Conservation of our Inner Cities
I just read an interesting article from the Washington Post regarding the sale of private forest land in CA.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/20/AR2006032001595.html
I am a supporter of maintaining forests and conservations which enable wildlife to thrive. I appreciate the efforts of those that put the environment high on their priority list. My husband and I walked through the Muir Woods park in the San Francisco area a few years ago, and the beauty of that place made an imprint on my soul. It was breathtakingly beautiful and I couldn't get enough. It is my feeling that we need to continue to preserve land, and designated areas not only for wildlife to thrive, but for us all to enjoy and appreciate.
Now on to the real reason I'm bringing this up. Why I cannot just take something at face-value is beyond me, but the thing that entered my mind after reading this article, was why not take that money that would be used to conserve these private lands, and put it into the re-building of our inner cities? What would happen if we spent that $48 million that the Conservation Club is hoping to raise for the purchase of 16,000 acres in CA, on razing abandoned buildings and erecting housing in our inner cities? If the developers are saying there is demand for new development, and the conservationists are saying that we should develop somewhere else - why not focus our efforts on areas already developed? I can think of several places that could stand some improvement. This would solve both problems, and a few others. The conservationists would be happy to keep the percentage of forests from declining, and the developers - feeling pressure to develop - would still be able to handle the demands of potential homeowners for available/affordable housing. On top of all of this, the people currently living in depressed areas, would have the chance to see their neighborhoods thrive.
Now, how do we go about doing this, and is this already in-process somewhere? Anybody know?
Kill Bill?
If you could go to a website and access any bills that are scheduled to be introduced to the legislative body in your state, would you use it? If the information were organized in such a way that you could search for any topic, and find out whether there was any pending legislation,
how often would you access it? Do you think that laws are often passed under the radar of unsuspecting voters?
Playing Devils Advocate, do you think allowing the voters access to this information will only serve to slow down a process that is already bogged down with "red tape"? Do you think that it is better left up to the elected officials because of the notion that they are more versed in the lawmaking processes? Or, do you think that nothing will change much, with the exception that voters who may have concerns in regards to a specific issue will be able to get in on the debate prior to the passing of any laws?
I couldn't find anything like this on www.legislature.mi.gov website for my state, although they do list all bills and policies that have already passed. Does anyone know of such a site in their state?
Do Bird's of A Feather Flock Together?
Do you think that state's rights need to have a bigger part in policy-making? Consider the recent ban on abortion in SD. If the majority of voters there agree that there should be a ban, then what is the problem? Call me naive if you must, it wouldn't be anything new. I rather like being naive - it's like watching a movie that you know nothing about. You get an unbiased perspective.
I mean, I understand the underlying issues of the abortion debate, in fact I think that most voters do. If voters in SD feel that this legislature was something that collectively represented their views, then I guess I don't have a problem with that. I do see how that could open up quite the can of worms, however.
Think about this, and then I need to go. On any given issue, the voters of CA are going to vote differently than the voters in the southern states. The regions of our country are such because, "birds of a feather, flock together". Do you think it's right for the laws of one region to set a precedence for the others? Don't you think that each region should be governed by the rules set forth by the majority within that region?
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. In the meantime, here is a great Journal article about local politics. It is worth reading, especially the discussion on how the taxes we pay for our schools inadvertenly cause us to discriminate against lower income home owners.
http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/PSJan06MacedoKarpowitz.pdf
Enjoy!
-Keely
