I keep warning that the “nature rights” movement is taking off and nobody takes notice. Santa Monica has now enacted a resolution declaring, in essence, that “nature” has a right to life. From the Santa Monica Lookout story:
Santa Monica’s City Council voted on Tuesday to recognize the rights of natural communities to exist. The resolution, drafted by the Task Force on the Environment, calls for Santa Monica to “recognize the rights of people, natural communities, and ecosystems to exist, regenerate and flourish,” according to City Staff.
Note that the resolution, like similar ones passed elsewhere by USA municipalities, elevates the “rights” of natural communities and ecosystems to co-equal status with those of people. These resolutions also grants the right to sue to enforce nature rights to everyone and anyone. The city could promote a restrictive development policy, if that was the goal, without diminishing the rights of man to the level of the local clams and sand crabs.
But it is too late for that anyway. I was raised and lived in LA until I was 42. I know Santa Monica very well. The city is already developed to the hilt and is decidely high end. I guess to protect the rights the sand dabs and resident mackerel, they’ll tear up the huge beach parking lot, destroy the pier, and uproot beautiful Palisades Park so the “natural communities” can reestablish the bluff above the Pacific to its pre-development state. Right! And watch land values and revenues drop like a stone thrown in the ocean. What hypocrites.
January 25th, 2012 | 8:49 pm
But if land values and revenues drop, does that not violate the right of people to … flourish?
I’m waiting for someone to sue the mosquitoes and zebra mussels under these laws. Could humans win a default judgement if the mussels don’t show up in court?
[Reply]
January 26th, 2012 | 11:35 am
We are watching America go insane. It’s quite a show.
It is also pathetic ….. and there is NO ONE to vote for who is not insane and pathetic as well.
[Reply]
Mark Matis Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 12:48 pm
@John West, Well said!
[Reply]
January 26th, 2012 | 12:33 pm
On the contrary, this measure would be more likely to restrict further development (if further development is even possible). In turn, what minor natural ecosystems are left, shall remain.
In essence, the city council has established a controlled scarcity within an established area. This is brilliant. To the contrary, the result will be to increase land and real-estate values. Those seeking to enter these markets will be able to predict will greater clarity what trajectory the area is on (ie, they don’t have to worry about Subways popping up beyond saturation, then collapsing from over-leveraging, driving down local values – we see this on every street corner in Atlanta, for example). Demand-driven consumer wants for known developmental restrictions will steer the economy. No more supply-side nonsense.
Watch and learn. 5 years from now the land value will a) shrink less than the national average, should the average shrink or b) increase more than national average, should the average increase or c) increase/hold while the national average decreased.
Can’t lose. Brilliant.
[Reply]
January 26th, 2012 | 12:43 pm
Anybody want to bet they don’t recognize the right of an unborn child to “exist…and flourish?”
I’m just asking.
[Reply]
January 26th, 2012 | 3:24 pm
(((Right!)))
With all due respect Wesley, “I” think that we’ll pass on this “ONE” cause we think you’re stretching “IT” some what!
Hey guys! Never mind the craps, what about U>S old dogs? :)
Peace
[Reply]
January 26th, 2012 | 3:27 pm
I’m waiting for someone to sue the mosquitoes and zebra mussels under these laws. Could humans win a default judgement if the mussels don’t show up in court?
Ahh, but environmentalism means you get to “speak for the trees” whenever you want control over whatever resources are at stake.
After all, ownership includes responsibilities as well as control. If you can get control without also being stuck with the obligations that go with ownership, you’re doing well. (Of course, some other poor slob is going to be stuck with the responsibilities without any rights or control, but he should have thought of that before he spent all that money buying the property that is now useless for whatever purpose he wanted it for.)
[Reply]
January 26th, 2012 | 4:08 pm
This whole idea of “Nature Rights” is simply a side-effect of social liberalism.
Classical liberalism holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government. Then it’s up to the government to acknowledge and protect them.
Social liberalism holds that individual rights are man made. The government sets up contractual agreements between the individual and the society.
The obvious counter to social liberals is, that it really doesn’t matter what “rights” to high-speed Internet, education or ecosystems you make up. If “rights” are only man made, then the inclination to governance is majority rule, not the search for truth.
[Reply]
35YearsInSM Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 5:29 pm
@Markus,
[Reply]
Markus Reply:
January 28th, 2012 at 5:30 am
@35YearsInSM, I don’t know what you meant to say, but I’ll clarify my position a bit: I’m attacking an idea, not the people holding it.
I live in a country where every resident has a “right” to 1 megabit Internet connection. This is such obvious nonsense, of course nobody has an inherent right to Internet connection. 30-40 years ago there was no Internet, it’s a man made invention and a valuable tool in modern society, but this kind of “pulling rights out of your hat” cheapens the important things we should protect.
I also believe that many social liberals have good hearts and moral intuition, and they can be often persuaded to go in the right direction.
[Reply]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact