A county in California tells feds they want their land back!

page: 1
10

log in

join

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   
First, Utah signs a bill to use eminent domain to take back federal land, now, a county in California is telling the Federal Bureau of Land Management to shove it!

25 miles of roads in San Benito county were closed by the BLM to create a "human free zone" a few years back and now, the county is telling the feds they want their land back.




Utah Land Revolt Spreads - California County Stands Up to B.L.M.

In response to what is being called “an avalanche of proposed closures on federal lands” in the State of California, the San Benito County Board of Supervisors has voted to “reassert its jurisdiction on 25 miles of county roads in an area currently closed by the federal government,” giving the fast spreading rebellion of the states a new ally, county rights.

Don Amador, Western Representative for the Blue Ribbon Coalition, a national advocacy group for recreational rights, put it this way:

The San Benito County Board of Supervisors earned a place in the history books for taking a stand against a federal bureaucracy that has proposed a closure of historic proportions in their county. It was clear the Supervisors take seriously their constitutional role as a champion of the people and seek to protect the citizenry and the local economy from agenda-driven policies developed by unelected officials.

He continues,

When the federal government ignores the will of the people, local voters and users that visit the area have little choice but to look elsewhere for relief. Up and down the state, I see a growing number of counties who are joining with the people in defense of historic access to federal lands. Today’s vote to reopen the roads for street-legal vehicles should be a clear signal to the BLM that their effort to make the Hollister Field Office a ‘Human Free Zone’ is going to be challenged.

Call it a new, yet constitutionally sound, assertion of rights. It is the United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 4, that mandates: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” If we lived during the Founding Era, one way of looking at this consistent with the reality of how the Founders and their state governments viewed things back then, would be to say in essence:

Read more: The New American




It looks like it's not just the states asserting their rights against the feds anymore, counties are joining in to tell the feds to keep their noses out of local affairs.


[edit on 4/13/10 by FortAnthem]




posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   
This is an example for the rest of us to follow.

S&F for this is what is actually worth reading and thought about.

[edit on 13-4-2010 by kr0ss]

[edit on 13-4-2010 by kr0ss]



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
great post
yet another example of Feds and Gov NOT listening
to the people's voices.

The Feds work for us,
we dont work for them



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Amen Brother! This type of Tom-foolery by OUR Government needs to stop, and it needs to stop now!

Good on You Utah and Cali!



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


I could not agree more! Those in government, especially the federal gov, seems to have forgotten the true power in this country is with the States and the people. I'm glad to see more States are showing them who's boss.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   
While it is good to see some standing up to the feds, it makes me wonder what about everyone else? This tactic should be used by all the states. The fact that some do and some haven't may mean that a buildup to a knowledge base is required before it becomes the norm.

Thanks for the posting.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   
What your article fails to mention is the reason for the closure.


The 25 miles of roads have been closed since May 13, 2008, when the Bureau of Land Management closed off the Clear Creek Management Area when studies had shown the natural asbestos levels were found to be too high.


So...behind all the rhetoric and fearmongering against the federal government there were reasons for the closure, public safety reasons. While at the same time there's this:


There had been questions in recent weeks about jurisdiction of those roads, as the BLM contended it was unclear whether San Benito had any official documentation proving ownership.


There has been an economic impact on the county in addition to the handful of landowners who have to go around the area. I see this as a move by county officials who find a need for the roads rather than a, 'The fed can't have it, it's mine!' idea.

Sources are here and here.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   
I think it's more like 'The fed can't have it, it's mine, and i don't want to have to go around the area.'
What i mean is, doesn't matter what the intentions were, the point is the same. We just simply can't let the government do whatever it feels like and we have to show them we will not just sit there with our arms crossed. The more we sit back and let them do what they want, the more they will abuse us, and THAT can't happen.
So, let's all 'UNCROSS' our arms!



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
What your article fails to mention is the reason for the closure.


The 25 miles of roads have been closed since May 13, 2008, when the Bureau of Land Management closed off the Clear Creek Management Area when studies had shown the natural asbestos levels were found to be too high.

Sources are here



Thanks for bringing that up. The type of "asbestos" in that area is known as "white asbestos" and does not have the harmful properties of other forms of asbestos. Unfortunately, it was lumped in with the other harmful types of asbestos because it is in the mineral group of fiberour minerals. Only the amphibole types of asbestos are dangerous.

Try telling that to a trial attorney or government goon intent on closing roads though...




Chrysotile and Asbestos Amphiboles: Two Different Fibre Types

Asbestos


"Asbestos" is not a mineral in itself. It is a collective term given to a group of minerals whose crystals occur in fibrous forms. The term "asbestos" was adopted for commercial identification.

The six minerals commonly referred to as asbestos come from two distinct groups of minerals. One group is known as serpentines (chrysotile, white asbestos); while the other group is the amphiboles (amosite, brown asbestos; Crocidolite, blue asbestos; Anthophyllite; Tremolite; and Actinolite). While both are silicate minerals, the two groups are chemically and mineralogically distinct.

Chrysotile

Chrysotile is a sheet silicate which is formed as a very thin rolled sheet. The sheet is about 8 angstoms thick (0.8 nanometers thick). It is composed of a sandwich of magnesium and silica. In the lung, the acid environment of the macrophage scavenger cell quickly breaks apart the sheet structure causing the fiber to decompose into small pieces. These pieces can then be readily cleared from the lung. If the fiber is swallowed and ingested it is attacked by the even stronger acid environment (hydrochloric acid, PH 2) in the stomach.

Chrysotile has been known for over 2000 years, being used initially for cremation cloths, oil lamp wicks and other textiles. But, it is only in the 19th Century that Chrysotile was first mined commercially in the Urals (Russia), Italy and Canada.

Amphiboles

This is in contrast to the amphibole asbestos fibers which are formed as solid rods/fibers. The structure of an amphibole is a double chain of silicate tetrahedral which makes it very strong and durable. The external surface of the crystal structures of the amphiboles is quartz-like, and has the chemical resistance of quartz. The amphibole fibers have negligible solubility at any pH that might be encountered.

All these fibres are non-flammable. The major difference between chrysotile and amphiboles is related to its chemical composition, its acid-resistant properties and its effects on health. In contrast with amphiboles, chrysotile does not persist in the lungs after inhalation; it is quickly eliminated by the body. A prolonged exposure to high concentrations of chrysotile fibres is required for a clinical manifestation of pulmonary damage to appear. In the past, such high exposures were frequent; it is no longer the case today. On the other hand, because of their toxicity and their high biopersistence, amphiboles are mainly responsible for mesothelioma and pulmonary diseases even caused after a short or moderate exposure.

Read more: Crysotile Institute


Here's another source:



There is asbestos, and then there is asbestos... and all asbestos is not dangerous!

Asbestos a not a single, easily categorized substance such as carbon monoxide or radon. It occurs in a number of different forms and the risks posed by them vary considerably... from minimal to severe. Crocidolite and amosite asbestos, known as amphibole asbestos, are the most dangerous forms. Their fibers cling tenaciously to lung tissue while resisting the body's natural self-cleaning processes. This long term irritation to body tissue can lead to disease and death. Fortunately, these forms of asbestos have been banned for years though some may still exist in older homes.

Chrysotile asbestos, a less toxic form, comprises over 90% of all the asbestos used in the US. This form of asbestos is not nearly as persistent in lung tissue and low level intermittent exposure is not considered to be a health risk to a healthy person. In fact, both OSHA and the EPA concur that asbestos is not dangerous unless airborne. Even if airborne, many studies of asbestos workers indicate that it takes more than a casual exposure to asbestos dust to cause disease... even over periods as long as 15 to 30 years! Asbestos doesn't "radiate" danger and its mere existence in low levels in your environment is not automatically cause for alarm.

Asbestos Myths




[edit on 4/15/10 by FortAnthem]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by kr0ss
What i mean is, doesn't matter what the intentions were, the point is the same. We just simply can't let the government do whatever it feels like and we have to show them we will not just sit there with our arms crossed.


Lung cancer and mesothelioma be damned!


Originally posted by FortAnthem
Thanks for bringing that up...


That is a wonderful wealth of information, I'm not too keen on geology and the effects of one type of asbestos over another so...fair enough. If it is in-fact, proven to be the not-so-bad type of asbestos then I see no reason why the roads should be closed.

There are logical steps towards goals in our society rather than anti-central government attitude regardless of danger posed.

Edit: Found this piece on wikipedia regarding Natural Asbestos.


Asbestos from natural geologic deposits is known as "Naturally Occurring Asbestos" (NOA). Health risks associated with exposure to NOA are not yet fully understood, and current US federal regulations do not address exposure from NOA.


[edit on 17-4-2010 by links234]



posted on Apr, 18 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234

Originally posted by FortAnthem
Thanks for bringing that up...


That is a wonderful wealth of information, I'm not too keen on geology and the effects of one type of asbestos over another so...fair enough. If it is in-fact, proven to be the not-so-bad type of asbestos then I see no reason why the roads should be closed.

There are logical steps towards goals in our society rather than anti-central government attitude regardless of danger posed.

Edit: Found this piece on wikipedia regarding Natural Asbestos.


Asbestos from natural geologic deposits is known as "Naturally Occurring Asbestos" (NOA). Health risks associated with exposure to NOA are not yet fully understood, and current US federal regulations do not address exposure from NOA.



Thanks for taking the time to check out the asbestos info. I first became aware of this from the book Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming: Why Scares are Costing Us the Earth which I highly recommend .

Here's a quote from a review of the book:


But back to the book: the most dramatic account is the great asbestos scam. The entire and insubstantial basis of this was the fact that two unrelated groups of compounds happen to share a common name in everyday parlance. One with extremely valuable refractory properties turned out to be deadly on prolonged exposure by inhalation. The other (talc) is a material of widespread use that seems to be relatively harmless, though it can be contaminated with the more dangerous forms (amphiboles). The asbestos scare gave rise to the greatest scam in human history. The beneficiaries were first and foremost the lawyers, mainly in America, cowboy asbestos removal specialists and many thousands of people who had no disease symptoms at all. The victims were thousands of productive companies that were forced into bankruptcy and everyone who pays insurance premiums. Lloyds of London was brought to its knees and many of its “names” were driven into bankruptcy and suicide. Many substances are deadly when inhaled – water for example, and very much quicker. The panic actually liberated tons of the deadly stuff into the atmosphere, when it was quite safe where it was, in solid form.

The slogan was typical – “One fibre can kill!” Absolute nonsense! Every adult has thousands of such fibres in their lungs. Even if asbestos had never been used in manufacture they would still be there, as this is a prolific and naturally occurring substance. Incidentally, should you think that your reviewer’s approach to this is frivolous, many years ago he lost a dear friend and colleague to this cause, who knew he was under the sentence of death, but also knew that it was as a result of excessive exposure to airborne fibres as an apprentice in the Dublin docks. Not only was most of the “dangerous” asbestos safe where it was, in solid form, the innocent variety was in buildings including ordinary homes, where the popular decorative textures such as “Artex” were drawn into the scam. By the time they were withdrawn as targets of the legislation, under the pressure of actual research results, many householders had been impoverished and local authorities faced crippling charges by cowboy “licensed” operators. Most portentous of all, perhaps, was the intervention by the BBC, once the epitome of impartiality, which in a grotesquely partial edition of its programme You and Yours, mounted an unashamedly mendacious attack on those who were trying to restore some semblance of order to the situation. The BBC, backed by enormous sums of money extracted from a poll tax on all households with television sets, was virtually immune to legal redress. It had the resources to bankrupt any opponent in litigation (except, of course, the Government, where it came a cropper, though ironically in the right), which brings us to the mother of all scares, in which it was to be a leading propaganda machine.

Scared to Death Book Review



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


This article is so money.

Any time a local government tells the Fed's to shove it up their azz, my heart skips a beat.



posted on Apr, 19 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I hope more an more states and counties stand up to the BLM and the rest of the Federal Government especially when they swoop in and suddenly call vast areas of land "National Parks" in order to keep US citizens from enjoying a specific area, like the Grand Canyon.




new topics
top topics
 
10

log in

join