5 replies to this topic

[gcsnelling]

Something we should be aware of, read it and react. This could have far reaching impact on all of us in the U.S.

https://altgov2.org/...ds-destruction/

[Mettcollsuss]

I don't fully understand it, what does it mean?

[gcsnelling]

In short it means that all records of what species occur on a given piece of land may be eligible for destruction opening that land for development. This is very bad if it happens.

[DaveJay]

In short it means that all records of what species occur on a given piece of land may be eligible for destruction opening that land for development. This is very bad if it happens.

To clarify further, studies were done to find out if the land has species of animals (you would guess flora too, but not necessarily) that would classify that land as critical habitat meaning it cannot be developed. The records they are filing to destroy are the ones pertaining to land was NOT deemed critical after the studies were reviewed so therefore not listed as protected from development at the time. So they want to destroy the data from failed applications. Destroying the documents will not mean protected land can then be developed, just that if someone wanted to stop development in an area previously deemed suitable for development the whole process would have to start from scratch at great expense, unlikely because the studies were already done and the applications to save the land had already been denied.
The stupidity of it is that if an animal or plant is later deemed endangered or at risk the data is not there to be reviewed, all the studies would have to be done again, or not because the land in question has already been studied and classified as suitable for development in the past, but the data won't be there!

[Trythis22]

Hi gcsnelling,

 

Pleased to make your acquaintance. The link is a massive copy and paste (which is not wrong, professionals do it all the time) but it errs toward fearmongering rather than that of caution. The website being that of the "alternative news" genre, it is no surprise that it is dramatic in its presentation of the next piece of critique of the government, which is more decentralized in the states than what pop culture would have you believe.

 

My main point is that land use and planning is overseen by local government authorities, namely the City and/or County if jurisdictions overlap. Zoning within the urban growth boundary does change, but it is an exception rather than a rule. It sounds less extreme than I make it sound; trust me these guys don't move a muscle for developers. I often have to force my way through arbitrary codes and sometimes these guys will reject a perfectly legal application, only to accept it(!) after I write a pointed email forcing them to answer my questions. 

 

In regards to changes to zoning outside the urban growth boundary, protected areas such as wetlands, conservation projects, nature reserves, parks and such will remain protected because again, federal agencies are only a small part of the picture. The local government; City, County, Public Works (and/or the water department and ecology-related departments, where I live all of these are integrated into a department called Clean Water Services), fire department and last of all, Planning, will do its best to make sure you don't even touch a horsetail. They will force you to hire wetland scientists and/or specialist engineers to write a memo or submit calcs if you so much as blink at a frog. 

 

Just as surveyors are constantly updating plats for development projects, I assume the government contracts with environmental specialists to do ecological surveys. Even if they don't, developers do. An ecology study is one of the prerequisites for approval on a project if there is any doubt as to the ecological value of a tract of land. These guys are not referencing reports from 50 years ago, and trust me your local government has all the plats and revisions made to them for all the lots within its jurisdiction since the beginnings of its founding as a city.

 

While sad, species go extinct all the time without our knowledge. I can appreciate your interest in preserving those documents since as an ecologist, they are akin to historical files for you. There is a solution for your dilemma (as described in an actual government website, not a .org) here: https://www.archives.../chapter-6.html. Under "Applying the Schedule to Temporary Records" there is an entry for exceptions to destruction, which is adoption by an eligible agency or department. You can write petitions to your local government (go to City Hall or the Public Works department of your County) to adopt said records. I believe it's a great way for citizens to get involved in their local politics and to further an admirable ideal. 

 

So, the statement that the destruction of old records (which is perfectly legal and has been happening for centuries) is bad because it opens up land for development is hardly true. The urban growth boundary is expanded time to time in response to population growth rate, demand for housing, and many other factors irregardless of ecological documents. The hidden forces of the economy play a much larger role in development and urbanization than ecological interests. I'm afraid you will need a more compelling argument to convince me to open up "TryThis22 v United States" docket. 

 

If you see any errors in what I wrote or I've missed something, please let me know. I am not trying to belittle the value of ecology or protect the "big boys," but merely commenting on the issue from my point of view. I hope it's been informative and of course I will be here to clarify anything that's not clear. 

 

--------------

 

I had to close everything, do something else for a bit and when I came back Dave actually posted his response before me. Even though he is an Australian, what he wrote seems surprisingly accurate. Perhaps we are not so different after all. 

[gcsnelling]

In short it means that all records of what species occur on a given piece of land may be eligible for destruction opening that land for development. This is very bad if it happens.

 

I should have said "potentially opening that land for development", and of course thank you for the input.

Edited by gcsnelling, October 26 2018 - 4:25 AM.