Links |
|
Links |
|||
|
Land Use & Ownership | ||||
|
A Socio Historical Analysis of Control of the Land |
|
|||
|
The US Forest Service | ||||
|
The US National Park Service | ||||
|
Trends in Land Ownership & Control |
|
|||
|
Timber Mgt |
|
|||
|
The Sagebrush Rebellion | ||||
|
SLAPP | ||||
|
Envl Racism | ||||
|
NIMBY, LULU, & NOMTIO | ||||
|
The Social Structure of Recreation & Leisure | ||||
|
Tourism & Economic Development | ||||
|
Recreationists & the Envl Debate | ||||
|
Recreational Pressure on the Land |
Links |
|
Links |
|||
- Project: Land Use |
|
||||
LAND OWNERSHIP IN THE USA | |||||
U.S.
3,618,770 sq. mi = 2,316,012,800 ac
or 2.3 bb ac
AK 591,004 sq. mi = 378,242,560 ac or .378 bb ac US - AK = 3,027,788 sq. mi = 1,937,770,240 ac or 1.9 bb ac |
|||||
The fed govt's ownership of US land is 658 million acres total of 2,316 mm ac or 28% | |||||
The BLM manages 270 mm acres (300 mm ac mineral deposits) | |||||
The FS manages 191 mm acres
The FWS manages 92 mm acres The NPS manages 80 mm acres The DOD manages 25 mm acres |
|||||
|
Thus the fed govt's non DOD land ownership is 633 mm acres or 27% of the total US land mass, including AK |
|
|||
Others major govl & quasi govl land stewards include the:
- land grant colleges & universities - BIA - railroads - state & local parks & lands |
|||||
Private land holdings, including large & small landowners, are well over half of the total US land mass | |||||
|
Private land holdings, including large & small landowners, are about less than 60 % of the total U.S. land mass or about 1,390 mm acres |
|
|||
It is important to note that even though the govt does manage over one third of the land in the US, much of that land is completely open to private interests related to logging, mining, grazing, recreation, etc. | |||||
FED LAND OWNERSHIP | |||||
The Forest Service (FS) | |||||
The Dept of Ag contains the USFS which manages 191 mm acres | |||||
In 1891 Congress estb the first national forest conservation policy & set aside areas known as Forest Reserves. | |||||
|
The first national Forest Reserve was estb in WY, & later became Yellowstone Park |
|
|||
Forest Reserves became known as National Forests & in 1905 came under mgt by the new Bureau of Forestry | |||||
Today there are 155 National Forests in the US & Puerto Rico | |||||
Private water power development, forestry, mining, etc. are all allowed under the FS's Multiple Use Policy | |||||
Forests are headed by the Forest Supervisor | |||||
Forests are divided into Ranger Districts, headed by the District Ranger | |||||
|
The Dept of Interior | ||||
|
The Bureau of Land Mgt (BLM) | ||||
Dept of Interior contains the Bureau of Land Mgt (BLM) which manages 264 mm ac & 300 mm ac mineral lands | |||||
|
Most BLM land lies in the Western US & AK |
|
|||
|
The BLM was estb in 1946 taking over functions of General Land Office & US Grazing Service |
|
|||
|
From the BLM's beginning, many govt officials were skeptical about having two major land mgt agencies, & despite many govl & orgl conflicts the BLM & the FS have both continued their separate course |
|
|||
The Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) | |||||
The FWS manages 92 mm ac & was estb in 1940 | |||||
The FWS manages 400 wildlife refuges as well as nat fish hatcheries, habitat field offices, research labs | |||||
While all land mgt agencies have a responsibility to abide by the Endangers Species Act of 1973, the FWS often takes the lead, advising other agencies on how their policies & actions may or may not be compliant under the ESA | |||||
The National Park Service (NPS) | |||||
The NPS manages 80 mm ac in 350 National Parks as well as numerous other monuments, memorials, cemeteries, seashores, lake shores, battlefields, etc. | |||||
The first National Park was Yellowstone Park which was estb in 1872
Every state except Delaware has at least one National Park |
|||||
The Department of Defense (DOD) | |||||
The DOD manages 25 mm ac | |||||
Significant DOD land holdings include the:
- White Sands Test Range: NM - Rocky Flats: CO - Sandia Test Range: NM? - Nuke processing plants: SC & WA - USAF Test Range: ID |
|||||
Land Grant Universities | |||||
Land Grant Universities were estb by the Morrill or Land Grant Act of 1862 | |||||
Congress granted every state 30,000 ac for each senator & representative which ended up totaling 11,367,832 ac. | |||||
The land granted to the States was to be sold & used to create & maintain colleges | |||||
In relation to land grant college,
- 30 states used land as expected - 18 states gave $ to state universities - 3 states gave $ to private colleges |
|||||
Most states were unable to sell all the land, & many sold so low as to make almost no $ | |||||
The Bureau of India Affairs (BIA) | |||||
The BIA was estb by the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 & had jurisdiction over 500 tribes in the continental US & 200 in AK | |||||
The BIA works w/ the tribes who own 285 fed & state reservations, most of which are west of the Mississippi River | |||||
The BIA has control over leases minerals & water rights to non Indians, giving the Native Americans little or no say | |||||
In 1934 the Indian Reorganization Act reduced Indian lands from 138 mm ac in 1887 to 48 mm ac in 1934 | |||||
In 1975 the Indian Self Determination... Act: gave Native Americans more control in their own lives & reservations | |||||
Railroad | |||||
In 1850, the first fed land grants for RRs were awarded | |||||
States were forced to give up land to the railroad grant program, often, a 10 mile wide corridor | |||||
The RRs were often given 400 ft right of ways plus a 10 - 20 mile ownership of land along right of way | |||||
The RRs were also paid $16,000 / mi on flat land & $48,000 in Sierra Nevada mtns to encourage RR construction | |||||
|
RRs kept some of the awarded land & sold some for construction costs |
|
|||
The first grant to build a RR was on a line from Chicago to the Gulf of Mexico at Mobile AL | |||||
By 1856 the RR grant was a successful experiment, so Congress expanded the program | |||||
In 1862, the Pacific RR Act granted 2 companies the a 20 mi right of way on the 42nd parallel for the transcontinental RR | |||||
In 1869 the transcontinental RR was completed & by 1900 there were 5 transcontinental RRs | |||||
From 1850-1900, RR track mileage grew from 9,000 mi to 200,000 mi | |||||
Approx 83% of the land granted to private interests such as RR went to large orgs & 17% was homesteaded | |||||
By 1871, there were over 200 mm acres ceded to the RRs & the best est is that 565 mm ac total were ceded to the RRs | |||||
State & Local Parks & Lands ?? ac | |||||
Private Land: Large & Small ?? 60% of 2,316 = 1,390 mm ac |
|
|||||||
US | 3,618,770 sq. mi | 2,316,012,800 ac | 2.3 bb ac | ||||
AK | 591,004 sq. mi | 378,242,560 ac | .378 bb ac | ||||
US - AK | 3,027,788 sq. mi | 1,937,770,240 ac | 1.9 bb |
|
||||||
Feds: 658 million acres total of 2,316 mm ac or 28% | ||||||
BLM | 270 mm ac | 300 mm ac mineral deposits | ||||
USFS | 191 | |||||
FWS | 92 | |||||
NPS | 80 | 633 mm ac non DOD or 27% | ||||
DOD | 25 | |||||
Others: | ||||||
Land Grant Universities | ||||||
BIA | ||||||
Railroads | 200 mm ac + by 1871 | |||||
State & Local Parks & Lands | ||||||
Private Land holdings: Large & Small | 60% of U.S.? | 1,390 mm ac |
|
Links |
|
Links |
|||
Official NPS Website http://www.nps.gov/index.htm |
|
||||
THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (NPS), & OTHER AGENCIES, IS A UNIQUE IDEA THAT SEEMS OBVIOUS & UNASSAILABLE TODAY: GOVT SHOULD PRESERVE LAND FOR PUBLIC USE |
|
||||
James Bryce (1838 - 1922), British Ambassador to US described the National Park Service as 'The best idea American ever had' b/c of the magnificence of the natural spaces the NPS maintains |
|
||||
Today the NPS manages approx 400 sites on 87 mm acres |
|
||||
Each President has added to the public lands And growing: a |
|
||||
President Bill Clinton added 19 new units to the National Park System during his eight years in the White House | |||||
As Clinton served out his last yrs in office he uses the Antiquities Act to estb more Parks, including the Grand Escalante Staircase Park in UT, & the expansion of the Craters of the Moon Nat Park in ID | |||||
|
President George W. Bush approved/created seven new units of the national park service during his eight years. In that period he also approved the deauthorization of the Oklahoma City National Memorial in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma |
|
|||
President Bush declared three vast new marine national monuments way out in the Pacific Ocean, protecting an area larger than CA | |||||
These preserves are designed to conserve areas that are unspoiled, & largely unvisited by human beings, including the deepest canyon on earth, the Mariana Trench | |||||
Bush has declared much of the Mariana Trench, some 36,000 feet below the surface of the Pacific, waters around some nearby islands as a marine national monument. | |||||
Bush also declared as monuments the area around Rose Atoll, part of the Territory of American Samoa, & the seas surrounding seven islands that are US territories scattered in the Pacific | |||||
President Barack Obama has approved three new National Park Units since taking office in January 2009 (through December 2010). As of January, 2011, five parks have been authorized by Congress with the intention of adding them to the National Park system upon land acquisition or monument completion | |||||
THE NPS CONTINUALLY REVIEWS ITS GOALS & TACTICS IN ORDER TO BEST SERVE THE LAND & THE PEOPLE |
|
||||
A National Parks & Conservation Association (NPCA) 3 yr study outlined
4 major issues for the NPS which addressed the core issues including:
a. Whose parks are these, & for what purpose? & What sites should be in the NPS? b. What should be the balance btwn the twin goals of preservation & enjoyment be? c. What concessions should be allowed at the Parks? d. Who should the NPS be responsible to? Should it become indep of the Dept of Interior? |
|
||||
a. Whose parks are these, & for what purpose? What sites should be in the NPS? |
|
||||
The NPCA study concluded that not all sites should be in NPS b/c some states might best administer them |
|
||||
But their is a need for expansion of the NPS to keep pace w/ increased visitors b/c, for example there were 270 mm visitors in 95 & an est 500 mm visitors in 2010 |
|
||||
NPCA identified 46 natural areas & 40 histl sites that should be added immediately |
|
||||
The NPS & other agencies often try to buy private holdings w/in the Nat Parks & other blocks of govt land to consolidate holding & improve mgt |
|
||||
The National Park System Reform Act of 1995 estb criteria for designation of National Parks | |||||
The CA Desert Protection Act of 1994 added 7.5 mm ac of CA land to fed protection |
|
||||
An important question related to expansion is should the NPS or any land mgt agency expand when it is behind on maintenance? | |||||
In 1996 the NPS had a $4 bb backlog in maintenance | |||||
Some things have improved by 2000, for example:
- the WA monument has been renovated, though an earthquake has since damaged it again, & it is being repaired again - the Going to the Sun Road in Glacier NP, MT has been resurfaced - the Grand Canyon & several other NPs have dev propane bus systems so there no more cars allowed in some parks |
|||||
b. What should be balance btwn the twin goals of preservation & enjoyment be? | |||||
Enjoyment, use, visitation of some sites is overwhelming some resources,
esp at
- Yosemite in CA - Grand Canyon in AZ - Yellowstone in WY |
|||||
The NPS & other land mgt agencies struggle everyday w/ how to preserve the natural beauty, wildlife, & resources in the face of the onslaught of recreationists | |||||
The conflict btwn preservation & visitation can be seen in many issues including: bear maulings, snowmobile congestion, human presence displacing plants & animals from their habitats, air pollution in the Grand Canyon, etc | |||||
In most parks & other govt owned venues, by & large, most people barely leave the roadways, but much pressure is put on ecosystem by dividing it by congested roadways | |||||
c. What concessions should be allowed at the Parks? | |||||
The Concessions Policy Act of 1965 largely failed to adequately regulate or limit concessions | |||||
