Back to the larger point, I am watching two minority communities get wiped off the map by the Nature Conservancy and (At the time) Obama administration in the name of a Marsh Refuge.
I deal with problems like this all of the time, and it saddens me to see self-proclaimed "conservatives" deriding government enforcement of other people's rights as oppressive government overreach. Government's job is to protect existing property rights. In many many cases I've dealt with in the past few years, conservatives spew hatred at the government for literally protecting someone's legally owned property, like a marsh or a wetland or a forest, from being devalued or destroyed by developers. They spin at as "liberal anti-growth policies", as if letting people steal from each other is somehow MORE American than protecting what people own from theft.
And yes, in some cases rural communities suffer. Particularly in cases where rural communities have sprung up in places where they do not have legal accesss to the land and resources they require to support continued growth. Telling those communities to get in line and do it the right way, without stealing from their neighbors, is about the most conservative thing we could do.
At this point the Nature Conservancy has eroded one towns tax base to the point it cannot continue to function. The other is halfway to that point. They declared 18,000 acres protected marshland, which hits 3 towns all together.
Without any details on the where and what you are specifically referencing it's hard to make definitive statements, but TNC operates under a free-market approach towards habitat conservation. I'm guessing what they've done here that you are objecting to is acquiring the rights to marsh land they deemed 'critical habitat' through a combination of gifts and straight-up pruchasing, then bundled that land together, possibly granting easements to certain donors.
This strategy isn't illegal or even unethical, though sometimes it has unintended side effects like reducing the tax base. You seem to be hating on this organization in particular - why?
I understand it is legal.
My town and farm are in the path of this thing. And where the Nature Conservancy goes, Fish and Wildlife is usually right behind them. Which will make this federally protected land.
From what we have heard these refuges start an economic death spiral. Flooding doesn't stay contained, wrecking homes. Crops are destroyed by animals hiding in the refuge. Any infrastructure improvements require 7 plans that don't affect the refuge. People refuse to buy homes in the area, driving values down.
I mean, if your retirement plan hinged on selling your house and moving somewhere only to find that it's losing value as you approach retirement, you would be angry too, right?
You are probably asking, "why did you agree to have this if it is nothing put trouble?" We didn't agree. A small group donated land to U.S. Fish and Wildlife at which point they decided 18,000 acre Refuge was in order. It seems to have been done opaquely and rammed through.
They insist their 18 year old Enviromental Assessment is still valid.
It has been officially open to the public but there is no "Land Protection Plan" available.
We had a nice conference about the river. Most state agencies described it as "one of the healthiest in the state. Except for the sand that is filling it in." When Fish and Wildlife was asked about the sand, they said "not our problem."
Should we aquire land around healthy rivers when there are damaged rivers that need those resources? Should we interfere with with people who actually take care of the environment? Should we envelope a river choking on sand in federally protected lands?
I'm not here to argue about the Refuge. It is simply a fact of life at this point. We will handle it as it comes. My point in telling you these things is that there was some downright Orwellian things happening with Democrats. That's why I understand they lost. Russia-gate has just enough information for people to fill in the blanks how they want.
And don't say "Republicans did x". They aren't any better but in this case they were the lesser of two evils.