PDA

View Full Version : For/Against this Everglades Restoration?




Mesogen
06-24-2008, 10:22 AM
Basically, the state of Florida is buying a load of land from U.S. Sugar. It will then make this public lands and try to restore the Everglades and manage them like a wildlife refuge.

Do you see this as a good thing or a bad thing?

Just curious.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1817390,00.html


At a news conference Tuesday, scheduled for 10:30 a.m. near the imperiled "River of Grass", Governor Crist is expected to announce a $1.75 billion deal to essentially buy the U.S. Sugar Corporation, including 187,000 acres of farmland that once sat in the northern Everglades. If the deal goes through (and though the announcement will be taking place, the deal isn't set in stone), it will extinguish a powerful 77-year-old company with 1,700 employees and deep roots in South Florida's coal-black organic soil. It will also resurrect and reconfigure a moribund 8-year-old Everglades replumbing effort that is supposed to be the most ambitious ecosystem restoration project in the history of the planet.

"It's mind-blowing," said Kirk Fordham, the executive director of the Everglades Foundation. "Who would have thought we'd see this in our lifetimes?"

The purchase would give the state control of nearly half the 400,000 acres of sugar fields in the Everglades Agricultural Area below Lake Okeechobee, although sources said U.S. Sugar would lease back its land for several years. Environmentalists hope that eventually, the area will become storage reservoirs, treatment marshes and perhaps even a flowway reconnecting the lake to the Glades. This could help recreate the original north-to-south movement of the "River of Grass", and eliminate damaging pulses of excess water into coastal estuaries. That would be good news for panthers and gators, dolphins and herons, ghost orchids and royal palms.

But wait, there's more.


U.S. Sugar currently produces 9% of America's sugar — thanks to a massive federal water-control project that its executives helped design, and a lucrative federal sugar program that artificially boosts its prices. The company has always been popular in its headquarters of Clewiston, "The World's Sweetest Town," but labor activists have accused it of mistreating its workers, and environmental activists constantly blame the firm for ravaging the Everglades.

Should U.S. Sugar corporation be able to develop the land and plant condos on it, or should the government be allowed to keep it off limits and restore it to something close to what it used to be, marshlands?

Maverick
06-24-2008, 10:28 AM
Eh, better than the land being in the Fed's hands.

pcosmar
06-24-2008, 10:32 AM
If they do this will they take Miami back and turn it back into swampland?

You do know that the entire region that is Miami (and surrounding area) was swamp.

What is the difference?

moostraks
06-24-2008, 10:43 AM
Seems like something that should be left to the residents of Florida to decide....

nate895
06-24-2008, 11:16 AM
Seems like something that should be left to the residents of Florida to decide....

+1

constitutional
06-24-2008, 11:35 AM
Yup, I don't live in Florida so I have no say in this. And furthermore I lack knowledge about Florida to decide whats best. Just like the all-powerful retards in Washington D.C. who lack knowledge on of my area and its people thousand miles away.

Kludge
06-24-2008, 11:52 AM
Organizational concepts are not allowed to purchase land, it is the right of individuals.

Carole
06-24-2008, 12:37 PM
No, no, no.... and NO.

This is just more of the incremental taking of all the parks in America from the people. They all being given over to the UN Heritage group.

This will lead to new laws to rob us of our freedoms. Incrementally the UN will be used in end runs around iour Constitution just as is happening now.

Example: It is not safe to have guns in parks-End run around our Constitution to ban guns on all "Federal" / UN lands. And on, and on........


Our National Parks Now Belong to United Nations
http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/Rockefeller_UN_National_Parks.html

Federal Lands in the US
http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/291-federal-lands-in-the-us/

Who owns yellowstone national park?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_owns_yellowstone_national_park

"World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves Fact Sheet”
United Nations Gaining Control Over American Historical Landmarks
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA294.html

Should state gun laws apply to national parks?
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/16/should-state-gun-laws-apply-to-national-parks/

Mesogen
06-24-2008, 12:44 PM
Carole,

I don't think this land is currently being used as a park. Right now, it is fields of sugarcane.

To me, this looks like a bail out disguised as environmentalism. This company is well-connected and has been on the public dole for quite some time. Seems to me that this company wasn't doing well and the future looked bleak, so they arranged to have their land bought out at a premium and close up shop. I just can't imagine that the politicians and the corporate types got together and decided to give a bunch of land back to gators and herons.

Anyway, it all seems crooked to me, but if the land really does become biologically rich, then that would be a plus in my book.

Carole
06-24-2008, 12:59 PM
The fight against government land ownership
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43824

Mesogen
06-24-2008, 03:43 PM
Well, I think this would be the state "owning" the land and not the Federal government.

But, Carole, do you believe there should be such a thing as "public land?"

youngbuck
06-24-2008, 06:30 PM
I'm with Carole on this one. The gov't owns way too much land as it is, the it'll eventually be transferred into the UNs hands.

asgardshill
06-24-2008, 06:33 PM
If they do this will they take Miami back and turn it back into swampland?

You do know that the entire region that is Miami (and surrounding area) was swamp.



So was Washington DC - now THAT's the one they need to convert back to a swamp.

pcosmar
06-24-2008, 06:38 PM
So was Washington DC - now THAT's the one they need to convert back to a swamp.

It's NOT? Everything seems to get mired down there.

asgardshill
06-24-2008, 06:41 PM
It's NOT? Everything seems to get mired down there.

Touche'. But a few trillion malaria- and West Nile-carrying mosquitoes added to the mix would sure speed things along.

Time for Change
06-24-2008, 07:34 PM
This acquisition simply assists the cuban owned Flo-Sun, Inc to eliminate the local competition, and not have to pay for it.

The state is overpaying grossly.

Very touchy subject...

US Sugar was brought to life by a pioneering AMERICAN, not a self serving campaign contributing cuban.
That family receives MILLIONS in government handouts every year and has the clout to personally call the Clintons while they were in office.

I don't see the Fanjul family offering up any land.
This is a scam, favoritism (though not outwardly obvious to most), and just plain wrong.

Hell NO, use the money for something more beneficial to society, not assisting foreigners to eliminate their competition and shore up their subsidized monopoly and extravagant lifestyle.

AND YES, if we cannot stop the scam...flood miami, there are few americans left there anyway. They can grab the flag on the way out and let the waters flow :D

mediahasyou
06-25-2008, 06:53 PM
Organizational concepts are not allowed to purchase land, it is the right of individuals.

However, Individuals of organizational concepts may.