Showing posts with label federal park. Show all posts
Showing posts with label federal park. Show all posts

Saturday, July 31, 2010

Hinchey's Land Grab


Paul Smart, editor of the Olive Press, our local penny saver, printed my letter this month attacking Progressivism.  I have had a multi-month debate in the letters section with Gus Murphy of Brooklyn (why a guy from Brooklyn reads the Olive Press I'm still trying to grasp) but this month I wrote on a different topic, Congressman Hinchey's insane federal parks proposal. Have the people of Ulster County lost their minds to elect someone like Hinchey?

Dear Mr. Smart:

Congressman Maurice Hinchey has proposed to turn the Hudson Valley into a federal park. Mr. Hinchey has a long history of advocating extremist environmental policies that bestow dictatorial powers on government administrators. Repeatedly, he has painted such proposals as moderate. He did this with respect to a 1990s bill that he proposed when he was chair of the State Assembly's Environmental Conservation Committee. The bill that would have set up Soviet-style planning boards that would have limited if not ended construction. He managed to convince the previously skeptical Adirondack Daily Enterprise that this idea was moderate.
Around the same time Hinchey said that he would like to restrain economic growth in the Hudson Valley. His plan involved setting up environmental regulations known as the "greenway". He and his fellow Democrats succeeded in their goal of deliberately restricting economic growth. Employment in Ulster County has grown at one fifth the national rate since 1992 when Mr. Hinchey assumed his Congressional seat (and by under two percent since 1990, less than one ninth the national rate of employment growth). Now, Mr. Hinchey aims to further destroy Ulster County's economy by eliminating the rule of law through a federal park that would serve as a Trojan Horse to introduce federal control of the region.

The notion of the rule of law is apparently unfamiliar to Mr. Hinchey's supporters in the Democratic media, which serves as a Hinchey-for-Congress publicity service. To refresh your memory, please allow me to explain how a federal park will eliminate the rule of law.

The concept of the rule of law is that law must be predictable and subject to change only through the gradual process of judicial decision making called stare decisis (judges' use of precedents to maintain a stable set of legal rules) or legislation. In America, the founders established a Constitution to establish but limit federal power. The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791 to clarify the limits. This was also done through the separation of powers across the branches of the federal government and federalism, the division of power between the states and the federal government.  Under the Tenth Amendment, rights not delegated to the federal government are retained by the states and the people.

Establishing a federal park would hand dictatorial powers to a park adminsitrator and abolish the division of power between federal and local control. It might also eliminate the separation of powers between the legislative and the executive branch in the sense that a parks administrator potentially would have unlimited power to make rules. Although the law might initially restrain such arbitrary power, the US Congress, in which Ulster County residents have scant voice, could change the law at will.  

More importantly, a park would eliminate state level rule of law, handing all decisions to a federal bureaucracy, in crucial areas like construction, land ownership, well digging, septic construction, fishing, hunting, wood burning, driving, smoking, eating, agriculture, establishing a business, building a camp, and virtually any other activity with any imaginable environmental impact. The park administrator could arbitrarily change the law. Even if that is not true in the beginning, Congress could endow the park administrator with new powers  over residents' protests.   That is precisely what Congressman Hinchey has repeatedly tried to do with respect to the hapless residents of the Adirondacks and Utah (he has repeatedly proposed a bill that would end development in 20% of the state of Utah) . Now he aims to do it to Ulster County.  Take a drive up to the Adirondacks and notice the poverty of the local residents there, courtesy of Congressman Hinchey, the Democratic Party and Mr. Hinchey's boosters in the Democratic Party media. 

Given Mr. Hinchey's recidivism in advocating radical environmental restrictions elsewhere there is no reason to believe that he has become an enviornmental moderate now. Moreover, there is every reason to believe that the parks proposal is a Trojan Horse.  During Mr. Hinchey's 18 years in Congress employment in Ulster County has grown at one fifth the national rate. You might ask yourself whether your economic welfare is of concern to him or to the radical environmentalists who motivate the parks proposal. 

