Opposing a wildlife refuge.

[gentmach]

http://www.daily-journal.com/sports/outdoors/farm-bureau-targets-kankakee-river-preserve/article_134c3b68-416c-52f4-8494-f67dfd2f9b2a.html

Okay, we recently found out that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service aims to create a wildlife refuge in our area. Problem is they plan on taking enough acreage to take 79 million dollars out of the local economy, devastating the area. That figure does not include small businesses and homes that will be bulldozed.

The newspaper link talks about the history of the project and why it was halted in the 90's. It also helps outline some of the shady things the government has done to try to make this happen. (No new environmental assessment, lies about tourism, use of straw buyers and manipulation of people.)

The biggest problem is that this is federal level and will require more people to help stop it. Any ideas of other things we can do will be appreciated.

[gentmach]

Okay, so we have had some movement on this since I posted. Be sure to give it a read and share it because there is more than enough to dislike about this no matter your political leaning. And we have a chance to do something this time around.

Scan0001.jpg is the hand out we received from our local Farm Bureau people. They list the majority of concerns.

The Highlights.

• Fish and Wildlife refuse to do a new Environmental Impact Survey and insist that the 17 year old one is good enough.
• (At The Time) Lack of a way to comment on the project.
• A Government 20 Trillion in Debt some how has the money to buy land.
• This will remove 43 Million dollars out of our local economy.
• It will cause flooding as drainage ditches are destroyed.
• They will only pay 3/4 of 1 percent in taxes when funds are available to pay.
• This refuge has been established against the will of the people.

So now we can act. We have the opportunity to say "No" to the government til December 31st.

https://www.fws.gov/Midwest/Planning/Kankakee/index.html

That is the link to the Refuge planning page. At the bottom is the r3planning email address and send them a "No". That is all that is needed. If you wish to comment on it, you are welcome to it, but a No is required.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

I'm not sure which email you refer to, and are you looking for anyone or just people that live nearby?

[gentmach]

Go to the NWS page I linked to. I'll edit it so that it makes sense.

And I believe anyone can comment. The way they have operated in the past is get environmentalists from a large city to write in for supporting it. Also they supposedly went to schools to have children write in with support. (We had guys from Cypress Creek come and talk to us about the Refuge that was created in their town. That's one of the things they told us.)

My point is, anyone and everyone can comment.

[iris lily]

Dealing with the Federal government turned me from a Democratic to a Republican
 supporter years ago. That doesnt mean I voted for Orange Man or  Pantsuit, though.

I will never forget the moment of seeing my flower garden, land I own, included on a HUD minion's map of land availabe to build public housing. It was a defining  moment of my life. I showed myself out the door of the Democrat room and joined the Other side.

I doubt that you will find much support for your cause here, the lack of federal growth is only popular in the abstract.

[ncornilsen]

Go to the NWS page I linked to. I'll edit it so that it makes sense.

And I believe anyone can comment. The way they have operated in the past is get environmentalists from a large city to write in for supporting it. Also they supposedly went to schools to have children write in with support. (We had guys from Cypress Creek come and talk to us about the Refuge that was created in their town. That's one of the things they told us.)

My point is, anyone and everyone can comment.

I sent in a letter indicating my lack of support for this project.

Wildlife refuges in my state have been a major problem for everyone around them, but the urbanites support them since they can enjoy them and go home without suffering the consequences.

[gentmach]

Go to the NWS page I linked to. I'll edit it so that it makes sense.

And I believe anyone can comment. The way they have operated in the past is get environmentalists from a large city to write in for supporting it. Also they supposedly went to schools to have children write in with support. (We had guys from Cypress Creek come and talk to us about the Refuge that was created in their town. That's one of the things they told us.)

My point is, anyone and everyone can comment.

I sent in a letter indicating my lack of support for this project.

Wildlife refuges in my state have been a major problem for everyone around them, but the urbanites support them since they can enjoy them and go home without suffering the consequences.

Thank you sir.

And to the post above: Part of my farm is shown as part of the established conservation area's. It slammed me to the Republican side.

But I am throwing stuff at the walls to see what sticks. I have to at least try. Also start sharing it a little. Nobody knows these things are happening.