The General Mining Law of 1872 mostly allowed mining in nat parks, w/ no return to taxpayers, while the Mining in Parks Act of 1976 prohibited new mining claims in national parks | |||||
The General Mining Law of 1872 allows unlimited mining w/ no return to taxpayers | |||||
The Mining in Parks Act of 1976 prohibited new mining claims in national parks | |||||
d. Who should the NPS be responsible to? Should it become indep of the Dept of Interior? | |||||
Like the FS & much of the Fed govt, esp since Reagan & the depreciation of Fed govt, the NPS is under tremendous outside pressure & therefore is riven w/ internal problems | |||||
|
The NPS's internal problems & external pressures were expressed in the 1992 Vail Agenda | ||||
|
The Vail Agenda was a report critical of the treatment of NPS wkrs |
|
|||
The Vail Agenda notes that the NPS does not educate the public enough & therefore more 'interpretation' of sights is needed through signage, speakers, presentations, publications, & so on | |||||
The Vail Agenda notes that the NPS must guard against encroachment of its lands | |||||
To achieve the goals of the Vail Agenda it was recommended that the NPS should hire 1200 Rangers | |||||
THE NPS HAS, AS A % OF LAND, ALLOWED A HIGH LEVEL OF BOTH PRESCRIBED BURNS & LET BURNS | |||||
The NPS's handling of the 1988 Yellowstone Fire was criticized b/c so much of the Park burned, but today, it is more recognized that this was a natural process that did little harm, & much good to the park | |||||
In May of 2000 the Cerro Grande Fire, which was an NPS prescribed burn, escaped, became a large wildfire which burned many homes & threatened the Los Alamos national laboratories | |||||
See Also: Let Burn Policy |
Links |
|
Links |
|||
- Project: Trends in Land Use: Urban Sprawl |
|
||||
TRENDS IN PUBLIC LAND USE & MANAGEMENT |
|
||||
1. Management strategy has evolved from divestiture & conservation to preservation |
|
||||
2. Land use policies are tempered by politics |
|
||||
3. Money is a factor in preservation / use land mgt. strategies |
|
||||
4. Policies on land use are decided in govt. administration agencies such as the FS, DOD, BLM, EPA etc. |
|
||||
5. Grps such as the Wise Use Mvmt / Sagebrush rebellions, et al organize against govt regs |
|
||||
Congress designated 5 major uses for public lands including
1. wilderness 2. national forests 3. national parks 4. national wildlife refuges 5. rangelands |
|
||||
Land use & mgt trends include multiple uses such as grazing, forestry, mining, hydropower, recreation & more |
|
||||
Sustained yield policy holds that no more forage or timber may be harvested than can be produced |
|
||||
The Multiple Use & Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA) institutionalized the policies of multiple use & sustained yields, but in practice sustained yield may not be implemented |
|
||||
The Classification & Multiple Use Act of 1964 tried to shore up the multiplicity in multiple use |
|
||||
The Fed Land Policy & Management Act of 1976 required full public participation in land management decisions |
|
||||
There are many more stakeholders in the env debate now |
|
||||
Enviros do not believe multiple use has been effective |
|
||||
From the 1960s through the 1970s, there was a trend of increasing protection of the land & other natural resources such as the air | |||||
From the 1980 to the present, the trend of land & nat resource protection was hotly contested |
|
||||
From the mid 1990 to the present, the trend of land & nat resource protection has been mitigated by the need to protect industry & the rights of people for jobs |
|
||||
|
Land mgt by the land mgt agencies is less pervasive from the 1980s to the present because of the reduction in the budgets & the number of workers in the land mgt agencies |
|
|||
TRENDS IN PRIVATE LAND USE & MANAGEMENT | |||||
In general fewer people own land today than in the past when the nascent middle class was a farming class | |||||
The transition to the industrial & working middle class resulted in many people moving off the farm to urban & suburban areas | |||||
Working & middle class industrial workers & office workers often owned their own homes | |||||
Today less people own their homes or any land holdings | |||||
Today land ownership is increasingly concentrated as seen in fewer people owning homes, & more landlords owning multiple unit apartment bldgs & subdivisions | |||||
Today land ownership is increasingly concentrated as seen in fewer farmers, & the remaining farmers owning ever larger tracts of land |
Links |
|
Links |
|||
|
About one third or 730 mm acres of US land is forested |
|
|||
Two thirds or 480 mm acres of the US forest land is considered to have commercially valuable timber, though every year forests that had no commercial value are now commercially viable | |||||
Of the commercially viable land,
-t he Feds own 20 % the States own 7 % the Tribes own 1 % Private non industrial owners own 58 % & the Forest Industry owns 14 % |
|||||
|
The early FS was criticized for timber rip offs, i.e. sweet deals for ind, looking the other way as in logged larger swaths than agreed too, giving away sales & below mkt prices, etc. |
|
|||
More recently, observers critique the timber policy of the land mgt. agencies for | |||||
1. placing timber above all other uses because they are 'captured' by the timber lobby | |||||
2. keeping the $ it earns from timber sales, which amounted to $629 mm in 1990 | |||||
|
The timber industry says the envists will do anything to shut them down such putting the welfare of a spotted owl above the needs or working men & women |
|
|||
The communities that are dependent on timber sales from public lands tend to support the timber ind, & thus in the West many communities support the timber ind | |||||
Nearly 1.2 mm workers earn a living from forestry | |||||
The public's concern for the environment is linked to timber economics
as is seen in
- CA voters turning down the protection of old growth forests in 1990 - the gov of OR being threatened w/ recall after making anti industry comments |
|||||
|
Some old growth forests are in the non intensive forest mgt. areas because fire suppression has choked them off & reduced their value |
|
|||