But even if Mr. Hinchey is sincere that the legal effects would be minimal (which seems to be a contradiction in terms, for why else would he go through the trouble of establishing a park? To make up for the 15% of employment that he has destroyed since 1992?), the bill would effectively abolish the Constitution, federalism, stare decisis and local control of the land. Should Mr. Hinchey retire and environmental radicals lobby for strict restrictions on parks, the Hudson Valley Park could become a footnote to a major national environmental debate. Park regulations, laws, rules and dictatorial authority could be imposed without regard for Constitutional protections to which most Olive residents are so used that they cannot imagine life without them.

I have students who grew up in the Soviet Union and Communist China. If you want to learn about life where there is no rule of law, you can ask them. Or ask Mr. Hinchey's radical supporters in the environmental movement who likely have quite a few ideas about how to wreck your property's economic value and turn you into a serf. Just ask the long time residents in the Adirondacks (as opposed to the environmental radicals who have moved there in recent decades) about how wonderful Mr. Hinchey's parks proposals are.

Sincerely,

Mitchell Langbert

Thursday, July 15, 2010

New York City Looks at 440,672 More Acres in Catskills

The Times Herald Record ran an article today describing a major New York City initiative to purchase nearly 100,000 acres  (looking at 440,672 acres but actually planning to buy about one fifth of that amount). But is it a coincidence that Congressman Maurice Hinchey aims to turn the entire Hudson Valley into a federal park just as New York City buys ever more land in the Catskills?  I wrote this letter to the editor of the Times Herald Record:

Adam Bosch (July 15, "NY City Wants Control Over Another 440,672 Acres in Area's Watershed") raises several useful points but neglects to ask the $64,000 question: Is there a connection between Congressman Maurice Hinchey's proposal for a federal park in the Hudson Valley and the City's aggressive land grab in the Catskills? In 1992 then-Assemblyman Hinchey proposed a bill that would have established socialist-style zoning boards in the Adirondack Park. Mr. Hinchey has repeatedly proposed aggressive land-use controls for 20% of Utah. Now, he claims that his federal park proposal for the Hudson Valley cannot possibly lead to radical restrictions on property rights. Maybe not today. But acceding power to a parks administrator eliminates the rule of law. And such restrictions can be implemented down the road without public debate once a park administration is in power.


Is the NYC land purchase a coincidence? Might the intention be to turn the Catskills into an Adirondack-style park and squeeze Hudson Valley residents out via a gradually tightening pincers (City owned watershed land on one side, a federal park on the other), forcing the Hudson Valley's population south to New Jersey and New York City? This is very much the gist of UN Agenda 21, and UNESCO has already been given administrataive control of more than a dozen parcels of land within the borders of the United States. Is depopulation the long term plan for this region? Or is it just a coincidence that the City is grabbing land just as Mr. Hinchey offers the Trojan horse of a federal park?

Sincerely,

Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
Town of Olive Republican Commitee

Sunday, July 11, 2010

Five Louts Extend Invitation to Destructive Oaf

Mike Marnell, crusading publisher of the Lincoln Eagle of Kingston, NY, just sent me this press release.  Congressman Maurice Hinchey has a long history of camouflaging extremist environmentalism in moderate rhetoric.  For instance, he proposed to turn the Adirondacks into a socialist dictatorship run by Soviet-like planning boards, and was able to convince the Adirondack Enterprise that this was a "moderate" proposal. Likewise, he was able to convince stock trading maniac Jim Cramer that he really does intend to permit drilling of the Marcellus oil field.