[Renegade23]

Go to the NWS page I linked to. I'll edit it so that it makes sense.

And I believe anyone can comment. The way they have operated in the past is get environmentalists from a large city to write in for supporting it. Also they supposedly went to schools to have children write in with support. (We had guys from Cypress Creek come and talk to us about the Refuge that was created in their town. That's one of the things they told us.)

My point is, anyone and everyone can comment.

I sent in a letter indicating my lack of support for this project.

Wildlife refuges in my state have been a major problem for everyone around them, but the urbanites support them since they can enjoy them and go home without suffering the consequences.

Thank you sir.

And to the post above: Part of my farm is shown as part of the established conservation area's. It slammed me to the Republican side.

But I am throwing stuff at the walls to see what sticks. I have to at least try. Also start sharing it a little. Nobody knows these things are happening.

I'm just curious about you guys saying that this stuff made you become Republicans. Were you ok with the government taking other people's land, but when they come after yours its not ok? Otherwise I don't see why it would affect your political views.

Either government appropriation of land is ok, or its not.

[gentmach]

Go to the NWS page I linked to. I'll edit it so that it makes sense.

And I believe anyone can comment. The way they have operated in the past is get environmentalists from a large city to write in for supporting it. Also they supposedly went to schools to have children write in with support. (We had guys from Cypress Creek come and talk to us about the Refuge that was created in their town. That's one of the things they told us.)

My point is, anyone and everyone can comment.

I sent in a letter indicating my lack of support for this project.

Wildlife refuges in my state have been a major problem for everyone around them, but the urbanites support them since they can enjoy them and go home without suffering the consequences.

Thank you sir.

And to the post above: Part of my farm is shown as part of the established conservation area's. It slammed me to the Republican side.

But I am throwing stuff at the walls to see what sticks. I have to at least try. Also start sharing it a little. Nobody knows these things are happening.

I'm just curious about you guys saying that this stuff made you become Republicans. Were you ok with the government taking other people's land, but when they come after yours its not ok? Otherwise I don't see why it would affect your political views.

Either government appropriation of land is ok, or its not.

It was never okay for me. I always described myself as Libertarian-esce. I think it just made it more personal and realized that I was going to have to get involved in politics.

It was more of an eye opening experience that you don't understand until it happens.

[A mom]

So how do you feel about the government taking people's land for oil pipelines like the Dakota Access pipeline, then?

[gentmach]

So how do you feel about the government taking people's land for oil pipelines like the Dakota Access pipeline, then?

I think the government should not be taking anyone's land at all. The power could be abused far too often and dressed up as a positive.

The idea that a government bureaucrat hidden in the depths of the executive branch far from accountability has the money and resources to uproot thousands of people is disturbing to me. I mean, we are a small farming community that is minding it's business. What if it was an LGBT neighborhood or some other group that the government considered "problematic?" Because they are using economic pressure, most American's aren't paying attention because "It's the free market." We will not have some big clash with the government over this. The lights will gradually go out one by one until we are consumed.

So no. The government should not have that kind of power.

[soupcxan]

So how do you feel about the government taking people's land for oil pipelines like the Dakota Access pipeline, then?

The pipeline is underground. No one is losing their land as a result of it.

[iris lily]

Dealing with the Federal government turned me from a Democratic to a Republican
 supporter years ago. That doesnt mean I voted for Orange Man or  Pantsuit, though.

I will never forget the moment of seeing my flower garden, land I own, included on a HUD minion's map of land availabe to build public housing. It was a defining  moment of my life. I showed myself out the door of the Democrat room and joined the Other side.

I doubt that you will find much support for your cause here, the lack of federal growth is only popular in the abstract.

So how do you feel about the government taking people's land for oil pipelines like the Dakota Access pipeline, then?

Two issues: 1) taking land and 2) what they plan to do with it.

In the abstract, sure, gubmnt at all levels sometimes has to make land grabs for the good of all.
 And no it is not a black or white issue in answer to above, there are complexities and nuances.

The federal government took every opportunity it could to fxck over my neighborhood in recent decades, over and over. Placing yet even more public housing units in our midst is wrong, given that there are  constant barrage of crime coming from the existing concentrated public housing two blocks away.