Industry argues that forests are being locked up by no use advocates | |||||
Recent trends in forest mgt include the suspension of env laws in the forests so that timber may be salvaged | |||||
In the mid 1990s, after a severe fire season in 1994, Pres Clinton did not veto the salvage logging rider which suspended env laws in the forests so that burned timber could be logged quickly | |||||
Envists point out that
- burned logs help replenish the forest - the timber industry logged more than burned trees |
|||||
Envists claim that ind used the suspension of env logs to log in an unenvl manner & to take more than just burned trees | |||||
In the mid 00s, Pres Bush Jr signed the Healthy Forest Act (HFA) which like the salvage logging rider suspended env laws | |||||
Under the HFA, there is a suspension of env law similar to that of the salvage rider | |||||
Env laws are suspended under the HFA not because of the need to remove trees to be rapidly salvaged, but because of the possibility that trees may need to be rapidly salvaged | |||||
The ostensible reason for the HFA is to improve forest health because the suppression of fire has resulted in an unnatural crowding of trees & other foilage | |||||
The trend in timber mgt in the 1990s is not to roll back env laws, but to "temporarily" suspend them | |||||
Envists charge that the reason for the HFA is to allow more logging w/o the restriction of envl laws |
Links |
|
Links |
|||
The Sagebrush Rebellion (SR) is known as THE organized resistance in the West to fed public land policies | |||||
The SR is the name applied to a mvmt which gained momentum in the 1960s in the western US & especially in Nevada, to return control of fed lands to individual states | |||||
In Nevada, fedly managed & controlled lands totaled 87% of all land (Legislative Counsel Bureau, Division of State Lands, January, 1980) | |||||
The term SR can be applied to four different mvmts that have occurred since the 1880's, but it wasn't actually coined until the 1970's & generally applies to the Wilderness Lands Sagebrush Rebellion | |||||
The SR protests that over one third of all national land is administered by the fed govt & owned collectively by the people of the nation | |||||
The SR protests that most of the land is in the West & the proceeds from the land are supposed to go to public schools & nat parks, but it does not | |||||
The SR reached its peak pwr in the 1970s, & organized & viable challenge to env mvmt since the early 1950s | |||||
The SR was started to try & gain the land back from the fed govt | |||||
There was a populist mvmt & 11 state govts involved in the SR | |||||
The SRists felt the land was rightfully theirs & that they could better utilize the land through the exploitation of resources | |||||
|
The land that is the focus of the SR came into fed possession in one
of three ways, from the:
- cession from Mexico at the end of the Mexican American War (1848) - Great Britain in the Oregon Compromise of 1846 - Gadsden Purchase from Mexico in 1853 |
|
|||
During the 1970s, Nevada made formal requests for additional land grants from the Federal Land Law Review Commission (FLRC) | |||||
The FLRC's 1970 report to the Pres Nixon & to Congress recommended "retaining [land] in Federal ownership whose values must be preserved so that they may be used & enjoyed by all Americans." | |||||
To counter-act the FLRC policy, the SR mvmt, through the Nev Legislature created the Select Committee on Public Lands (SCPL) 1977 to change public lands policies & to seek out other states in the west who might want to join w/ Nev | |||||
Nev's SCPL attempted to form a coalition of western state & local govts on the public lands issue which was supported by the | |||||
- Western Council of State Governments
- Western Interstate Region of the National Association of Counties - which lead the formation of the Western Coalition on Public Lands |
|||||
Nev Bill 413 entitled the "Sagebrush Rebellion" bill was passed by the 1979 Nevada Legislature, | |||||
The Nev SR bill was designed to create a board of review & provide for state control of certain lands w/in state boundaries | |||||
Bills similar to Nev's SR bill were passed by other western states | |||||
In addition to actual legislation, the SR held that | |||||
- fed policies affecting the West were made in ignorance of conditions & concerns in the West | |||||
- policies were made for a so called national constituency w/o regard for Western problems | |||||
- "colonial" treatment was going to get worse as the West was called upon to satisfy the national's energy needs | |||||
- fed admins displayed outright animosity toward the West | |||||
Over the years, issues of the SR have included:
- allotments of grazing rights - mining development - military land withdrawal - closure of selected public lands to hunting & fishing - & more |
|||||
The objectives of the Sagebrush Reb are to
1. transfer land to the states 2. raise funds to meet / mount legal challenges in fed court 3. advance public ed to get western & all voters to support mvmt |
|||||
The SR lost its momentum which it thought it had gained in the White House until Reagan was elected in 1980 | |||||
Prior to his election, Reagan espoused support for the SR & w/ the support of the Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, it was thought that the SR would be a success | |||||
However, after Reagan won the presidential candidacy, he failed to push the cause & in 1983 Watt's resignation was the end of the support from the White House | |||||
|
Sagebrush Rebellion, Reagan & Watt |
|
|||
|
The SR thought Reagan/ Watt would help them |
|
|||
|
But the shrill attacks, esp by Watt, on the env & the env mvmt weakened the Sagebrush Reb because middle Americans rejected them |
|
|||
|
Reagan was quoted as saying that 'trees pollute the air too' |
|
|||
|
The SR also failed because state agencies lacked credibility |
|
|||
The SR also clashed w/ Reagan on the MX Missile System which would have taken more Western land & water & made it an even bigger target for a Soviet strike | |||||
The main cause of the defeat of the SR was the States' inability to estb the basic legal claim that the public domain truly belongs to the States | |||||