***NEWS RELEASE***

July 2, 2010
Contact: Mike Morosi 
202-225-6335 (Hinchey)
Reps. Hinchey, Murphy, Tonko, Lowey and Hall Invite
U.S. Interior Secretary Salazar to Visit Hudson Valley
                Washington, D.C. -- Five members of Congress for New York's Hudson Valley have invited U.S. Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to visit the region as part of his America's Great Outdoors initiative.  U.S. Representatives Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Scott Murphy, Paul Tonko, Nita Lowey and John Hall asked that the secretary make the trip in order to learn about innovative strategies being used to conserve lands and waters for public benefit in the Hudson Valley.
                Salazar recently announced that he is touring several regions of interests in order to develop the America's Great Outdoors program, which aims to reconnect Americans to the outdoors.  The full text of the letter inviting the secretary to the Hudson Valley is below. More details about the America's Great Outdoors program can be found at: http://www.doi.gov/americasgreatoutdoors/ .
July 1, 2010
The Honorable Ken Salazar
Secretary
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington DC 20240
Dear Mr. Secretary,
As you continue to plan and develop America’s Great Outdoors program, we hope you will consider visiting the Hudson Valley region to conduct a listening session and learn about innovative strategies at work to conserve our lands and waters for public benefit now and for future generations. 
The Hudson River Valley is one of the most significant river corridors in the country. The historical, natural, cultural, commercial, scenic, and recreational resources spread throughout the region are unparalleled. Our region is home to a wealth of history and beautiful landscapes that inspired a school of art and fostered innovation that drove our nation's early economy. Today, the region is a model for the green job movement, with an emerging solar energy industry and a $4.7 billion tourism economy that is closely linked with conservation and outdoor recreation industries.
Currently, the Hudson River Valley is designated as a National Heritage Area, National Estuarine Research Reserve and a New York State Greenway. In addition, the House of Representatives recently passed legislation authorizing a National Park Service special resource study of the Hudson River Valley.
We applaud your effort to promote and support innovative community-level efforts to conserve outdoor spaces and to reconnect Americans to the outdoors. Stakeholders from across our region have been involved in exactly these types of efforts for many years. Whether it is connecting residents of the New York City metropolitan area to one of our country's greatest landscapes or working on a regional-level through the Greenway to conserve our historic, cultural and natural resources in the face of persistent population growth, the Hudson River Valley has been at the forefront of promoting innovative and cooperative solutions to our challenges.
We are confident that you will find many projects and partnerships that exemplify the America’s Great Outdoors agenda in the Hudson Valley and we hope that you will be able to include our region in your upcoming tour of the country.
Sincerely,
Maurice D. Hinchey
Scott Murphy
Paul Tonko
Nita Lowey
John J. Hall
##

Sunday, January 3, 2010

US ParksService's Alma Ripps on Maurice Hinchey's Hudson Valley Federal Park Proposal

Alma Ripps of the US Parks Service has responded to my inquiry concerning the implications of Congressman Maurice Hinchey's HR 4003, which would begin a process of federalizing the Hudson Valley, as follows:

Mr. Langbert,

Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding legislation introduced by Representative Maurice Hinchey, H.R. 4003, which would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of resources in the Hudson River Valley in the State of New York. I apologize for the tardiness in responding to your inquiry. As you can imagine, it is sometimes difficult to reach people during the holiday season to provide information.

The bill does not propose to establish a park in the Hudson River Valley, rather, it would (if enacted) initiate a study to determine whether any resources in the region meet the criteria for potential congressional designation. Such studies determine whether resources are nationally significant, suitable for inclusion into the National Park System, feasible to administer, and require management by the National Park Service versus being able to be managed by others. At the conclusion of a study (which normally takes two or more years), if resources in the region are found to meet these criteria, separate legislation would need to be enacted by Congress to establish a unit of the National Park System.

The Department of the Interior does not take an official position on pending legislation until a hearing by a congressional committee is conducted. To date, no hearing has been scheduled on this bill.

Since a study of the Hudson River Valley has not even been authorized, much less concluded, it would be premature to offer any conjecture on what the implications of establishing a unit of the National Park System in the region might entail. The first question, of course, is whether one or more resources would meet the criteria indicated above. Even when a study does determine that resources qualify for congressional consideration for establishment of a unit (although most do not), alternatives to National Park Service management must be explored and detailed in the study report.