And then,  during the housing runup when the edges of my neighborhood could have been built up because FINALLY our neighborhood was in demand, the feds put a blanket hold on every vacant piece of land in the area, land owned by the city. The feds wanted it held for them in case they decided to use it. So, no developers could touch it.

They never built anything on it, the housing crash came, and the lots once again sat vacant until they were released when the feds evidently decided there wasnt any more pork money coming to St. Louis Housing Authority.

 Only in recent years have developers come forward to build on theselots, but that is fine, it is happening despite action of the federal government.

[Lagom]

I agree a lot of that sounds pretty crappy and I'm sorry you had to deal with it, but it's not like the Republicans can be trusted not to misappropriate land for their own uses. Granted, it's more likely to be destroying national parks (or Indian Reservations) in the name of oil profits, but I personally wouldn't vote for either party if eminent domain was my big issue.

And let's at least acknowledge that things like low income housing are complicated issues that NIMBYs of all stripes (including many Democrats) are often exacerbating. I mean, I'm not saying I would be thrilled at having such a development be built next door to my house, but living in the Bay Area, I very much feel for the poor, who are increasingly priced out of the area primarily because the tech elite refuses to allow higher density housing in the name of their phony "open spaces" initiatives. If you expect me to empathize with rural middle americans, I challenge you to extend the same courtesy to the urban working poor.

Anyway, to reiterate, I agree you both were served a shit sandwich. I would just hope that you use your experience not to "switch sides" mindlessly, but to assess whether you should be supporting either side at all. Unfortunately, neither major party is ever going to offer anything better unless we manage to actually get a change candidate into office (hint: it's not Trump).

[gentmach]

I agree a lot of that sounds pretty crappy and I'm sorry you had to deal with it, but it's not like the Republicans can be trusted not to misappropriate land for their own uses. Granted, it's more likely to be destroying national parks (or Indian Reservations) in the name of oil profits, but I personally wouldn't vote for either party if eminent domain was my big issue.

And let's at least acknowledge that things like low income housing are complicated issues that NIMBYs of all stripes (including many Democrats) are often exacerbating. I mean, I'm not saying I would be thrilled at having such a development be built next door to my house, but living in the Bay Area, I very much feel for the poor, who are increasingly priced out of the area primarily because the tech elite refuses to allow higher density housing in the name of their phony "open spaces" initiatives. If you expect me to empathize with rural middle americans, I challenge you to extend the same courtesy to the urban working poor.

Anyway, to reiterate, I agree you both were served a shit sandwich. I would just hope that you use your experience not to "switch sides" mindlessly, but to assess whether you should be supporting either side at all. Unfortunately, neither major party is ever going to offer anything better unless we manage to actually get a change candidate into office (hint: it's not Trump).

Actually, the towns beat this thing 20 years ago when Bill Clinton was in office. Then it appeared again in Obama's twilight months. I understand your point though. The best we can hope for is they stick by their "Only Willing Buyers" rule and have no one sell.

But at the National Wildlife Service meeting one of their chiefs said they would do a new environment impact survey. Today we learned that they will not be doing that. So they are also ducking the EPA on this issue.

It's fun when people get to change the rules mid game.

[snacky]

Call your ombudsman.

[gentmach]

Call your ombudsman.

Actually... This is a good idea.

[Kris]

So how do you feel about the government taking people's land for oil pipelines like the Dakota Access pipeline, then?

The pipeline is underground. No one is losing their land as a result of it.

The whole reason this even has to be fought is that the pipeline is being put through land that USED to belong to the tribe, before the government stole it from them in 1958. So yeah, someone is losing their land. And now because of that, their water supply is at risk.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

So how do you feel about the government taking people's land for oil pipelines like the Dakota Access pipeline, then?

The pipeline is underground. No one is losing their land as a result of it.

The whole reason this even has to be fought is that the pipeline is being put through land that USED to belong to the tribe, before the government stole it from them in 1958. So yeah, someone is losing their land. And now because of that, their water supply is at risk.

Government takes land from a tribe, that's stealing and a problem.  Government takes land from a local community, that's OK.  I don't think either is OK, but I can make a better argument for confiscating property of a conquered people than I can for confiscating property of citizens whose rights the government exists to protect.

