> ADD YOUR VOICE TO PROTECT PROPERTY RIGHTS!
> >
> > These landowners need your help.
> >
> > Farmers, ranchers and other property owners in usually laid back Santa
> > Barbara County are having the fight of their life over a proposal that
> > would
> > allow the federal government to condemn their land and turn it into a
> > national park.
> >
> > Local opposition to the proposal is intense and growing. Three city
> > councils, two county supervisors, three chambers of commerce, two school
> > districts, four agricultural organizations, numerous property owner and
> > taxpayer citizen groups and several thousand individuals who wrote
letters
> > and signed petitions have risen up in opposition to the park proposal.
> > When
> > one supervisor refused to fight the park, constituents garnered 14,000
> > names
> > on recall petitions, nearly twice the number necessary to force a recall
> > election.
> >
> > Looks like another one of Bill Clinton's midnight land grabs, right?
> >
> > Wrong. Look again. Blame this one on George Bush, not Bill Clinton. A
> > top-level Bush Administration appointee, Interior Department Budget
> > Director
> > Lynn Scarlett, has joined forces with a leftwing extreme enviro Member
of
> > Congress, Santa Barbara's Representative Lois Capps.
> >
> > Together they are attempting to jam a 215,000 acre national park down
the
> > throats of unwilling residents, all in the name of currying favor with
the
> > politically powerful environmentalist lobby. Scarlett, like Capps, is a
> > longtime resident of
> > Santa Barbara.
> >
> > At the behest of the Sierra Club and other land grabbers, Capps got the
> > ball
> > rolling on the national park proposal in November of 1999. She gained
> > congressional approval for a "study" of a huge swath of Santa Barbara
> > County.
> >
> > The enviro's goal of this "study" is to establish a new unit of the
> > national park system, which will permit federal agents to exercise
eminent
> > domain power, condemn private lands and eradicate the homes, ranches and
> > farms dotting the area.
> >
> > Capps legislation had no cosponsors, no hearings, no amendments, no
> > recorded
> > vote, and consisted of thirteen lines inserted into a massive bill of
over
> > one thousand pages approved as Congress was walking out the door just
> > before
> > Thanksgiving recess.
> >
> > SCARLETT CAVES IN TO GREENIES
> >
> > Incredibly, joining Capps is Lynn Scarlett, who serves as Budget
Director
> > of
> > the Department of the Interior (DOI). DOI is the federal government's
> > primary public lands management agency. It oversees the National Park
> > Service (NPS), which is pushing hard for this latest addition to its
> > multimillion acre empire. DOI Budget Director Scarlett was appointed by
> > and
> > is a close personal confidant to Interior Secretary Gale Norton.
> >
> > Scarlett watched the drubbing from the liberal media that her friend and
> > boss Gale Norton, took during Norton's confirmation hearings in early
> 2001.
> > As a result, Scarlett is afraid of getting on the bad side of the
liberal
> > media establishment or the leftwing environmentalist movement. So when
> the
> > Santa Barbara national park "study" started running into serious
trouble,
> > Scarlett saw it as an opportunity to burnish her green credentials, and
> > jumped into the fray - AGAINST local land owners!
> >
> > IT'S JUST A STUDY
> >
> > At issue is whether or not to establish an NPS unit in central and
> northern
> > Santa Barbara County. From its coastline to the mountain ranges and the
> > unusual ocean currents that create a nearly perfect year round climate,
> > this
> > region is certainly one of the most beautiful landscapes in the world.
So
> > of course, in order to "save it" there needs to be a "study" done by Big
> > Brother.
> >
> > How could anyone be against that? After all, it's just a study. Well,
> > here
> > is the rest of the story:
> >
> > The completion of a "study" with a recommendation for any kind of
federal
> > role or action makes the area in question eligible for a national park
> > designation - permanently. These "studies" have no expiration date, and
> so
> > the threat of a federal takeover and condemnation proceedings against
> > residents never goes away.
> >
> > Understandably, this devalues all private property in and around the
> area -
> > who would purchase a home that may be seized by the government five or
ten
> > years down the road? It also makes it nearly impossible to conduct the
> > long
> > term plans necessary to run an agricultural operation, such as equipment
> > purchases and planting crops like avocado trees, which take seven years
to
> > begin producing fruit.
> >
> > The National Park Service has been working in secret collusion with
> > environmental activists for many years toward this goal, and has
excluded
> > the public from much of its deliberations.
> >
> > For example, here is a February 2000 email exchange between the NPS
> > regional
> > director conducting the study, Mr. Ray Murray, and a local enviro.
> > Enviro: "We can shield sensitive info in several ways from Freedom of
> > Information Requests and subpoenas." Murray's response: "We may have
> > to execute some kind of confidentiality agreement so that the draft does
> > not become a public document."
> >
> > IT'S ALREADY PROTECTED
> >
> > Santa Barbara County ALREADY has some of the most severe state and
local
> > zoning and land use controls in the entire United States. And these
codes
> > have gradually tightened over the years, due to residents' desires to
> > maintain the quality of their lifestyle. Lack of water, difficult
> > topography and unstable soil conditions place additional natural
> > prohibitions on development.
> >
> > The entire 215,000 area proposed for the park will never see more than
> > about 150 additional homes built. Within nearly all of the proposed
park
> > area, the minimum zoning is 320 acres per house - that means two houses
> > per square mile!
> >
> > An NPS takeover and seizure of private property will ruin the
livelihoods
> > of
> > thousands of families, and for no good reason. It will not help the
> > environment, that's for sure. The NPS has a multibillion dollar backlog
> of
> > maintenance projects; it's properties are rife with overflowing trash
> > bins,
> > broken sewer pipes and poorly maintained restrooms. Forest fires burn
out
> > of control, threatening and killing people and destroying their
property.
> >
> > Scarlett and her boss Interior Secretary Gale Norton are just plain
afraid
> > to stand up to the Sierra Club, which has led the way in making this
land
> > grab into a "national priority."
> >
> > They even brushed off requests from former Reagan Administration
Interior
> > Secretary Judge William Clark, a resident of Paso Robles which is a few
> > miles
> > from the proposed park, and former area congressman Robert Lagomarsino.
> > Scarlett rejected Clark's request for an injunction to stop the study,
and
> > Norton
> > pushed aside Lagomarsino's property rights concerns.
> >
> > THE CURRENT SITUATION
> >
> > The deadline for comments sent to the NPS on the "Gaviota" national park
> > proposal is September 1.
> >
> > Support for local control and opposition to a federal takeover builds
each
> > month. Nearby Congressman Elton Gallegly and the candidate challenging
> > Capps in the election, sod farmer Beth Rogers, have added their
opposition
> > to an NPS takeover. They have joined over twenty local entities
including
> > city councils, chambers of commerce, boards of education and
agricultural,
> > landowner and taxpayer groups against the Great Gaviota Land Grab.
> >
> > Meanwhile, the politically paralyzed Interior Department is playing up
to
> > its enemies and is incredibly out of step with the people who voted for
> > President Bush. Many people have derisively nicknamed the proposal the
> > Lynn
> > Scarlett National Park.
> >
> > WHAT YOU CAN DO - SEE ADDRESSES BELOW:
> >
> > SUPPORT Alternative One of the Gaviota national park study. This means
> > "Current Programs," and no federal involvement - this is the only choice
> > that will protect property rights and win the battle.
> >
> > PLEASE - include the term "Alternative One" in whatever you send.
> >
> > WHAT TO SAY TO SUPPORT ALTERNATIVE ONE:
> >
> > - The National Park Service has a five BILLION dollar maintenance
> > backlog
> > -- clean up your mess before you grab any more land!
> >
> > - The area around Santa Barbara is already protected, there is no need
> for
> > a federal land grab.
> >
> > - NPS is hostile to agricultural operations and will run people out of
> > business who dare to challenge its "management plan."
> >
> > - NPS is anti-private property, and threatens landowners with
inholdings
> > within park boundaries and property outside as well. It claims buffer
> > zones
> > for everything from endangered species to viewsheds.
> >
> > - GET OUT!!! Mind you own business!
> >
> > Creativity is encouraged.
> > You get the idea.
> > Get in their face!
> >
> > WHERE TO SEND COMMENTS:
> >
> > EMAIL:
> > pgso_gaviota@nps.gov (Note: There is an underscore between pgso
and
> > gaviota.)
> >
> > FAX:
> > 510-817-1505
> >
> > MAIL:
> > Gaviota Coast Park Study
> > National Park Service
> > 1111 Jackson Street, #700
> > Oakland, CA 94607
> >
> > THANK YOU - If we can beat the land grabbers here, it will continue
the
> > precedent being set across the country of fighting off the feds when
they
> > come calling!!!




> >
> >
>
:eek: :eek: :eek:

I'm in SB a few times a year and I know first hand from friends and locals about how strict they are with their zoning and controls.....What a fricking joke to try to back door some political favor as "to protect the land from development"....but somehow I'm not surprised, just a whole lot :mad3:


:usa:

Where is a copy of the Federal Register Notice for the NPS?

If it's hit the Federal Register (and has been released officially, since the delays of 9/11) someone in SB has to be able to cut and paste a copy. Does Gallegy's Ventura office have a copy? Please post a copy.

If it has not been released in printed and electronic form, it is a good canidate for an extension to the comment period. If so, all current comments should include a demand for an extension to the comment period, sighting the lack of published notice as the reason for the extension.

The Alternates need to be published to get a valid comment to the NPS: stating "Alternate One" as the preferred Alternate (the status quo Alternate) is not enough. Comment detail as to why Alternate One is desired must follow (or the comment is ash canned like a SC post card form letter). Make the comments count.

A comparison to the GAP Analysis project, funded by The Nature Conservancy and researched at UCSB, should be made to the NPS Proposal. 200K acres is a considerable tract of land (in an area that has already completed a Wilderness review identifying all 5000 acre tracts). Any maps of the area need to be reviewed, and compared to the systematic habitat corridoor and linkage blueprint laid out in the GAP analysis proposal (systematic closure to recreation). The SC may be driving the local input, but CWC ties (and Splitler involvement) need to be investigated. The importance is that reoccurance of involvement between NGO's and the DOI/NGS staff is valuable in the greater California environmental land (ab)use arena.

Good Luck, and post more info, so we can help.

Happy Trails!