Today, there are various models of units of the National Park System ranging from the traditional model where the National Park Service owns and manages a resource to those where we have limited or no ownership interest and work with partners for the continued protection of natural or cultural resources and to promote public understanding of their importance to the nation through education and interpretation. An example of the latter model is the Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area where we partner with state and nonprofit organizations and provide financial, technical and interpretive assistance. We also have affiliated areas of the National Park System which we do not manage, but provide financial and technical
assistance to those organizations that protect the resource. A study permits us to tailor the appropriate model to the resource(s), assuming that the criteria for potential designation have first been met.

Should a study of the Hudson River Valley be authorized by Congress, an extensive public involvement process would accompany the study since public support for any potential designation is a key aspect of the feasibility analysis. A study must also provide an analysis of environmental, cultural and socio-economic impacts of a unit of the National Park System should one be determined eligible for establishment.

Since you mentioned the Catskills and the Adirondacks, we assume you understand that the regulatory policies affecting those two regions were enacted by the New York State Legislature and are administered by agencies of the State, not the federal government. Currently, we have a cooperative relationship with the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area which was established by Congress in 1996. No unique federal regulations apply to this area because of that designation, although the National Park Service provides financial and technical assistance to the heritage area.

We hope the above information has been helpful and that you will understand that we are not in a position to provide detailed answers to your questions since we have not commenced a study of the region to determine if a unit of the National Park System could be established in the Hudson River Valley.

Thank you for your interest in the National Park Service. Please contact me if you have further questions.

Alma

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Will Cap and Trade Abolish Your Home Equity Value?

Jim Crum had sent me a copy of the Cap and Trade bill. Notice section 202, which creates a federal regulatory authority over home energy standards. The authority could not be controlled by state or local government. What would stop the regulator from establishing insulation standards that are so expensive that your home equity is reduced or eliminated? What would stop them from establishing regulations that force homeowners in rural areas to move to cities, creating large, empty parks regions? Might Congressman Hinchey's recent proposal to turn the Hudson Valley into a federal park dovetail with section 202 of the Cap and Trade proposal?

Monday, November 23, 2009

Congressman Hinchey Aims to Federalize Hudson Valley

I just sent the following inquiry to the National Park service. The Kingston Freeman reports that Maurice Hinchey aims to include the Hudson Valley in the federal parks system. The article is very vague as to the identity of the bill or what the effects would be on development, the ownership of firearms, hunting, and the sale of real estate. I have contacted Congressman Hinchey's office for a copy of the bill and have sent this inquiry to the National Park Service.

Dear Park Service:

I live in the Catskills about 25 miles from Kingston, NY. In the November 3 issue of the Kingston Freeman, a local newspaper, there was an article that stated that Congressman Maurice Hinchey has proposed a bill to turn the Hudson Valley into a national park.

I have a number of questions for you as the article was not descriptive of the effects of this policy.

1. What regulations normally accompany the establishment of a federal park in a developed region? Here in New York we have the Catskill Park, in which I happen to live, and the Adirondack Park. There are regulations that apply in the Catskill and Adirondack Parks that do not apply elsewhere.

2. Do you have a model or a developed set of regulations for another park region that would be similar to the regulations that would be put into effect should the Hinchey bill pass?

3. What would be the effect of establishing a park on economic freedom in the following areas:

--building houses
--building septic tanks
--sale of real estate
--liens on property not deemed environmentally acceptable?

4. Would there be an effect on construction such as limitations on the amount of real estate development, and/or restrictions on how sewage systems are designed, and/or limits on size, drainage and other environmental effects of real estate construction?

5. Would there be effects on hunting, the introduction of wildlife, the use of firearms and/or on fishing?

Thank you.

Mitchell Langbert.