[gentmach]

So how do you feel about the government taking people's land for oil pipelines like the Dakota Access pipeline, then?

The pipeline is underground. No one is losing their land as a result of it.

The whole reason this even has to be fought is that the pipeline is being put through land that USED to belong to the tribe, before the government stole it from them in 1958. So yeah, someone is losing their land. And now because of that, their water supply is at risk.

I understand that the Dakota Pipeline is an issue that runs parallel to mine but I feel we are getting off topic. I do not want this thread to get locked.

If you would write your respective members of Congress it would be appreciated. Or comment on the Refuge using the email.

We need to show the government that taking people's land is not acceptable no matter how they do it.

[A mom]

So how do you feel about the government taking people's land for oil pipelines like the Dakota Access pipeline, then?

The pipeline is underground. No one is losing their land as a result of it.

The whole reason this even has to be fought is that the pipeline is being put through land that USED to belong to the tribe, before the government stole it from them in 1958. So yeah, someone is losing their land. And now because of that, their water supply is at risk.

I understand that the Dakota Pipeline is an issue that runs parallel to mine but I feel we are getting off topic. I do not want this thread to get locked.

If you would write your respective members of Congress it would be appreciated. Or comment on the Refuge using the email.

We need to show the government that taking people's land is not acceptable no matter how they do it.

Sorry, Gentmach, I got interested in the way the eminent domain issue could go right or left. I did not mean to derail your thread.

[Glenstache]

My understanding is that the refuge can only purchase land from willing sellers. Therefore, eminent domain is a non-issue here.

You use the Cypress Creek refuge as an example, but in my reading I was not able to connect the dots specifically to the refuge. I don't doubt that the equipment shops shut down, etc, and (as a hydrogeologist) I can understand how the drainage issue cited would play out. What i read about the local economy indicated that the area around CC had seen decreasing population for some time prior to the refuge, along with other poor economic indicators. It may be that the refuge was the final straw, but it doesn't look the like the refuge was the sole cause of economic issues. I also don't expect that my 10 minutes of information gathering is exhaustive, and there are likely a number of things you know from being in the area.

if you do want to successfully fight the refuge in your area, you should be able to make a compelling case that connects the dots. Honestly, the more technical you can be, the more likely you will be successful. If you are worried about flooding, make that argument in the context of how ditch filling will impact water table elevations and function of surrounding ditch systems and require (at a minimum) that the refuge plans address the drainage issues and include contingency plans for resolution if problems arise.

I work through the public comment process on a number of projects I'm involved in. As a technical person, it is difficult to respond to or address comments that are not tied to concrete specifics. It sounds like some of the opposition is political and some of it is technical (including economic impacts, hydrologic impacts, and wildlife impacts).

[Metric Mouse]

The whole reason this even has to be fought is that the pipeline is being put through land that USED to belong to the tribe, before the government stole it from them in 1958. So yeah, someone is losing their land. And now because of that, their water supply is at risk.

Umm... this is not true. Literally, none of this. Where are you getting your information?

The water intake for the Standing Rock reservation is over 75 miles from the pipeline.  All of these, and other myths, are debunked in this thread:http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/dakota-access-pipeline-protest/msg1281800/#msg1281800

[gentmach]

So how do you feel about the government taking people's land for oil pipelines like the Dakota Access pipeline, then?

The pipeline is underground. No one is losing their land as a result of it.

The whole reason this even has to be fought is that the pipeline is being put through land that USED to belong to the tribe, before the government stole it from them in 1958. So yeah, someone is losing their land. And now because of that, their water supply is at risk.

I understand that the Dakota Pipeline is an issue that runs parallel to mine but I feel we are getting off topic. I do not want this thread to get locked.

If you would write your respective members of Congress it would be appreciated. Or comment on the Refuge using the email.

We need to show the government that taking people's land is not acceptable no matter how they do it.

Sorry, Gentmach, I got interested in the way the eminent domain issue could go right or left. I did not mean to derail your thread.

I just didn't want it to go too far off. The eminent domain thing is a thing to be aware of. In our case they don't have to use it since we will be underwater otherwise. No point in paying taxes on something you can't use.

