Letter to Boxer from Assemblyman Jay La Suer

Paige

Well-Known Member
Posts
946
Reaction
0
The below is a letter written to Boxer about her wilderness bill from an Assemblyman in the San Diego area.

May 14, 2002



The Honorable Barbara Boxer
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-0505

Dear Senator Boxer,

After reading an article about your "California Wild Heritage Wilderness Act" to be unveiled in Washington this week, I am compelled to make my views known. While I appreciate your desire to protect scenic lands, I believe that your bill falls way outside the will of the people and will have a devastating affect on the citizens of California who, like you, love nature and desire a decent place to live.

Government at one level or another already owns 51 % of the country's land, not counting waterways or easements. This bill will continue to take away areas of recreation for our citizens. The San Diego Union Tribune quoted you as saying that the process will take time as there is no support among California's 20 Republicans in the GOP controlled House of Representatives, and that you also commented, "This bill will be put into law bit by bit, year by year". That is a rather audacious attitude to force on hardworking citizens, while California, especially San Diego, is experiencing a serious housing crisis. Your extremist attitudes will ensure that our grandchildren and great grandchildren will no longer be able to afford the American dream of homeownership as more and more land grabs by the government will make existing real estate values inflate to staggering heights.

I see no logical reason to take 2.5 million acres of public land from the taxpayers, which includes the national forest areas that President Bush has proposed for oil drilling. As national security and the need for domestic oil production has been painfully brought to the forefront of the American conscience, it is incredulous that you would knowingly call for "protection" of remote wilderness that our President has ear-marked for oil exploration. You said that you and the environmentalists "have picked the most precious and spectacular lands we have." For whom? Unless people hike, bicycle in, or participate in other off-road activities on already existing dirt trails, they will never be able to appreciate the scenic beauty. I hear constantly from residents of San Diego County, who are worried about affordable housing, energy prices and freedom to enjoy recreational activities in and around our beautiful rivers and forests. I've yet to hear from constituents who are concerned about the protection of endangered plants and species in remote wildlife areas. I see nothing in your bill that truly addresses the needs of the American people, but rather an appeasement of environmental extremists who value plant life and animals more than the well being of humans.

I realize that a person of your financial means and political privilege may have never known what it is like to live paycheck to paycheck in our expensive state, or to work two or three jobs just to pay your taxes and put food on the table. Were you not one of the U.S. Senators who spoke so eloquently in favor of the minimum wage hike? How do your policies square with your avowed defense of the working poor who can ill afford housing in California? It may seem like a noble thing to stand for the rights of striped lizards and spotted moths, but I'll stand with the hardworking moms and dads who are trying to make a decent life for their kids.

It's time to consider the citizens we represent. As such, I suggest you complete an in-depth, thorough study of the potential economic damage, both present and future, that this continuous land grabbing by government will likely cause. It is little wonder that American public opinion of elected officials continues to be distrustful as their pleas for due and just consideration fall on deaf ears. Due to the enormous public outcry I have received, it seems necessary to reiterate their strong opinions.

Americans are enraged that their individual freedoms continue to be taken away at the hands of government. It is not the role of elected officials to decide how Americans ought to pursue happiness, yet your "California Wild Heritage Wilderness Act" presumes to make that decision. The hard working people of my district and the State of California are awaiting a reasonable discussion of needs, rather than more of the same arbitrary bureaucrat decision-making and land seizures.

Sincerely,


JAY LA SUER
Assemblyman, 77th District


<font color=yellow>Paige<font color=yellow>
 

BradM

Well-Known Member
Posts
618
Reaction
0
Thanks Paige. I think I will pass that along to my local representative along with a few more comments of my own. Fortunately, my rep in the US House is conservative and he does appreciate the letters of support. In fact, I wrote him last week urging him to oppose the Heritage Areas Act HR 2388. Last week, during further deliberations by the House Resources Committee, Congressman Richard Pombo proposed an amendment that would require notification of property owners of zoning changes. The amendment to require notification of property owners only passed by a 21/19 vote. I was proud to see that Elton Gallegly (my local rep) was among the list of Republicans to support property owners.

All that to reinstate that our calls and letters do make a difference, at least to some. There is probably not much value in a letter to boxer or feinstein but none the less, I will write them too.
 

Paige

Well-Known Member
Posts
946
Reaction
0
I think it is great that you are so involved with contacting your local reps - you are right it does have an impact - unless of course they are so hell bent on their own agenda that they don't bother listening to their constituents.



<font color=yellow>Paige<font color=yellow>
 

JrSyko

Jerry Maguire
Posts
7,888
Reaction
1,600
I don't know if anybody will read this but here goes. Having meat Mr. Lasour (Sp?) on multiple occasions, I must say that one must be quite cautious about what he says. First of all, he continuously comments on the fact that the gov. owns 51% of the land in CA. However, of that 51%, something like 20% (I can't remember the correct amount) of that land is owned by the Military, which coincidentely, Mr. LaSour heavily supports the expansion of. Furthermore, Mr. LaSour supports the drilling of oil in these areas which would lead to the closure of these lands anyways. Either way these lands will be closed so whats the difference? At least if they become a protected area then you can still hike, bike or camp in them.

See ya in the dirt!
 

martininsocal

Well-Known Member
Posts
22,828
Reaction
5
yes, and 14% of California is already designated as wilderness, which means you can't even ride a mountain bike or wheelchair on them. 14%! think about that. that is land never to be used for anything but walking and photos. even burrying toilet paper is a no-no! there are other designations that keep land open for use without the heavy ground disturbance of mining, drilling, etc... and you have to remember, the folks who want to stop ALL development are also the ones who won't let building grow up to make more space because they-a. block views, b. are in the flight paths of birds, and c. leave visual scars that humans and animals can see.

what is the answer? well, if we can't build up and we can't build out, i guess we just shove 30 instead of 20 into the family garage and call it good. you can't just stop development without stopping population growth. you can't stop mineral development without stopping its uses, and you can't drive, let alone race offroad without gas!

If your gonna go, go BIG
 
Top