default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Logout|My Dashboard

Goals to preserve land should not be feared

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Thursday, August 2, 2012 12:00 am | Updated: 6:41 am, Thu Aug 2, 2012.

The recent letter concerning conservation easements contains a number of misleading and erroneous statements. The letter attacks the San Joaquin Council of Governments as being a "quasi-government organization" intent on taking away land for wildlife.

SJCOG is governed by elected officials from the Board of Supervisors and the city councils. They allocate state/federal transportation funds and administer the voter-approved transportation sales tax (Measure K). This structure allows shared guidance from the cities in cooperation with the county, and their specialists provide technical support so members do not have to duplicate these functions.

SJCOG administers the San Joaquin Habitat Plan. This plan, adopted in 2001, was initiated by business and property owners seeking efficiency and certainty in meeting environmental requirements for new development. Part of the plan is the purchase of land and/or easements from willing sellers to preserve habitat. Funding for the plan is primarily from development fees. If any owner participated by taking money for establishing a habitat easement "unknowingly," then shame on them.

The "conspiracy" letter goes on to attack AB2785, adopted in 2008, and suggests that readers research the bill. I did so. The bill, in the words of the legislative analyst, calls for the State Department of Fish and Game "... to investigate, study and identify those areas in the state that are most essential as wildlife corridors and habitat linkages and prioritize vegetative data development in those areas." The law specifically does not implement land use decisions, nor does it alter any legal rights and privileges of privately or publicly owned property.

The law is about being efficient — helping entities, such as SJCOG, avoid wasting money on habitat that is not helpful to the overall goal. Rather than advocate unfounded conspiracy theories, we should applaud an effort to make governmental decision-making more effective and efficient.

The overall goal of maintaining some open space and of using land in a manner that helps preserve wildlife and can provide related benefits, such as water quality, is hardly one to fear. Even the Bible tells us to take care of the Earth — having dominion over the Earth and all its creatures hardly means we get to trash the place and kill creatures that inconvenience us.

Richard Prima


Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.


  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:14 pm on Mon, Aug 6, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    I agree, the facts speak for themselves no matter who is relaying them. The funny thing is, each time Mike attempts to show where I got something he posts the wrong source...but I won't digress...

    Rarely will Mike confront the truth I present on its own terms. Instead, he continually tries to make ME the issue of discussion, and not the information provided. Mike is not the least bit interested in the accuracy of ANY information I provide. Mike has "not read Agenda 21 nor does he intend to."

    If he disagrees with it, he attacks it. Well, not exactly it... more like ME.

    For example, I point out that Alabama has actually passed legislation barring Agenda 21 from their state and then Mike morphs this fact into...
    "You know as much as I do that the topics bony writes about are nothing more than some sort of conspiracy or conspiracies by people who connect the dots all the wrong ways."

    Yet I'm the one with the head made of bone?


  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:14 pm on Mon, Aug 6, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mike stated...Darrell: I cannot believe you have been corrupted by extreme bullying of a proven serial cheater and a man whose head is mostly bone.

    Mike, I think you have drawn a conclusion that does not fit . I have not been corrupted in any way by anyone. Let me explain. I have been accused by Mr Tillett and others of being a plagiarist and liar. There are times when I go to various websites and see a point articulated in a way that articulates truth as I see it. Since I am not attempting to make money or gain something by copy and pasting, in my view it has nothing to do with plagiarism.
    To avoid the appearance of “Plagiarism”, I most times provide links... but in reality, if no one said anything, I would not be concerned with providing links. My intent is not to take credit, but to provide content that is accurate. If I were to gain in any way from using writing from others, I would not be comfortable.
    Consequently, If someone does copy and paste material, I could care less as I am interested in the content and accuracy of the information, not who said it. If someone wants to copy something I state, I encourage it and do not care if they state the source.

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 12:31 pm on Sun, Aug 5, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999


  • Mike Adams posted at 9:48 am on Sun, Aug 5, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1401

    Darrell: I cannot believe you have been corrupted by extreme bullying of a proven serial cheater and a man whose head is mostly bone.

    The intellectual dishonesty demonstrated by the above unit should be grounds for banishment. If I want some nuts misinterpretation of some event or writing or policy, I can find that on my own. I don't need a middle unit who makes no effort to even hide the fact he is a plagiarist and cheater.

