Over on his web site, Snohomish County Council candidate Steve Dana criticizes current councilman Dave Somers over the conversion of farmland to swamp. This is something that's annoyed me for a long time: apart from the lunacy of spending so much taxpayer money creating "habitat," it is removing something we need much more -- farmland -- and is doing it in a way that harms other property, and, in this case, causes tens of millions of dollars of damage to utility infrastructure that is going to be passed on to ratepayers.
And Dave Somers says that for the sake of habitat, it's all worth it. Call me crazy, but, no. It's not. Really. Habitat is not worth any of those things by itself: not the millions to create it, not the violations of property rights, not the loss of farmland, and not the increased costs for electricity. And it's certainly not worth all of that together.
I know to some people, no cost is too high for the sake of habitat. But those people are nutjobs.
Posted by pudge at October 02, 2009 10:42 PM | Email ThisIt's a little late for anyone in King County to show concern for preserving farmland, except perhaps in the Snoqualmie Valley. Pierce County, too, for what is happening in the Puyallup Valley. But it's not too late to stop developers and environmental swamp kooks in Snohomish County. Say no to swamps.
Posted by: Saltherring on October 3, 2009 06:23 AM
"Dave Somers says that for the sake of habitat, it's all worth it." Really?
Cuz it took 2 minutes to find an actual quote.
Dana: "I put people first. I think Councilman Somers puts fish first." Somers: "Well, that's ridiculous."
Somers said he favored a balance that allowed more people to move to the area, but still enjoy outdoor pastimes such as fishing.
But, I'd love to see Somer's actual response to questions about the costs and benefits of wetland restoration. Have any?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on October 3, 2009 08:25 AMBut an intellectually honest discussion of such antics must also address the brutal politics of the confiscation of private property to provide those statists with their unspoiled scenery - at the expense of the underlying property owner.
Statist brutality is always wrong. It could be alleviated to some extent by proper Fifth Amendment compensation to the owners who've lost the economic use of their own property.
But the statists since the 1970s have simply acted as urban imperialists and seized those property rights for their own benefit, jeering 'we won' to the owners as payment.
Constitutions aint what they used to be.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on October 3, 2009 12:50 PM"It could be alleviated to some extent by proper Fifth Amendment compensation to the owners who've lost the economic use of their own property.
Constitutions aint what they used to be."
Alternatively, your knowledge of the US Constitution is the same as it ever was. :-D
It sure beats having the feds sell flood insurance to developers, having them cover the valley floor in warehouses like in the Kent Valley, and then when the inevitable floods come, having the taxpayer have to bail out all the "flood victims."
Cheers everybody,
new left conservative 1
What I like most about Dana is he is intelligent and serious about solving problems, and is an experienced local councilman. He is not partisan or ideological. If he can get this across, and hurt Somers a little here and there, he can win.
I have no problem with property taxes going to pay for schools, police, fire etc in my area, but the above two extra levies should be eliminated.
Posted by: Palouse on October 5, 2009 09:42 AM