[gentmach]

My understanding is that the refuge can only purchase land from willing sellers. Therefore, eminent domain is a non-issue here.

You use the Cypress Creek refuge as an example, but in my reading I was not able to connect the dots specifically to the refuge. I don't doubt that the equipment shops shut down, etc, and (as a hydrogeologist) I can understand how the drainage issue cited would play out. What i read about the local economy indicated that the area around CC had seen decreasing population for some time prior to the refuge, along with other poor economic indicators. It may be that the refuge was the final straw, but it doesn't look the like the refuge was the sole cause of economic issues. I also don't expect that my 10 minutes of information gathering is exhaustive, and there are likely a number of things you know from being in the area.

if you do want to successfully fight the refuge in your area, you should be able to make a compelling case that connects the dots. Honestly, the more technical you can be, the more likely you will be successful. If you are worried about flooding, make that argument in the context of how ditch filling will impact water table elevations and function of surrounding ditch systems and require (at a minimum) that the refuge plans address the drainage issues and include contingency plans for resolution if problems arise.

I work through the public comment process on a number of projects I'm involved in. As a technical person, it is difficult to respond to or address comments that are not tied to concrete specifics. It sounds like some of the opposition is political and some of it is technical (including economic impacts, hydrologic impacts, and wildlife impacts).

I am going to ask around. And look into it. But did you read the attachment in second post? Our farm bureau guy typed it up with his objections.

Small towns have had a bad run of late. But it does feel like this Refuge is the final straw. It feels like that if we are going to fail, we should do it on our own merits instead of being lied to.

The Farm Bureau estimate a loss of 43 million dollars in agricultural activity. 124 annual jobs lost.

I'm sorry if we are being abstract on this. At every step the Fish and Wildlife service has dodged our questions.

They were required to do a land protection plan. This has not happened.

The EPA requires an up to date enviromental assessment. FWS says the 17 year old one is acceptable. The chiefs even promised to do one at their town meeting in october. We found out yesterday that there is no plan to do that.

They promised to maintain ditches in Cypress Creek. They immediately broke these promises.

A public comment period as well as public meetings w ere required before the Refuge even got established. Refuge was established in July. First meeting and comment period started in October.

There are probably other things I could cite.

I am sorry that I do not have technical details. Everyone was rather ambushed by this and we cannot get analysis because FWS has given us no details. It is simply happening and we are getting run over by it.

I know that the lack of details makes you reluctant to help but we don't have any. It has been a systematic campaign of lies, disinformation and illegality from the start and that is why we are freaking out.

[iris lily]

Gentmach, everything you said about the feds not following their own rules is typical. Also, beware of the meetings. One of their best tricks (not limited to the feds) is setting a meeting in the middle of the day when all of the bureaucrats can attend becuase why should they come out at night on their own time?

You make special effort to get off work to attend. Oops, they  cancel that meeting and set a new one. You get off work to attend, They cancel. Rinse and repeat. after a few times of this no one comes to their meetings, there is no opposition. How 'bout that.

 Yours sounds like a big mess and I wish you well.

[gentmach]

Gentmach, everything you said about the feds not following their own rules is typical. Also, beware of the meetings. One of their best tricks (not limited to the feds) is setting a meeting in the middle of the day when all of the bureaucrats can attend becuase why should they come out at night on their own time?

You make special effort to get off work to attend. Oops, they  cancel that meeting and set a new one. You get off work to attend, They cancel. Rinse and repeat. after a few times of this no one comes to their meetings, there is no opposition. How 'bout that.

 Yours sounds like a big mess and I wish you well.

Yep. They moved the meeting around. Thankfully it was in the evening but they still moved an hour or so.

I appreciate your sympathy. Send a comment and maybe bring it up with some other people. Awareness is the only way to force them back.

[gentmach]

Okay. I lost my post some where.

I got too focussed on the comment period. That ends on December 31st.

We have had some victories. We have other government agencies looking into this. Our congresswoman has publicly withdrawn her support. But there are still 534 others that need to be spoken to.

I think this is the perfect thing for Democrats to win hearts and minds. They will show that they are reaching out to rural and lower class people.