The 100 Year Vision

[Democrats unite]

"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.

Institutionally, our Constitution remains the wellspring of American freedom and prosperity. We must retain a pluralistic democracy, with institutional checks and balances that reflect the will of the majority while safeguarding the rights of the minority. We will seek to maximize the opportunities for private gain, consistent with concern for the public good. And the Clark administration will institute a culture of transparency and accountability, in which we set the world standard for good government. As new areas of concern arise - in the areas of intellectual property, bioethics, and other civil areas - we will assure continued access to the courts, as well as to the other branches of government, and a vibrant competitive media that informs our people and enables their effective participation in civic life. And even more importantly, we will assure in meeting the near term challenges of the day - whether they be terrorism or something else - that, we don't compromise the freedoms and rights which are the very essence of the America we are protecting."


http://clark04.com/vision/

[Code_Name_D]

1. Clark and the Homestead Act?

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 (Clark suporters) 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.


___________________________________________________
We now return to our regulerly scedueld Clark love fest.


On edit: Made this old post complient with the DU's new sencorship rules.

[Democrats unite]

2. The way I read it is...

"We may also have to assist Market dirven adjustments in urban and rural populations, as we did in the 19th Century with the Homestead Act."

Sounds to me like he is praising the Homestead act and wants market driven adjustments to help these areas like the homestead act did.

on edit: But then again I am not out to twist his words.

on edit two: the full quote, meaning stays the same
P.S. WOuld like proof to the contrary.

[Code_Name_D]

3. But you just did.

Sounds to me like he is praising the Homestead act and wants market driven adjustments to help these areas like the homestead act did.

on edit: But then again I am not out to twist his words.

But you just did through a delibrit omision of Clark's own words. Full qoute: "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. "

That tells me he intents to reactivate the Homestead Act. Not that he was "prasing it."


Addendum:
Nice to see how you have back-tracked on your omision. Witch tells me that my point caried sufichent waight for you to feel it necisary to revise your origianl statment.

Your revision changes nothing from my origianl responce.

[SahaleArm]

4. Can't you just resurrect the old thread you posted? n/t

[Democrats unite]

5. Maybe you can understand this?

This is as plain English as I can find.


http://www.issues2002.org/2004/Wesley_Clark_Environment.htm

[Code_Name_D]

7. I have allready read it.

The closest to this subject that he comes is that he intends to inforce the road-less rule. What he dosn't tell you is the part of the Homestead Act that Bush reactivated over rides that aspect of the regulation. Clark is promising you something that he knows full well that he can not deliver. Especualy if he plans to further resurect the HomeStead Act

[Democrats unite]

9. So Now you are an authority on what can be delivered and what

can't be? Oh wise one please tell us more.

[Code_Name_D]

11. It has to do with the powers of eminent domain.

The home stead act gave authority to the rail roads to powers of eminent domain. That means that a privet company could take control over public lands, and have the government pay out the compensation for the privet corporation to take control over these lands. But with one caveat, that the land to be claimed must be part of a natural corridor used for navigation. That is, the rail roads could ONLY take over land that served the function of the rail road.

That was the part of the Homestead Act that Bush reactivated. This now results in privet companies such as Disney, to take over any public land that has a human made trail. Such as a single ATV tarring up a track of land. (Giving new implications to Bush's friendly ATV rules.) The homestead act gives the powers of emanate domain to the corporation. And it is the corporation that decides what it wants. There is no provision within the homestead act that permits the government, or the people, to challenge the claims of the corporation to public land, outside the challenging of the home stead act itself.

Ergo, until I read other wise, Clarks 100 year vision establishes him clearly in support of the right of the "echo-tanment" corporations such as Disney to take over public lands at little or no expense to themselves, with few or no recourses for the public.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Code_Name_D]

8. Odd, I do not recall mentioning Dean.

Thank you for the insult by the way. Can I have another?

[SahaleArm]

10. v2: Here's the post minus the editorializing.

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.

Improving on market-driven sources - like Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac to help make home-ownership affordable. Read into that what you wish.

[Code_Name_D]

12. "Read into that what you wish."

And odd statment comming from one who claims the power to edit my responce, and deleate every thing.

FYI: Freddie-Mac is curently under grand jury investigations for frawed, and conspericy of imbezement. I fight the thought of prasing such coruption to be most telling.

[SahaleArm]

13. Fraud in Feddie-Mac has what to do with Clark's statement?

Freddie-Mac is under investigation for bad accounting (they restated earnings multiple times) like Enron. They are at some-level a publicly traded government-back institution. Assisting home ownership through public backing has a long history in helping the under-priviledged.

[Democrats unite]

14. Has to do with the fact of getting off the subject that cannot be defended

A shameful tactic

[Code_Name_D]

15. No, they are being investigated for F-R-A-U-D!

Freddie-Mac is under investigation for bad accounting (they restated earnings multiple times) like Enron.

Oh way to soft shoe the white collar crime.

And it was you who chose to lionize Fredy-Mac. And it is you who must bare the burden of its implication. I did not sight Clark in any way twords any position one way or the other.

PS: Way to try and change the subject.

[SahaleArm]

16. Why not address public assistance of home purchases?

Without tangentially going off on bad corporate practices which is not relevent in this discussion.

[Code_Name_D]

17. Becase you are trying to change the subject. AGAIN!

The asisting of home purchases is OUTSIDE the discusion, and is OFF TOPIC.

A shamefull tatic.

And it was YOU who brought up Fanny May and Fready Mac in post 10. So it is not I who is going off on a tangent.

Care to disguss why Clark chose to mention the Homestead Act? Hmmmm?

[in_cog_ni_to]

18. I thought I had suggested

to you the LAST time you started in on the Homestead Act...maybe you should post your question on the Clark Blog. I'm sure you would get an answer. Or would you rather just throw this out willy nilly to try and bash Wes?

[Code_Name_D]

19. Same respone as last time.

Nice non-answer.

[in_cog_ni_to]

20. You answered my question.

You don't REALLY want an answer.

[Code_Name_D]

21. You presume a great deal

to think yourself obnipotent enugh to perse my position.

If I wasn't intrested in an answer, I would not have posted this subject, twice. But it is remarkably aragent of you to insist that for my question to be ligitment, that I must ask a Clark blog. I have asked a question, and I have asked it of his supporters. It is a ligitmate question, and I have done MY best to answer it.

If my argument is some how flawd, you are at liberty to point out these flaws any time you wish. But instead, you play games like this. I am less than impressed.