'Sawgrass Rebellion' launched: Henry Lamb argues people come first in America

Re your post #79 - countrydummy, I think your post here is very heartfelt. Let me ask you something, because I believe you are sincere, just as I am. Forget for a moment the battle over private property rights. Pretend that no one in AAABEST's area will have their property purchased by the government, and everyone in his neighborhood is staying put. Now, let me ask you this:

Henry Lamb now says "People need water" for the very first time, in this latest article.
I am telling you a fact: SW FL has suffered from droughts. When there is not enough rain in the summer, as this past summer, people can not water their lawns, and they receive a fine for doing so. Other restrictions are also in place, and there is a serious problem for the entire SW FL region.

What do you and Hendy Lamb propose to do to solve that problem? Do you have a solution? One that does not involve the taking of any private property? If so, let's hear it.

And, let's hear it as soon as possible, because this area in SW FL is the fastest growing area in the nation, and has been for several years, and all resources have been strained by the influx of people.

What is your solution to providing necessary water to the growing number of people in this region, in light of the fact we have already suffered from droughts?

This is a sincere question. I am trying to point out to you that there are sometimes competing interests. The government is not always right, either, IMO. But, when there is no other solution proposed, and the govt has in fact proposed a solution, then, I am a whole lot less interested in Henry Lamb's rantings and ravings than I am in the on-going solution currently underway.

Well, here goes! This is the response Henry sent to me, and now I suppose it really makes for a good arguement ahh debate...:-)

I've read Summer's critique. He seems sincere, even if a little naive.
According to the Washington Post articles, which was linked in my article, as
well as other sources, no one knows whether or not the Everglades Restoration
Plan will achieve any of the stated objectives. It makes no sense to plow
ahead, destroying the lives and dreams of, perhaps, several thousand people,
to pursue a plan that has no better than a 50-50 chance of working.

As my articles stressed, the project is supposed to achieve three objectives:
flood control; water supply; and Everglades restoration - all prioritized
equally.
Environmental extremists disdain the first two objectives, and are using every
tool in their war chest to focus on Everglades restoration at the expense of
the first two objectives.

No doubt, some of the folks involved care less about Everglades restoration
than about keeping their homes from being bulldozed and their lands flooded.
There are obviously, different interests that are in direct conflict!

My point is that these conflicts should be resolved by local elected officials
who are directly accountable to the affected electorate.

The Everglades situation, though, was removed from local control long ago. The
main point of my articles has to do with the basis on which these land-use
conflicts are resolved. It is my contention, that free enterprise, and private
property rights should be the underlying basis for land use decisions - made
only by local elected officials - not "conservation" as it may be defined by a
currently popular vision of pseudo-scientific "conservation biology," and
promoted by wealthy environmental organizations.

State and federal governments are involved with the Everglades because the
project is said to be "too big" for local government to handle. Local
government could get whatever help it required, IF it still had the authority
to do so. But it's much too late for that now.

From my research to this point, it would seem prudent to stop the entire
Everglades Restoration Plan, and reconsider each and every one of the 52
projects, with all three of the equal priority objectives in mind.

Where condemnation may be necessary, it should be enforced ONLY by local
elected officials - no state or federal agency - and just compensation should
be calculated on the pre-project value, the value of the property had the
restoration plan never been advanced. Condemnation should be the last
alternative. Projects should be designed around existing property owners to
respect their free enterprise and private property rights.

Government should be far more concerned about protecting the property of
people, and meeting the water supply of people, than about the wildlife. My
view is directly opposite of that held by conservation biologists who believe
that the needs of non-human species must take priority of the needs of humans.

Here is exactly what is wrong with the Everglades Restoration Pland: it seeks
to satisfy both of these conflicting view points, which is impossible. Until
government can decide whether it serves the people first, or the varmints
first, whatever government does will be a mistake.

One does not have to examine the restoration plan very closely to see that it
is designed to achieve the objectives of The Wildlands Project. It appears
that the flood control and water supply provisions are compromise add-ons
necessary to get the funding and political support.
___

Thanks for posting that. You can tell Henry Lamb "he" is a "she" (*summer").

While "local control" sounds like the perfect solution to every single problem, I do believe the scope of the Everglades in sheer physical terms make it impossible for one set of local officials to make all the decisions on this project.

And, I disagree with him that "water" was recently added as a reason for this projecty - GW mentioned water long ago as the purpose of this project in the link I posted. But, frankly, it sounds as if Henry Lamb just now found out by my thread and said link that water restoration is in fact part of the project.

Finally, Henry Lamb does not say he is against condemnation in every instance, which may be VERY big news to AAABEST. In fact, I think Henry Lamb, on that matter, agrees with me -- these people should be trying to get the best deal they can get. So, again, I think Henry Lamb learned quite a lot from my post - and by reading GW's statement about water. Thus, Henry Lamb's new 180 U-TURN in this newest article.

And, I think Lamb is the one who is naive here. He is going to put these people who are about to lose their homes through a lot more heartache, instead of helping them get the best deal they can get by tapping into potential public support and a governor who strongly supports private property rights. Consequently, Henry Lamb is not a politcially astute leader, IMO.

Finally, I am sure the govt has reviewed a lot more research on the Everglades that Henry Lamb has seen or knows exists.

Good luck to him and all who follow him. As far as their current message and the route they are taking, I do not agree nor support them. I feel sympathy, yes, but -- I live here too and I want the water. I am sure the many people who live in this county and are not losing their homes feel exactly the same way as I do.

Yes, I am sad people will lose their homes, but not sad enough to risk losing my life and property in a drought all because some Golden Gate property owners do not believe the govt has the legal right to take their land. Sorry. The government is justified in doing so, and has a legal right to do so. Scream all you want, and protest all you want about that - you will never win my support if that is your topic. I gave you what I thought was a winning topic, for your own property rights, for winning public opinion, and for getting a governor on your side. Maybe when no one shows much interest in your cause -- which is currently called NO ONE IN SW FL DESERVES MORE WATER - JUST BECAUSE!-- you might reconsider your strategy. In the meantime, again, good luck.

BTW, I saw a woman on local news tonight who is losing her property to a new 6-lane expansion being built on Santa Barbra Blvd. She got 100 people to agree to support her. They are going to court. I was watching this in a public place and people nearby laughed at her and called her "uneducated" - because all she kept saying was "This is my home" -- well, the laiughter at her ensued because she did not seem to understand other people live here in this community too, and if her house is in the way of a needed six lane road, then local govt can get rid of her house legally. And, they are.

The people who laughed at her know, as I know, she will lose in court, lose her land, and the reason is because the local govt has the right to take it. She can cry, she can protest, and 100 people can support her, but, that many more people are rooting for the new 6 lane road being built -- and eagerly awaiting more water coming for SW FL. .

Finally -- FL has two additional electoral votes in the 2004 election because of the last census and the booming population. So GW and Jeb's concern over increasing the water supply is hardly window dressing, as Lamb feebly alleges.

summer, I suppose that was my fault, that Henry thought you were a man...so did I! I am not sure i understand "Golden Gate" as you are using the term, however, NO one should lose anything! and no the government does not have a right to do anything! I get so dang sick of hearing for the good of the all, and you are so wrong to think that this concept is really in the best interst of the all! Supporting such a concept will only further dissolve what you yourself hold dearly!

You also need to realize that this kind of infraction is happening all over the US! In rural areas! a little at a time to a few at a time, small pieces make for a big pie, Summer! Henry's point is the madness must stop and somebody has to take a real look at the big picture! Yes, everbody knows that some condemnation is needed, but not for all that the government is doing now! Read you history about what eminent domain was set up for in the first place! Article 8 of the Constitution.....the government was to own only the 10 acres of DC....not anything else!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, I do respect your thoughts and views, and I hate the defensive you took on the post by Henry....he is a very well educated person and he does do his homework....this is what he does....you and I both are amatures (sp)but I will tell you this, one day soon, you may well also become what I am called, a NIMBY---not in my back yard....sympathy is not enough to give if you ever want to keep what you hold so very dear....the land you help save today may well be your own tomorrow!

countrydummy, "Golden Gate" is an area of Collier County, FL where there is a $120 million buy-out scheduled by the govt of private property in this Everglades Restoration.

As for the big picture nationwide, you may have a very real and important point -- but, his protest also concerns South FL, where the bigger point is a need for water.

And, as Henry Lamb now suddenly points out, yes, sometimes the govt is justified in taking the land - those are his words in his reply to you, though I notice he never says that in any of his articles.

The question then is this: "Is the govt justified in taking this land in the Everglades Restoration?" I say yes -- unless, as I previously asked, you and/or Henry Lamb have a better idea to get the water.