|
Success of Sagebrush Rebellion |
|
|||
|
The SR is not clearly a failure nor a success as seen in its mixed record that |
|
|||
|
- the transfer of land to states has not happened, but legislative battle continue |
|
|||
|
- legal challenges have not won clear victories, but since envl mvmt used the courts first to make policy, SR has countered this trend |
|
|||
|
- the SR has succeeded in public ed & thus most Western states have majority of Reps who are conservative on land issues |
|
Links |
|
Links |
|||
- Project: The Dangers of Public Policy Activism |
|
||||
Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (SLAPPs) are civil complaints or counterclaims, against either an individual or an org, in which the alleged injury was the result of petitioning or free speech activities protected by the 1st Amendment of the US Const |
|
||||
A 1988 study found a proliferation of legal actions to stifle political expression |
|
||||
SLAPPs are often in the form of civil suits against envists, citizens’ grps, or other activists to intimidate or harass them into silence |
|
||||
SLAPPs make it expensive to exercise 1st Amendment rights & participate in public debates |
|
||||
To promote their SLAPP, property owner would claim injury such as defamation, damage to a business, or a conspiracy |
|
||||
SLAPP Back suits attempt to counter SLAPP suits |
|
||||
The taking of land by the govt is limited by the 5th Amendment to the Const which holds that people should be compensated for whatever losses they incur as a result of the govt actions |
|
||||
For example, if a person can’t build on a wetland, log owl habitat, build on flood plain, etc. some people hold that such prohibitions are takings & should be compensated, but little has been done to regulate these limited takings |
|
||||
Because the govt has not generally compensated for regulatory or prohibition types of limited takings, people have employed SLAPP suits against citizens that petition the govt to intiate such actions | |||||
SLAPPs are often brought by corps, real estate developers, or govt officials & entities against individuals or orgs who oppose them on public issues |
|
||||
SLAPPs frequently come in the form of ordinary civil tort claims such as defamation, conspiracy, & interference with prospective econ advantage |
|
||||
While most SLAPPs are legally meritless, they effectively achieve their principal purpose which is to chill public debate on specific issues |
|
||||
Defending a SLAPP requires substantial money, time, & legal resources |
|
||||
A SLAPP diverts the defendant's attention away from the public issue & makes other stakeholders reluctant to get involved |
|
||||
A SLAPP also sends a message to all stakeholder that: you, too, can be sued if you speak up |
|
||||
Every year thousands of people are hit w/ SLAPPs for such activities as writing a letter to a newspaper, reporting misconduct by public officials, speaking at public meetings, filing complaints w/ officials, i.e. any of the activities available to an average citizen expressing her rights | |||||
SLAPPS may occur over violations of labor laws, health and safety laws, "whistle blowing" in corporations, organizing tenants, envl issues, LULUs, & more | |||||
SLAPPs are particularly serious because they are an affront to the 1st Amendment which protects the freedom of speech | |||||
Freedom of expression is an essential condition of democracy, but it is undermined when individuals do not have open access to govt meetings & docs | |||||
Efforts to improve access to govt involve such diverse issues as enactment & monitoring of state & local "Sunshine in Govt" laws & implementation of the fed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) | |||||
|
more on Web on SLAPP |
|
Links |
|
Links |
|||
Env'l racism occurs when environmental burdens are disproportionally borne by the disadvantaged | |||||
Poor areas are more likely to have locally unwanted land uses (LULUs) in their neighborhood | |||||
Powerless grps: |
|
||||
Many minority grps do not have personal or pol pwr to fight env'l degradation in their areas, e.g. placing toxic waste incinerator in poor neighborhood |
|
||||
Recycling centers, incineration facilities, dumps, & other env'ly dangerous facilities are more likely to be located in poor areas where minorities may live | |||||
It takes time, $$$, effort, knowledge to be able to fight a govt &/ private firms who seeks to put LULUs in poor areas where land is cheap & opposition is weak/ nonexistent |
|
||||
LANCER: THE LA EXPERIENCE |
|
||||
In LA, the Lancer Plant was expected to dispose of waste & generate elec |
|
||||
Local politicians attempted to put the waste incineration facility in a deteriorating residential area that was once a thriving ind'l & commercial area |
|
||||
In the case of the Lancer Waste Incinerator,
- 96% of the people at the proposed site were minorities - a public urban env'l grp emerged - emergent citizens groups questioned the health & safety - the city launched a $250,000 PR campaign in support of the incinerator - supporters eventually spent $12 mm & lost - anti-Lancer city council members were elected |
|
||||
In general, env racism occurs because unpopular or env'ly degrading dev such as landfills, incineration facilities, recycling facilities, etc. are place in minority enclaves or poor areas because these people have less power to oppose them | |||||
See Also: Recycling, incineration, dumps | |||||
Int'l env'l racism /imperialism |
|
||||
Today, dumping often occurs int'ly & has similar dynamics to env'l racism in that int'ly dumping occurs in those nations who have less pwr & influence to reg it |
|
||||
Poor, pol weak nations cannot resist govt &/ global corps who seek to use them as dumping, testing, etc. areas |
|
||||
Examples of Int'l env'l racism /imperialism |
|
||||
The "ghost ship" of Am garbage was dumped in a small nation in the Caribbean |
|
||||
Nuclear testing has gone on for decade on small Pacific island nations |
|
||||
Macquiladories are Mex indl border towns which have extremely poor envl qual because Am corps pollute in manner that is illegal in US | |||||
Trading the env for jobs | |||||
Note that all of the relationships such as dumping in the Caribbean, nuke tests, Am corps polluting in Mex, are perfectly legal | |||||
|
Local leaders portray the decisions to allow env'l harmful projects as job creating projects | ||||
|
Trading the env for jobs has five effects, including
1. env'l racism 2. world pollution 3. lower health standards for minorities & the poor 4. pol support from the people who fill the jobs 5. pol support from th politicians & corps who own the jobs |
|
|||
Causes of Env Racism | |||||
Env racism is caused by many of the same factors as racism in general, but it also has some unique causative factors related to the pwr dynamics of the placement of envly undesirable projects, i.e. LULUs | |||||
The causes of env racism may be considered to be institutional racism in that often they have no personal, individual, or racial animosity attached to them | |||||
Institutional racism occurs when social practices that are deemed to be just, never-the-less have a discriminatory impact on a particular grp or grps | |||||
Examples of institutional racism other than env racism include the last-hired, first-fired policy, some admissions policies, some hiring policies, etc. | |||||
See Also: Causes of Racism | |||||
One unique causative factor of env racism is NIMBYism | |||||
NIMBY denotes the "Not in My Back Yard" syndrome where people w/ resources opposed any env'ly degrading dev in their area | |||||
NIMBYism has taken on racial overtones | |||||
Another unique causative factor of env racism is a LULUs | |||||
LULU denotes the "locally unwanted land uses" syndrome where people w/ resources opposed any undesirable land use such as a Walmart | |||||
LULUs are dangerous, lower property values, but they often bring some jobs | |||||
NIMBYs & LULUs are disproportionately located near concentrations of minority groups: | |||||
Another unique causative factor of env racism is a NOMTIO | |||||
NOMTIO denotes the "Not On My Term In Office" syndrome where politicians will not make unpopular decisions in their term in office w/ relation to any env'ly degrading dev, or any unpopular decision in general | |||||
NOMTIO denotes that politicians will usually place env'ly degrading dev in areas w/ less political power, such as minority enclaves or the poor sections of an area | |||||
See Also: NIMBYs, LULUs, & NOMTIOs | |||||
|
Racism in Env'l Grps |
|
|||
|
Many have charged that the env mvmt represents diverse interests, but never-the-less does a poor job of fighting env'l racism & representing the env'l interests of minorities & the poor |
|
|||
Minority leaders believe that environmentalists do not share the same interests of the disadvantaged community | |||||
Environmental groups have been charged with racism | |||||
The environmental justice movement focuses on how environmental burdens are frequently borne by disadvantaged neighborhoods, Indian Tribes, etc. | |||||
In 1991, the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit was held to address the problems of env'l racism | |||||
The same criticisms of racism could be leveled against business/industry that opposes the env'l movement | |||||
Industry has not included ethnic grps or interests of the peripheral nation in the corp boardroom | |||||
They too are dominated by elites and wealthier interests than the population as a whole | |||||
Critics expect the env mvmt to operate by higher standards than other orgs | |||||
“Great Schism” gulf between environmental group leaders and the
grass roots members.
For example, dissidents in the Sierra Club accused the leaders of compromising goals to get legislation through Congress. |
Links |
|
Links |
|||
|
NIMBY stands for Not In My Back Yard, denoting that people don't want undesirable developments near them whether it be a motocross track, a toxic waste dump, a factory, or just a housing development |
|
|||
|
LULU stands for Locally Unwanted Land Use which denotes that some land uses are simply undesirable given the culture structure of the locality |
|
|||
|
NOMTIO stands for Not On My Term In Office & is the political form of NIMBY & LULU |
|
|||
|
NIMBY. LULU, NOMTIO, etc. don't only apply to envl projects |
|
|||
|
NIMBY & LULU usually refer to envl or land use issues but also may apply to any unwanted project, such as a factory, prison, mental health half way house, etc. |
|
|||
|
The causes of NIMBYism are: |
|
|||
|
- the fear that property values may go down & very often prop values do go down |
|
|||
|
- the distrust of corps & govt to run a safe operation |
|
|||
|
- "chemophobia" or related fear of pollution, toxins, radiation, etc. |
|
|||
|
Effects of NIMBYism |
|
|||
|
In the worst case of a LULU, local people organize in a united opposition |
|
|||
|
An organized NIMBY mvmt often results in rising costs for projects such as dumps, incinerators, etc. & thus project leaders today often take a hard line against any resistance, resulting in the polarization of the stakeholders |
|
|||
|
If an organized NIMBY mvmt encounters a resistant project team, this combination may lead to outright conflict & even violence |
|
|||
|
NIMBYism contributes to envl racism in that mid & up mid class people have the resources to oppose a LULU while wking & lower class people do not | ||||
|
Because of the ability of the mid & up mid classes to oppose a LULU, & the near impossibility of LULUs being located in up class neighborhoods, LULUs are often pushed into wking & lwr class neighborhoods |
|
|||
|
In the best case of a LULU, citizens are brought into the decision making process |
|
|||
|
In the best case of a LULU, citizen participation supplements trad reg policies |
|
|||
|
A LULU can transform public attitudes from NIMBY to one better informed on costs & benefits of project |
|
|||
|
An optimally managed LULU wins citizen support |
|
|||
|
An optimally managed LULU transforms a simple project, such as a landfill or an incinerator, into one that is more envly responsible |
|
|||
|
An optimally managed LULU might reduce need for the landfill or incinerator, etc. thru recycling, waste reduction, etc. |
|
|||
|
Examples of LULUs include cases of waste disposal such as: |
|
|||
|
- the "Ghost Ship" Trash Barge
- the "Train to Nowhere" Trash Train - Solid Waste Incinerators - the Yucca Flats, NV Nuclear Waste Repository |
|
Links |
|
Links |
|||
- Project: You are Where You Are |
|
||||
- Project: Social Structure of Rec, Econ Dev & Tourism, Rec Pressure |
|
||||
|
Most recreation groups (friends, bridge clubs, etc.) today are informal orgs that purchase recreation services from formal orgs |
|
|||
Leisure is being commercialized by many media orgs & small businesses | |||||
Rec & leisure is the fastest growing sector of the econ in many regions, & around the world | |||||
|
Informal Leisure Orgs include - friends, cliques, informal rec grps or teams, networks of friends, workers, etc. |
|
|||
Friendship circles form around various activities | |||||
Rec orgs, formal & informal, are often structured by gender in that men & women recreate in separate grps & in gender mixed grps | |||||
Informal female leisure orgs include:
- work grps - home, birthing, childcare grps - family extra curricular activities grps - ladies' night out grps - shopping grps - hobby grps, etc. |
|||||
Informal male leisure orgs include:
- work grps - family extra curricular activities grps - men's night out grps - hunting grps - hobby grps, etc. |
|||||
|
Formal leisure orgs may be large or small in that some rec grps are multinational conglomerates while others are single person businesses |
|
|||
Small formal groups may form around any leisure activity as discussed above, such as a bowling club which may be formalized & even linked to a nat level org | |||||
Media & entertainment social structures have a strong influence on all of society | |||||
|
The groups or orgs in rec; Most recreation grps (friends, bridge clubs, etc.) today are informal orgs that purchase recreation services from formal orgs |
|
|||
|
Positions: The positions w/in the soc struc of rec & leisure are often made up as the same friends in informal orgs; same as econ in formal orgs |
|
|||
The positions w/in the soc struc of rec & leisure are often made up as the same friends in formal orgs such as in econ formal orgs | |||||
|
Relationships: estb in the soc struc of rec & leisure are the often the same as friends & econ soc structures |
|
|||
|
Allocation of Resources: There is more $$ spent every day on rec |
|
|||
The History of the Soc Struc of Rec & Leisure: | |||||
|
In H-G society, separate spheres of wk & leisure were not recognized in that people made wk fun, & fun was work |
|
|||
In H-G society, festivals, parties, celebrations, etc. were all very important to increase cohesion & cooperation & to redistribute goods & services | |||||
In ancient soc, leisure is seen as a time of rest & societal rituals | |||||
In industrial soc, leisure develops as industry; people seek fulfillment through leisure |
Links |
|
Links |
|||
- Project: A SWOT Analysis of Tourism |
|
||||
Scope of tourism |
|
||||
By 2000, tourism was the largest single item in world trade
1 in 15 wkrs, or 150 mm, worldwide, wk in tourism The primary occupation in tourism are in the areas of - transporting - feeding - housing - guiding - amusing |
|
||||
Only 10% of Am have passports
Most tourism is done in people's home country |
|
||||
In 1970 there were 147 mm tour trips abroad
In 1995 there were 650 mm tour trips abroad In 2010 there are est to be 1 bb tour trips abroad |
|
||||
Int'l tourism is /\ in breath & so now 1/8 of all tourists go to peripheral nations in Africa, Asia, & Lat Am |
|
||||
Investment in tourism |
|
||||
Tourism requires only a lo cost infrastructure because there are no heavy plants & little hi tech equip |
|
||||
The cost of creating 1 job in tourism is < 20% that of mfr job & < 2% of the cost of a hi tech job |
|
||||
Effects of tourism |
|
||||
The effects of tourism are not always strong at the local level |
|
||||
The concentration of tourists in 20 affluent countries yields 70% of tourists |
|
||||
Transnat corps own many tourism assets such as hotels, tour ships, resorts, golf courses, amusement parks, tour agencies, ski areas, etc. | |||||
Because transnat corps own so many tourism assets, profits often return to core countries & do not go the the countries where the tourism occurs | |||||
Typically, only 40% of the cost of a tourist's trip is reaped by the local region in which the tourism takes place |
|
||||
If a tourist trip involves a foreign owned hotel, the port of the trip
reaped by the local region falls to only 25%
Who gets the $$ & why? |
|||||
Tourism often fosters econ vulnerability in the region or nation in which it occurs |
|
||||
All industries have some level of risk/volitility tourism, like all hi-end aspects of consumption depends on style & fashion & thus is especially vulnerable |
|
||||
Thus a tourist region may lose it's popularity & experience an econ downturn | |||||
Some tourist destinations are sought because of their remoteness & "natural" undev quals & thus are econly successful | |||||
Thus thru their own success, tourist areas become congested & thus less popular & experience an econ downturn | |||||
Example Mediterranean beaches were abandoned by the NW Euro
mid class tourists, who go to more distant, exotic locales
creating a 70% \/ in tourism on the Med beaches |
|||||
Various exogenous factors can affect tourism such as warm weather at a ski resort, a change in currency exchange rates, & political unrest in Ireland, the Mid-East, Africa, Lat Am etc. | |||||
Local benefits of tourism | |||||
Local tourism provides income to
- local hotel owners - tour guide firms - tourism wkrs |
|||||
Tourism can
- help sustain indigenous lifestyles, - help sustanin a regions cultures, arts & crafts, - provide wildlife preservation - incrase env'l protection - support conservation of historic buildings & sites |
|||||
Local disadvantages of tourism | |||||
Tourism can
- adulterate & debase indigenous cultures - foster unsightly dev - increas pollution - result in env'l degradation - bother or threaten local flora & fauna |
|||||
An example of the threat of tourism can be seen in the Caribbean where sewage poisoned mangrove trees & polluted the coast, boats & divers damaged coral reefs | |||||
An example of the threat of tourism can be seen in the Alps where 40,000 ski runs attracts tourists 10 time greater than the local pop | |||||
Tourism can
- support exploitative relationships - package lifestyles & regional cul for sale - strip the meaning from cul & cul artifacts - turn trad ceremonies into acts - turn artifacts are mfr not for original use, but as col items |
|||||
Alternative tourism | |||||
On an alternative vacation, there is an emphasizes self-determination, authenticity, social harmony, preservation of env, small-scale dev, use of local techniques, materials & arch styles | |||||
To be successful, alternative tourism must be aimed @ tourists who
are both
- wealthy & - env'ly conscious |
|||||
Alternative tourism is not a large mkt, but it is growing |
Links |
|
Links |
|||
|
Summary
Recreationists are networked into many groups, including outfitted recreators, motorized recreators, hunters, non-motorized recreators, water recreationists, tourists, businesses serving recreationists, recreational orgs, recreational corporations, the hotel industry & more |
|
|||
Rec'ists have become a major participant in the env debate as their influence has grown in society in general | |||||
Rec'ists use the env & they have resources to influence the env debate | |||||
Rec has grown rapidly in the last century to be come one of the major sectors of the econ in the core nations | |||||
Rec is expected to grow even more rapidly in the next century in the core nations as well as in peripheral & semi-peripheral nations | |||||
Today, people w/ disposable income, i.e. the middle class, want to recreate & they pursue that recreation at least in part, in the outdoors | |||||
In many areas that formerly relied almost exclusively on the extractive ind of logging, mining, etc., the econs are becoming more tourist oriented than extractive ind related | |||||
Tourism & recreation are becoming more econly powerful interests than the traditional extractive ind interests | |||||
As the mid class, as a class w/ disposable income, the rec'ists are willing & able to enter in to the env debate | |||||
Rec'ists often are in a mid position btwn Ind'lists & Env'lists |
|
||||
Rec'ists historically supported ind'lists; e.g. Teddy Roosevelt was avid hunter, explorer | |||||
In relation to forestry, rec'ists were the early conservationists & favored mult-use of land | |||||
Rec'ists support of env |
|
||||
Since mult-use policy has mostly been policy which supported ind'l use, rec'ists have occasionally supported env'list | |||||
Rec'ists may be seen as the gen public w/ a stronger personal interest in env | |||||
Tourism |
|
||||
Most tourism is less environmentally concerned than recreation in general | |||||
Tourism can be env'l costly & damaging | |||||
Some tourism, eco-tourism, is known to be env'l friendly | |||||
Rec orgs |
|
||||
There are many Rec related orgs | |||||
Almost all of the bigger ones consider env'l issues | |||||
But by & large they may be seen as ind'l in nature because they are motivated by profit 1st, env & indigenous concerns 2nd |
Links |
|
Links |
|||
Recreation & leisure is now frequently the major econ sector in many regions of the US & around the world |
|
||||
Rec dev often has major impacts on the env, as well as urban & rural areas in general |
|
||||
A typical pattern of rec dev occurs when an area that was formerly dominated by extractive ind or mfr ind transitions to an econ based on rec |
|
||||
The transition from trad forms of econ dev to a rec based econ is fraught w/ all the difficulties of econ dev in gen |
|
||||
See Also: Econ Dev |
|
||||
While the transition to a rec based econ is costly in human terms, the costs are also high in envl terms |
|
||||
For a town, city or region to transition to a rec based econ, these areas must frequently undergo some form of urban renewal which entails env costs & env benefits |
|
||||
There are costs to any new construction but often the transition from an extractive econ to a rec econ, for example a log mill to a downtown tourist center, decreases envl impacts |
|
||||
Dispersed rec can put pressure on flora & fauna as seen in the taming of buffalo, bears, & elk in many densely pop outdoor rec areas |
|
||||
Dispersed rec can put pollution pressure on pristine regions such as AK, Yellowstone, and the Smoky Mtn Nat Park |
|
||||
Even simply the sheer number of people in an area can have a major envl impact remote areas that have less than 5K people in the off season as indigenous peoples, may have 10 or 20 times that number in the peak season resulting in stresses to the natural env & to the human env |
|
||||
Rec pressure on the env, like pollution, may have point sources, dispersed sources or both |
|
||||
Dispersed source rec env pressure may occur from general tourism & recreation as a result of gen pop pressure such as large numbers of people hiking throughout a region | |||||
Point source rec env pressure may occur from large rec or leisure facilities in an area | |||||
An example of dispersed & point source env pressure on a region could be a multiseason resort which allows golfing, boating, skiing, w/ all the amenities | |||||
Dispersed source rec env pressure occurs in, for example, a four seasons resort because the resort will draw in large numbers of people who will hike, camp, explore, & simply populate the area | |||||
People are drawn to a major resort area, people who are members of the resort, as well as people who simply visit or vacation in the locale because of the resort activities, but also because of the plethora of other rec facilities that cluster around the resort | |||||
Point source rec env pressure occurs in, for example, a four seasons resort because the resort will take relatively large swatches of land for golf courses, ski slopes, riding parks, water recreation, housing, parking, etc. | |||||
While in general, rec econ dev has less env impact than extractive ind or mfr ind, rec does create env costs | |||||
The env costs of rec econ dev can be mitigated, & if they are not, they are much worse | |||||
Like any urban or suburban dev, if rec dev seeks to integrate itself into the local phys & soc env, the negative effects are much less |
|