forester licensing regs in Massachusetts
dhogaza at pacifier.com
Tue Dec 29 16:03:37 EST 1998
In article <19981229140838.11156.00003426 at ng100.aol.com>,
FourCubed <fourcubed at aol.com> wrote:
>>That's not quite what you said in your original post, though. If you'd
>>said what you mean in the first place, we'd honor your cranial capacity
>>by calling you fivecubed rather than fourcubed.
>Wow! A determinist utopian environmentalist! I sure hope Stephen J. Gould
>doesn't see your heretical judgement of a person based on such a
>mismeasurement as IQ!
Stephen J Gould does offer strong arguments in favor of the notion
that IQ, or any other single, measurement can not rank humans in
order of "smartness", whatever that is (defining it being part of
However, though he argues smart folks might register low on the
IQ scale due to cultural bias, lack of training, narrow range of
mental skills measured by the test, etc, he doesn't argue that
a low IQ proves one is smart, either.
So don't wear yours as a medal, yet...
>You are really are not doing much for your agruments by opening them with an ad
>hominem logical fallacy.
Ad hominem comments certainly don't prove an argument.
Nor do they disprove them. They are irrelevant. But fun,
when applied to true morons like yourself.
>When an individual goes out and buys a piece of property the use of that
>property is subject to certain restrictions set down by the existing land use
>controls, viz., zoning. Presumably, the property buyer bought this property
>knowing full well exactly what restrictions are placed upon it by the zoning
>laws, and will use the land accordingly.
Zoning laws are a modern invention, the applicable US Supreme Court
case was heard early this century.
Therefore, when the FIRST zoning laws were applied, the owners who
were in possession of the deed and title at the time had NOT bought
at a price reflecting the not-yet zoning laws.
The argument that these FIRST zoning laws were unconstitution is
the same used to argue against:
>So are you suggesting that now the
>land owner should be subjected to NEW government land controls?
NEW government controls.
>anyone want to buy land to begin with if, suddenly, at the whim of a government
>bureaucrat, the land could be wrenched away from him -- paid for or not?
First of all, the land CAN'T be "wrenched away". The Supreme Court has
set thresholds beyond which regulations are, today, right now as we
type, deemed takings. As long as the defined threshold is not crossed,
in general new (or old) regulations are not a takings.
You may disagree with the Supreme Court, but the last time I read
the Constitution the SC, not FourCubed, is the judge of constitutionality
in our country.
>I think it's common sense that this is clearly an unreasonable government
By the same logic, the very FIRST zoning laws would fall into the
You can't accept the very first zoning laws (which by definition were
new regulations on use) as constitutional, then turn around and
say new regulations are in all cases unconstitutional.
>Yes, there's emminent domain. Does a snail darter, a spotted owl, or an
>overmature redwood justify such a draconian government taking? Clearly, no.
It's not so clear to the Supreme Court. Again, it, not you rules
>>How is BUYING private lands, as suggested by Mr. Zorzin, unconstitutional?
>You're joking, right? This is not buying, it's TAKING. Is the property owner
>putting the property up for sale? No. The owner is FORCED -- by government fiat
>-- to sell his property.
But that is perfectly Constitutional. The 5th amendment disallows
taking without compensation - it does NOT disallow taking.
If you believe in the Constitution, you should at least read it,
don't you think?
>>Well, once upon a time that land wasn't zoned at all, and the current
>>zoning was imposed. You specifically state that you agree that such
>>controls already in place are constitutional.
>I never said any such thing. I said, "I am aware of the constitutionality of
>land use controls." That's an entirely different thing.
>The constitutionality of land use controls are continuously called into
>question in the courts ever since they began in Euclid, Ohio.
Called into question, yet upheld to be Constitutional. The only
issue is whether or not one must be paid for any loss due to
regulation, and sometimes payment is due, other times, not.
>It's curious that the eco-fascists are such vehement defenders of zoning laws
>in light of the widespread damage they have wreaked upon the environment. I'm
>talking about loss of species habitat from the "scourge" of suburban sprawl.
>Yes, zoning is the cause of unchecked suburban development, where,
>incidentally, most of the ecofascists prefer to live. (With their SUVs parked
>in driveway.) Hypocrisy abounds in the world of environmentalism.
I live in urban, not suburban, Portland because I recognize the harm
sprawl does. And my state is a leader in planning - statewide zoning -
designed to limit sprawl. The population in my state has also nearly
doubled in the last two decades - they have to go SOMEWHERE. Unless
you propose lining the newcomers up and shooting them, we must build
housing for them. The question is how to do so in a way that limits
sprawl, among other things, and my state depends heavily on state-wide
zoning to do so.
And it's Constitutional, so nah-nah-nah.
I don't own a SUV, and I telecommute so go into the office at
most once a week for the half-year I work there, i.e. about
twenty round trip commutes a year.
And I'm no fascist, asshole.
Note, too, that I don't have to defend zoning laws in order to
recognize that they are Constitutional.
>>So, the constitutional authority is simply that if the increased regulation
>>doesn't diminish use below this somewhat established threshold, then it's
>>not a "taking" and is legal.
>Have you ever heard of copyright laws. You should give Joseph Stalin credit
>when you quote him.
Copyright law has nothing to do with real property rights, a copyright
is a right to intellectually created property. And, being both in
the software and the photography business, obviously I'm somewhat
familiar with copyright law.
>>Here's news: the power to condemn (i.e. take by force, but with fair market
>>compensation), is also well-established as being constitutional in many
>>cases, at least.
>Again, when you quote from Mein Kampf, you need to duly give credit.
Actually, the quote's based on the fifth amendment of our Constitution,
that states that taking of property without compensation is not
constitutional, among other things implying that taking with
>>How is a proposal to BUY, at FAIR MARKET VALUE, such forests "draconian"?
>It is not a proposal to BUY. It is a proposal to TAKE.
With compensation, i.e. buy at fair market price. Perfectly
Constitutional, no matter what you may want to believe.
I'm done, this is silly.
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net
More information about the Ag-forst