According to nunya bidness, they know how to get water on Pine Island even in a drought. Very interesting, since the rest of South FL doesn't know how to do this, and fines are issued when there are drought conditions. Everyone suffers - even those who have a private well. nunya, Maybe you should write to GW and tell him why he is wrong to keep issuing statements from the WHite House about the bnenefit of more water for South FL. GW is relying on years of research by Army Engineers and others, and apparently, all their research is wrong according to you and Henry Lamb. You should tell GW.

As for Henry Lamb being more educated than you or I or others about the Everglades, I strongly doubt it, since he is only now acknowleding what GW said about the increased water benefit back when GW and Jeb signed the historic Everglades pact in January. Henry Lamb seems to me to be very slow in getting the message that there is in fact a real benefit to this project -- although, again, he now mentions it in this article (and yet still wants to protest). His new position makes no sense at all (yes a benefit exists, but, let's protest so no one can get it).

nunya, FYI -- From a Ft Lauderdale Sun Sentinel article back in January, which I have previously linked on other threads, and Henry Lamb sounds like he just now read from my links:

The president [GW] issued a statement saying, "The restoration of this ecosystem is a priority for my administration, as well as for Gov. Bush." The White House also released a "fact sheet," saying the restoration, while serving the 'Glades first, will still benefit those who live around them.

"When fully implemented, it will provide the region with an additional 1.7 billion gallons of fresh water per day, ensuring an expanded water supply to meet the growing needs of South Florida communities and farms," the White House said.

Neil Santaniello reported from South Florida. William E. Gibson, who reported from Washington, can be reached at wgibson@sun-sentinel.com or 202-824-8256.

Summer, I will not go any farther with this other than to let you know that I am recieving emails from folks that are begging for my help and all that I can do to help them keep their homes! This is what I will do! There is nothing I can do to change your mind, you are set in concrete....and as such, there is no changing your mind, however, your attacks on Henry are so far flung! You do not give credit were credit is do, you are just being concrete with your own ideas and assumptions! This is of course, your right. The point Henry is making is that at this time, this is not a "win-win" situation and all the rights of all the people must be protected! I don't care if they are rich or dirt poor or somewhere in between! Private property is the fountain head of all of our freedoms and too belittle this right, is the beginning of the destruction of all of our other rights!

If you can point me to the articles that show that flooding the Everglades will produce fresh water I sure would like to see them.

I don't have any idea what the plan is for flooding but it doesn't sound like the water is going to come from anywhere but the Gulf.

All that I've seen is the plan, as outlined by Wildlands, that reads like another case of UN Agenda 21 land grabbing. They take the land at the water's edge. Then they create corridors which link to inland parks.

Trust me it's happening all over this country.

But the most confusing thing is that you claim that this is about water and you mention a drought.

Pine Island makes water using reverse osmosis. Our source is the Gulf. It is the most practical way to provide water in a state that has a diminished aquifer compared to the rest of the country. Hell most of the Bahamas use either rain water or RO.

The reason the enviros always climb in to bed with the Feds is simple: the enviros can't grab the land for good because the states always prefer turning the land over to developers for housing which generates higher taxes so they plead the tired ESA BS and get the land permanently set aside.

So what is it in this case?

Article 8 of the Constitution.....the government was to own only the 10 acres of DC....not anything else!!!!!!!!!!

I don't mean to knitpick, but there is no Article 8 of the Constitution unless the copy I have in my hand is a forgery.

I do see, however, in Article IV, section 3:
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;

Can you please show me what you were referring to in your comment above about 10 acres for D.C. in the Constitution?

Someone asked me to take a look at this project, so I'm still doing research and have no opinion on the issue. However, I believe if we're going to use the Constitution as the basis of our argument, we should be accurate.

Thank you. I looked three times and still missed it! lol.

Article 8 of the Constitution.....the government was to own only the 10 acres of DC....not anything else!!!!!!!!!!

Article I, section 8:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;

I do not read this at all like you have interpreted it in your post above.

I see that Congress has exclusive authority not to exceed ten miles square for the specific purpose stated - Seat of the Government of the United States. It further states that Congress shall have similar exclusive authority over all places purchased by the consent of the state for military bases and other needful places.

It does not say that Congress is restricted to authority over only those places and for only those purposes.

Also, 10 acres does not equal ten square miles. ;)

Like I said before, I am undecided on this specific issue at the moment. I need to do more research. However, quoting the Constitution accurately is a must if we ever expect to have a firm foundation in our fight for liberty.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.