    I've read most of your posts that interest me. Often time you quote or provide a link to where the information came from. Although I don't use or encourage it's use, I think like you that sites like Wikipedia are a good starting point. I don't begrudge you for using it. The point is, I can tell when it's you and when it's not you. If you didn't provide such, I wouldn't think you copied and pasted information. I know how you write. You know how I write. Take a couple sentence section of any of my posts and google them. Now I know there is always the chance that someone else came up with the same thing, but over a couple sentences, I doubt you'd find anything I posted was copied from anyone else, directly or indirectly. I do think it's flattering when people say I get my information from the "The Daily Show" or the "Colbert Report". If people think I am copying them, then it must mean I'm good enough to write for them. For the record, I occasionally watch "The Daily Show" and by that I mean, maybe 2X a year. I've never seen the "The Colbert Report".

    Also, the time warn and dangerous tactic of dropping names as bony does is really a weak technique and fraught with danger like I'll show here. Dropping the names of some quasi high government official to lend gravitas to an argument usually backfires when applied by a sub-standard debater. Presidents higher many, many people to fill political posts, but are not directly involved in their vetting. Most are done by lower appointees or employees of the President's campaign. You got to have someone loyal to you at 12:01 Jan. 20 (EST). So there are bound to be some weirdos and flakes. Most high profile was James Watt as Ag Secretary for Reagan.
    Could the guy shut up and not offend someone for 5 minutes? He may have known something about Ag, but no one heard it. Alexander Haig is another good example. Aren't we glad Reagan had the smarts to know he'd made a big mistake?

    You know as much as I do that the topics bony writes about are nothing more than some sort of conspiracy or conspiracies by people who connect the dots all the wrong ways. It probably started from some sort of puzzle when they were kids and you had to connect the dots to make a picture of a famous person. Instead of finding the next number, they just lazily meandered their crayon from dot to dot and when they connected all the dots, they thought they had a masterpiece.

  • Angie McDaniel-Guthrie posted at 8:16 am on Sun, Aug 5, 2012.

    AMG Posts: 3

    Are you really going to interject some religion into the matter? Here's the thing; I've been sitting here reading both sides of this issue and its obvious that there's an "agenda" trickling down from some group of decision makers in the guise of "preserving the land". But to whose standards? I rent a house in town so let's establish that I am not a farmer or land owner. It appears that environmental requirements are forcing landowners to "willingly" give up their property to these easements. That's one heck of a conspiracy fact right there. It also appears that decision makers are making the laws thus creating the illusion that no ones "rights" are being affected. (still with me on this?) So, you can't plant orchards on these easement - I thought the decision for land use remained with the landowner? Who's to say these land use stipulations don't change at the hands of these lawmakers "protecting" our great California? I don't want to live on the 5th story of some compacted housing complex. But Lodi just paid $120,000 to AECOM from some Sustainable Communities Planning Grant so that the City can be educating on how to integrate our housing. That sucks but look at this grant from the HUD site: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/sustainable_housing_communities/sustainable_communities_regional_planning_grants
    I thought "WE ARE THE PEOPLE" ......we are still "the People" right?

  • Kim Parigoris posted at 7:28 am on Sun, Aug 5, 2012.

    Kim Parigoris Posts: 470

    Yes, the COG was originally formed to deal with transportation issues. Period, and they seem to do a great job of that. Take Agenda 21, conspiracy theory or not, out of the equation... when did it become OK for the government to inventory private property, categorize it as far as its often time "Potential" use, and then charge the property owners on a sliding scale a mitigating fee to make improvements? When did it become OK for money (development fees) being funnelled through a government agency like the SJCOG, INC (a "branch of the original COG) to have non-profit status but use a government building for its meetings and use the same board as the main COG. When did it become OK for this money to be used for conservation easements, when the fees in the first place are being determined by the opinions of government officials? When did it become OK for this money to be used for a third party like ICF International to manage this property? To the tune of 1.6 million dollars for the Jacques Tract? And for the COG to get a grant from the USDA for 756,000 to get the land acquisition in the first place? These people that sell these easements have sold out- they are no longer stewards of their own land. But I guess that is a good thing, eh? Because we lowly peons are too stupid to take care of the property- we need big government. Again, follow the money...this isn;t about taking care of the land- if it was, then why if you want to build something on your property, you can as long as you pay the protection money? Why wouldn't it just not be allowed- period? You pay, you can play. Just like Cap and Trade coming from AB32- it isn't about pollution- it's about who can pay to pollute. These easements can also be sold to- Nature Conservancy sold one for a 200,000 profit to the Bureau of Land Management. Google California Habitat Connectivity Report. This is a huge web..Save Mt Diablo got a 1,000,000 grant from the Audubon Society of the Bay Area to acquire easements- this whole thing is a well orchestrated network of organizations (NGO's) stealing private property rights..and often times getting grants from the State and federal governments. I hate to break it to anyone but ANY money coming from the government, whether it be acquired by "Fees" or taxes, originated with a citizen- the government is not capable of making money, only collecting if off the backs of its citizens. Now there is talk of a regional COG...to make it even more difficult to monitor decision making - taking more control away from the citizens.

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:06 am on Sat, Aug 4, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Q: How can Mike label Agenda 21 "conspiracy theory" when Alabama has passed legislaion that forbids Agenda 21 in their State?

    A: Denial offers comforts Mike finds appealing...

  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:13 am on Sat, Aug 4, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mike stated…You know, people would think a lot more of you if you actually wrote your own copy rather than relying on the many in the conspiracy movement who are not only better educated

    Mike, if one assumes you are correct, that Andrew is copy and pasting material from others that are better educated, are you not stating that the content is of value. For example, you state that agenda 21 is a conspiracy… he then follows that many nations have signed on to this. Since the nations that have signed on have something to gain from participating, it is wise for American tax payers to understand just what this gain is?
    From where I stand, if Andrew is indeed copy and pasting information that educates, I am thankful he does. I do not understand your position. Why are you not focused on accuracy of the content instead of where it came from?

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 10:06 pm on Fri, Aug 3, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    I am not a conservation easement nor am I Agenda 21.

    Mike, at least admit to yourself, you've got no game...

    When confronted with a truth that threatens your established world view Mike, you continually do anything to distract or derail the exchange. Making bad jokes, resorting to childish ridicule, ignoring cold hard logic, denying one is qualified to present the facts, even though the facts speak for themselves no matter who is relaying them. Rarely will you confront the truth I present on its own terms. Instead, you continually try to make ME the issue of discussion, and not the information provided. It doesn't make me angry. It actually makes me sad. You are by far the most ignorant individual I can think of.

    Contesting your ignorance ("I have not read Agenda 21 nor do I intend to") is not just my civic duty as one of the informed, it is also an act of compassion towards you because you clearly are not.

    The reason you can't discuss conservation easements and Agenda 21 is elementary, much ike your posts...

    "I have not read Agenda 21 nor do I intend to." -Mike Adams

  • Mike Adams posted at 8:12 pm on Fri, Aug 3, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1401

    I think the only real mystery here is deciding what articles you lifted this entire post from (except the open line, of course).

    You know, people would think a lot more of you if you actually wrote your own copy rather than relying on the many in the conspiracy movement who are not only better educated, but are much better at conveying their particular conspiratorial slant to everyday coincidences and government policy.

    At best, the only thing you bring to any discussion is accusation, bullying, and arrogance (which you possibly could get away with if you didn't just copy every word of every post and letter to the editor you submit. When someone doesn't want to play your ridiculous school yard game you get angry. Am I making you angry? I seem to make you angry. Is it because I point out your wanton plagiarism?
    I think that I make you angry because I can point out your weaknesses time and again but you can't get me to debate any issues and that's because you don't debate, you just copy and paste. Maybe I could copy a famous book and put my name down as the author. How would that be received?

    When you bring a game, any game, it doesn't have to be an A game here, but it has to be your own game, then maybe you won't be so very angry. Think of your blood pressure and how it rises when you see I have responded to something someone else wrote (but you pass it off as your own).

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 9:33 am on Fri, Aug 3, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    How does one see "all these secret plans and long term goals as nothing more than they really are" when one hasn't even read the document? [sleeping]

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 9:30 am on Fri, Aug 3, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Blah, Blah, blah.. ADDRESS THE TOPIC!

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 9:10 am on Fri, Aug 3, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Mr. "I have not read Agenda 21 or do I intend to" Adams,

    There is nothing secret about Agenda 21 or easements Mike. More than 178 nations adopted Agenda 21 as official policy during a signing ceromony at the Earth Summit. U.S. President George H. W. Bush signed the document for the U.S. In signing, each nation pledged to adopt the goals of Agenda 21.

    In 1995, President Clinton, in compliance with Agenda 21, signed executive order #12858 to create the President's Council on Sustainable Development in order to "harmonize" U.S. environmental policy with UN directives as outlined in Agenda 21.

