly
death after just one year of operation. Something went terribly wrong with
the planning & marketing of the thing. Some people say it's because the city
officials who wanted the boat were unbelievably stupid and incompetent.
Others (who I agree with) believe officials were "incentivized" to ignore
all the red flags that any astute business manager would've noticed
immediately. Either way, there's a nice, big ferry literally rotting in
front of a terminal which will also begin rotting soon. The ferry's up for
sale. The terminal may be going to a developer who wants to turn it into
apartments. Doesn't matter what it is - it's ugly as hell. I suspect that
developer will get the building at a fire sale price.

Now, we're facing the same thing in my town, a suburb just northeast of
Rochester. In a bay that's already WAY too crowded with boats, and also has
some gorgeous wetlands which provide terrific fishing & duck hunting, the
town wants to build a 300-slip transient marina to serve "all the boats that
come from Canada and can't find a place to stay". This sounds like the fast
ferry idea, which was supposed to carry "all the Canadians who want to come
here and enjoy everything Rochester has to offer" (which ain't much,
compared to Toronto, as most Canadians have known for years). The question
being asked by environmental groups is "What evidence do we have of all
these boats that need a place to dock?"

I posed the question to the town planner yesterday. He was clueless, except
to say that "studies" were being done by the Army Corps of Engineers. I'm no
expert on the functions of the Corps, but something tells me they do not
handle market research. So, we're getting pie in the sky from the same town
board which thought a big enclosed mall was a great idea. That mall now
stands 90% empty.

So, I'll be meeting with the town supervisor next week. And, I'm already in
touch with Nature Conservancy, who's been watching the situation since the
previous supervisor opened his mouth about the plan. I think it's safe to
say that a significant percentage of voters do not use the bay at all, so
putting the plan on the ballot would be pointless. If the project is to be
reviewed carefully, it'll have to be an outside group that does it.