Clark and the Homestead Act?

[Code_Name_D]

Clark and the Homestead Act?

The first paragraph in Clarks 100 Year Vision
http://clark04.com/vision/
Looking ahead 100 years, the United States will be defined by our environment, both our physical environment and our legal, Constitutional environment. America needs to remain the most desirable country in the world, attracting talent and investment with the best physical and institutional environment in the world. But achieving our goals in these areas means we need to begin now. Environmentally, it means that we must do more to protect our natural resources, enabling us to extend their economic value indefinitely through wise natural resource extraction policies that protect the beauty and diversity of our American ecosystems - our seacoasts, mountains, wetlands, rain forests, alpine meadows, original timberlands and open prairies. We must balance carefully the short- term needs for commercial exploitation with longer-term respect for the natural gifts our country has received. We may also have to assist market-driven adjustments in urban and rural populations, as we did in the 19th Century with the Homestead Act.

Now the highlighted part in red has been bothering me for some time now.

"Assist market-driven adjustments in urban and rural populations?" That calls to mind some 300 families that were kicked off their model home lots to make way for a new Target store that was suppose to be built in Lawrence, Kansas. And when several of the lot owners refused to sell, Target went to the city counsel and used the powers or eminent domain to take over these lots, only to sell them to the developer. And the fact that many of the homes could not be moved because there were no lots to receive them, they then bulldozed over the trailer homes on the lots, forcing many onto the street. And a quirk in the law meant neither the developer nor the city had to reimburse them for the loss of their property. But the real insult came when Target changed there minds about building at that location, because a road development fell through. 300 families were evicted from there homes, to make way for - an empty lot. IT'S NOT EVEN A DAMMED PARKING LOT. Target didn't even bother to hall off the bulldozed ruins, they left that for the city. That was what comes to my mind when I saw Clark endorsing "market driven relocation."

But the other part just baffled me. The Homestead Act? Where the heck did that come from? In fact, the whole sentience seems out of place. Very out of place given that this is the last sentience in the first paragraph of one of his first major policy expressions.

What could it mean? It defiantly has that supply sider smell to it. But that is economics, the context here is environmental. Something didn't fit. Information on the Homestead Act itself didn't help much. This is a clip I took from a search on the subject.

The Homestead Act of 1862 has been called one the most important pieces of Legislation in the history of the United States. Signed into law in 1862 by Abraham Lincoln after the secession of southern states, this Act turned over vast amounts of the public domain to private citizens. 270 millions acres, or 10% of the area of the United States was claimed and settled under this act.

A homesteader had only to be the head of a household and at least 21 years of age to claim a 160 acre parcel of land. Settlers from all walks of life including newly arrived immigrants, farmers without land of their own from the East, single women and former slaves came to meet the challenge of "proving up" and keeping this "free land". Each homesteader had to live on the land, build a home, make improvements and farm for 5 years before they were eligible to "prove up". A total filing fee of $18 was the only money required, but sacrifice and hard work exacted a different price from the hopeful settlers.

What was Clark planning on doing with a revision of the Homestead Act? The answer became clear after I had listened to the latest audio file from the Wizards of Money. Chapter 22: "Eco-tainment": Status of Public Lands Link: http://wizardsofmoney.org/ (Normally, she has a text file to go along with the audio file. But as I write this, only the MP3 is available.) Here Smithy mentioned the Homestead Act, but not as the ancient relic from history.

Apparently, W. Bush, by executive order, reactivated a sunseted provision found within the act. It was a provision that was written into the act for the use by the rail roads. Old routes, especially through the mountain passes, could be claimed by industry for privet use, so long as the land had "a function for transportation of the masses." Thus this land would be claimed by industry for the laying or rail road. Basically, it worked like the powers of eminent domain in reverse, allowing the rail roads to claim landed needed to lay down tracks. Including land owned and controlled by the government, all for pennies.

When W. reactivate this, it enabled industry to take over tracks of public land, for privet development. Where ever there is a road. And that was when it struck me.

Clark just bowed to this industry. Paying homage to they vary forces that drooled when W reactivated the Homestead Act. Buy using such obscure code speak, he was sending a wink to developers and big industry that he would be kind to there interests.

Am I wrong? Then the Clarkies had better come up with a better explanation as to why the Homestead Act was mentioned BY NAME in his 100 year vision. And why was this Act mentioned in the same sentence as "assist market-driven adjustments in urban and rural populations"? As stated, Clark's 100 Year Vision, in this area, matches exactly with Bush's current policy regarding public land use.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KittyWampus]

2. Clark Spoke Extensively About Land Use: Buffalo On Great Plains

for instance... and working on a 100 year vision. NHampshire Town Hall I think.

He also mentioned helping keep farmers on land etc.

Of course your bias has misconstrued his intent 180 degrees.

Are you going to deny that the Homestead Act shaped America?

Would you deny that we need to rethink our current land use... especially in regards to water use?

By the way, YOU DON'T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE WHAT CLARK MEANT BY MENTIONING THE HOMESTEAD ACT.

[Code_Name_D]

3. Your right, I don't have a clue why Clark mentioned the Homstead Act.

But neather do you. I have been looking into this question for some time. And I have yet to see any resononing as to why he mentioned it. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. And if I haven't seen it, neather have you.

And I am biased? I don't think so. He has spoken about land use issues, but only in retorical terms. He has said we need to rethink how land is used, but has offerd no resoning HOW land use should be rethought. Turning it over to the corperations can easly fit withen his platform.

But as I noted, Bush has reactivated the Homestead act, permiting corperations to claim use of public lands. Is this a bow to contiue Bush's policy here?

And where is the context? The lack of any context is botherson becase it hints at something called a secrit talking point. Portions of a speach that only make sences to spisific doners or spechal intrests becase they are the only ones with the context to apply.

But Bush's policy in regards to the Homestead Act adds to that context.

You are at libertiy to explany why Clark feels the Homestead act is relivent in todays devluped economey any time you wish.

[eleny]

4. I remember quite clearly...

that, during the Town Hall meeting, he said he has concerns for the family farmer and wanted to find ways to help them stay on the land if they want to do that - or to be able to leave it if that was their intention. And then he went on to talk about having stretches of the Great Plaines be returned to its natural state and to be able to have buffalo there again. I recall that some years ago, an environmental group dedicated to the GPs was working towards studying the areas where towns were dying off because young people were moving to the cities. It was those areas that were being considered for this GP project.

I hope this sheds some light on the issue. I was surprised and happy to hear Clark address it. It's been some years since I saw any mention of it and was glad that it was even under consideration since I live in Colorado.

[Code_Name_D]

5. Than please explane to me

Why he made the above comments in his 100 year vision. The vary SAME plan from which he built the stump speaches by which you qoute.

Why is he talking about market driven relocation?
Why did he mention the Homestead Act?

[eleny]

19. I didn't claim to know the answer to your question

I just remembered him saying what I paraphrased and hoped it would help. Sorry.

[Phelan]

31. If you are that curious, why not write the campaign?

email is quick and painless

[KittyWampus]

7. Why Did You Bring Up Bush? You Made That Connection

So I'll just ignore it because it's a product of your own biased imaginings.

Clark brought up the Homestead Act probably because it had a huge effect on Land Use in the past... and the time is ripe to rethink what we are going to do.

He realizes it's time to come up with a long term plan.

One that incorporates things like WIND FARMS which would necessitate things like local communities and land owners cooperating with business.

Dontcha think?

By the way, if you are REALLY interested in why Clark mentioned legislation having to do with FORMER US Land Use why don't you investigate what he's said about his plan for FUTURE Land Use.

[Code_Name_D]

11. Becase Bush reactivated parts of the Act

by presdenchal order. Close to the same time Clark mentiones it in his 100 year plan. The conection between Bush and Clark is the Homestead Act.

Clark brought up the Homestead Act probably because it had a huge effect on Land Use in the past... and the time is ripe to rethink what we are going to do.

Then why did he mention it? The Homestead Act dose not provide an example of rethinking land use. It was a land GRAB! Absorbing vast tracks of land into the union. No such tracts exist, save perhaps in Afganistane or Iraq. As to "re-thinking" land use, I find the homestead act completly and wholy irrelivent.

You are dodging the question.

One that incorporates things like WIND FARMS which would necessitate things like local communities and land owners cooperating with business.

But the Homestead Act deals with PUBLIC lands. Do you support masive giveaways of public lands to corperations? Even for windfarms?

By the way, if you are REALLY interested in why Clark mentioned legislation having to do with FORMER US Land Use why don't you investigate what he's said about his plan for FUTURE Land Use.

Please feal free to share with the room what this plan is.

[burning bush]

27. I disagree with your comments

Here:

Then why did he mention it? The Homestead Act dose not provide an example of rethinking land use. It was a land GRAB! Absorbing vast tracks of land into the union.

These were unused public lands, not open and unclaimed lands. Allowing settlers to claim public land and, over time, turn the land to private ownership certainly demonstrates a rethinking of land use!

and here:

But the Homestead Act deals with PUBLIC lands. Do you support masive giveaways of public lands to corperations? Even for windfarms?

Why do you believe that cooperation between private individuals and businesses equates "massive giveaways to (sic)corperations" ? What about an urban renewal program, or free enterprize zones, where small business are encouraged to come into uban areas and take over offices or retail areas that have fallen into government hands through being condemned, lost in drug raids, etc?

That type of program fits in perfectly with what Clark was saying, without the sinister overtones.

I'm a Dean guy, and I think Clark's openess to a new variation on the homestead act is visionary. I would love to see some federal land given away to private individuals and small businesses, as long as the program had built-in safeguards to prevent abuse. Or, turned over to states, so that the states could handle the final reappropriation, according to each state's need, again, with guidelines to promote the populist flavor of the concept.

[kiahzero]

20. Yes, he is right.

And I am biased? I don't think so.

In a word... yes.

[cade]

6. don't forget what preceeded the homestead act

Indian Removal Act

Act of May 28, 1830. (4 Stat. 411)

An Act to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the states or territories and for their removal west of the river Mississippi.

This Act provided that in exchange for federal lands west of the Mississippi, the government would claim lands held by Indian tribes. The Act provided that such exchanges would be voluntary, payment would be made for improvements to the land, and permanent guarantees to new lands for suitable housing.

The area established by the federal government was then known as "Indian Territory" (Oklahoma). Although it was supposed to be voluntary, removal became mandatory whenever the federal government felt it necessary.



The land referred to as public land used to be someone elses' homeland once. For a look at some interesting follow the money stuff-
check this
snip-

This analysis covers the estimated loss of over $90,000,000,000 in hard-rock mineral wealth (on which no royalties will be paid under the 1872 Mining law). It also addresses the loss of an estimated $15,000,000,000 in the last decade in federal, states' and Indian oil and gas royalties, and additional lost federal taxes.

http://www.dickshovel.com/rogue.html

[Code_Name_D]

8. It has made me wonder if the Homestead Act is to be applied

against Afganistane or Iraq. But I have seen nothing to support this tin hat position.

[cade]

10. if there is money to be made

be suspicious of everything.

[TexasMexican]

26. wow...

that would turn us into Israel.

[SahaleArm]

30. Hey look at me I've got a new hat

:tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat:

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. If you REALLY want an answer

go to his web site and post a question on the blog. I'm sure you will have an answer in no time. That's if you really want an answer to your question. I think you should be asking Clark. He said it. Post the question on the blog.

http://www.americansforclark.com/

[Code_Name_D]

12. Nice non-answer.

No text. Of course.

[eleny]

21. I was going to suggest that, myself

Are you wanting one of us Clark supporters to go over and ask it for you? Just let me know and I'll do it for you if you like. I can post the question some time tomorrow. I think it might be better if you did it yourself so you could debate the issue at the source. If you decide to post it yourself, please let us know so we can check out the responses and the dialog.

[Donna Zen]

13. He's mentioned it before in a radio interview.

iirc, the intent would be to create incentives for bringing back urban neighborhoods with government back low interest loans. Holy tin-foil hat! Iraq? Is there no depth that cannot be plumbed?

Also, when he spoke briefly at the NH townmeeting, he prefaced his comments by saying that he has bit and pieces of a plan that he is still putting together. Nevertheless, he sees the Homestead Act as a vehicle for helping families and at the same time, creating a more environmentally friendly land use policy. We have many abandoned areas that need renewal, thus preserving pristine lands from developers.

It is an interesting concept.

Okay_you're free to bash Clark now...go go go!

[Code_Name_D]

15. That would contradict

with the use of "market insentives." Can you explane this?

"asist market-driven" is code word for subsidy. Right out of the GOP code book.

[mikehiggins]

17. I don't even know you

but after this series of posts, I've decided I can safely put you on "ignore".

What a lame.

[Walt Starr]

14. Poop

Poop

[sandnsea]

16. I use the 1804 Old National Road

He uses the Homestead Act. It's an example of how government has ALWAYS been involved in driving and shaping our economy. There is no such thing as a totally private, free market and there never has been. I think that's all he means here.

[QC]

18. Thread Summary:

:hurts:

[sleipnir]

22. This is why Clark is so frightening as a candidate

I can't support that attitude and any progressive should reject it as well and fall behind a true Progressive candidate. The more I read about Clark the more I feel he still has a lot of horrific Republican tendancies.

[sandnsea]

23. Investing in America???

WHAT attitude? What do you think he's saying here???

[QC]

24. Any candidate can be frightening

when people just make up a bunch of wildass stuff about them. It's hard not to make someone seem scary and awful when you do that.

[sleipnir]

25. But this is his real position.

It's true! And I'm really freaked about his usage of words and the invoking of the Homestead Act. It's not making shit up, it's real and it's quite frightening to me. I've read the 100 days and I felt very uncomfortable after reading the whole thing, it felt a lot like McCain to me, almost as if he authored it an not a Dem...But take my opinion as you will, it's just my thoughts...

[SahaleArm]

29. It's only real because you want it to be real - A self fulfilling prophecy

[burning bush]

28. Not every progressive idea comes from the left

and not every Republican tendancy is bathed in neoconservatism.

Teddy Roosevelt was quite the progressive, as was Lincoln, each for his own time. Just because Clark brings up an idea that was originally brought up by a Republican doesn't condemn Clark. It just shows he can see beyond partisan fences, when the need to do so is clear. :)

[Code_Name_D]

32. Clark dosn't bring out ideas.

He throughs out talking points with no context.