    As a result, with the assistance of groups llike ICLEI, Sustainable Development is now emerging as government policy in every town, county and State in the nation.

    Let's take a look at what J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development has said about Agenda 21 shall we...

    QUOTE: "Participating in a UN planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society... This segment of our society who fear "one world government" and a UN invasion of the United States throuh which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official ho joined the "conspiracy" by undertaking Agenda 21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth."

    The question you should be asking yourself is, Do I want to be governed under the United Nations' form of global governance? Or do you want to remain a soverign nation, governed under the Consttution of the United States of America?

  • Mike Adams posted at 10:54 pm on Thu, Aug 2, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1401

    And unlike you, I already know the meaning of the word "perpetuity" and didn't have to look it up.

    I wonder if the following: "When you theoretically sign your property over to this land trust company in perpetuity (forever) your property is essentially of no value to anyone except the true owners of your property, the land trust and the federal government if they decide that property is valuable to them and they want it!" was copied. Let me check.

    Oh no... there it is from 5/16/12!!!!

    Do you have anything original to say ever? I was actually kind of hoping I wouldn't find anything. Maybe a chance at redemption on your part. Instead I only get the spiteful musings of a man who can only repeat what others have done. I really think this best defines you. We call it plagiarism now, but back in the day and just as true today, you'd just be known as a cheater.

  • Mike Adams posted at 10:47 pm on Thu, Aug 2, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1401

    nor does the density of the bone that makes up your head, me.

    Normal people like me, not like you, see all these secret plans and long term goals as nothing more than they really are....not the vast long term desires of some sort of world organization whose goal is to run the world, and I would presume much later on, the solar system and then the vast universe, and they really are nothing more than policies and long winded mission statements.

    Gee you must be elated. With this hot weather on the surface and aloft, the UN hasn't been able to pump out those mind altering drugs because there are no contrails to mask them. Well keep at it. If you say enough, eventually something's going to come true. Just think of Jean Dixon and her wacky New Year's predictions.
    That's kind of like you.

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 11:59 am on Thu, Aug 2, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Mr. "I have not read Agenda 21 nor do I intend to" Adams,

    When you theoretically sign your property over to this land trust company in perpetuity (forever) your property is essentially of no value to anyone except the true owners of your property, the land trust and the federal government if they decide that property is valuable to them and they want it!

    This is not a "conspiracy theory". The organizations involved have stated plainly what their end goals are. The land owners and their heirs, become mere surfs, slaves to their own property and subject to the wishes of the easement holder.

    Your ignorance never ceases to amaze me...

  • Mike Adams posted at 7:55 am on Thu, Aug 2, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1401

    Mr. Prima.... Despite the the conspiratorial right's babbling about property rights, they seek to interject themselves into how families manage their property. It's not ok for family farms to make a commitment to keeping their farms farms in exchange for certain tax concessions, but apparently it's ok for them to try and prevent family farms from doing so.

    Or, it could be a UN conspiracy.

  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:09 am on Thu, Aug 2, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Prima stated...The "conspiracy" letter

    Humm.... I was enjoying and appreciating his letter until he stated he perceived the letter he was responding to was a conspiracy letter. In my view, there are people concerned about property rights and people who want to control them. Some have observed transfer the wealth thinking on a world wide stage. This is not a conspiracy at all. That would be like saying Obama's actions to Joe the plumber is a conspiracy. Odd conclusion.


Recent Comments

Posted 16 hours ago by Linda W Reichert.

article: Four tenants could move into Walmart’s …

We should turn the old Wal-Mart into an indoor sports center, like the city's talked about before. First, buy up those older houses behind…


Posted 17 hours ago by Angie McDaniel.

article: Steve Hansen: Climate change is real, b…

Hey, I thought we were debating here? Steve's hero, Jimmy P., is full of beans. Therefore, it's now your turn to prove the existence of thi…


Posted 18 hours ago by Ted Lauchland.

article: Letter: Immigration crisis is linked to…

I wouldn't take yuck yuck to heart all that often Mr. Werner. Brainiacks tend to pop now and again. Criticism promotes more criticism. Neve…


Posted 20 hours ago by Jien Kaur.

article: Letter: Immigration crisis is linked to…

The best thing regarding the Madeleine Cosman is that she is dead and cannot say these things anymore except when people like the Mr Portal…


Posted 20 hours ago by Thomas Heuer.

article: Letter: Immigration crisis is linked to…

Eric No one should endure such polluution inside or out.



Popular Stories



Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Featured Events

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists