This isn’t how I heard the case described on the John Batchelor Show. The guy wanted to landscape some wetlands and the water district said he could if he paid for wetlands elsewhere. The point the guest on the show made was that if the water district didn’t want him to do that, they should have just denied the permit. However, the district actually said it would be OK to do that, if he essentially bribed them. Since it would be OK if he bribed them, it should be OK if he didn’t bribe them. That was the initial ruling that was overturned by the state Supreme Court.
Two! Four! Six! Eight! We don’t wanna mitigate!!!
Thanks for explaining it simply. If it’s OK with a bribe, it should be OK without a bribe.
I saw him on TV the other day. At one point in the legal proceedings, his lawyers and the government lawyers were in an elevator together and one of his lawyers asked one of the other lawyers, “If it is so important to maintain the wetlands, why don’t you just buy the land from him?” and she said something to the effect that, “Why should we do that when we can get it for free?”