I am presently in discussion ( argument ) with US Fish and Wildlife over
property that I own that I want to build a retirement home on. They dispute
an Environmental Survey that I paid to have done. The survey says that there
are no FL Scrub Jays within 850 ft around my property. These birds are
declining in population. The USFWS claims that there were sightings as
recently as 2007 near the edge of my 850 buffer circle. The birds live on
average 12 years. Sightings are generally adult birds which if you do the
math, by now, 2013 , they likely dead or re-nested elsewhere. And these are
just sightings, not nests. The birds fly from the nest and back to it. They
are very territorial.
Nevertheless, USFWS refuses to even consider new updated data from surveys.
Seems to me that new data should have more value to them than old data. They
agree until you try to then pin them down on releasing your property. Then
they come up with some other excuses such as " we really do not want any
surveys done in that particular neighborhood". Or, "we welcome new data but
we do not necessarily use it".
Now, that statement smacks of government control on where you buy or sell
property or where you choose to live. And certainly impacts the livelihood
of those who do environmental surveys. And of course old data means they do
not have to lift a finger to do any work, just stay employed until
retirement doing nothing. They do not even suggest doing a second survey to
validate the first survey and they will not come to the parcel and check for
themselves.
But, there is a solution. It is called Mitigation Fee. You pay them $18,000
per 1/4 acre to free up your land. They then are supposed to use that money
to develop other areas for the birds to flourish. But, they do not move the
nests from your land !!! They let the bulldozers kill off the birds that you
just paid to save !
I have 3/4 acre parcel and that equates to $54K mitigation fee which I
refuse to pay nor do I have in my bank. Nice chunk of land for towers and
verticals.
Can my congressman help? They have indicated that they would work on it if I
ask them to do so. But I worry that if they fail, then my name becomes Mudd
at the FWS and I end up stuck with a piece of land that I pay taxes on and
cannot use and likely cannot sell.
Anyone here have friends in high places ? HiHi This is legal extortion.
Best Regards
Dan Schaaf
=================================
K3ZXL www.k3zxl.com
60 Meters www.60metersonline.net
=================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger (K8RI) on TT
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 6:36 AM
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Towable towers available from the government
On 8/31/2013 6:22 AM, Dan Schaaf wrote:
Substantive BS !
Sure beats the form letters I get from my senator (At least he's not
going to run again..he says.) that could be applied to anything that
says only, I'll keep your views in mind without referring to any thing.
Some one apparently wrote this one.
73
Roger (K8RI)
Best Regards
Dan Schaaf
=================================
K3ZXL www.k3zxl.com
60 Meters www.60metersonline.net
=================================
-----Original Message----- From: Pete Smith N4ZR Sent: Saturday, August
31, 2013 5:57 AM To: towertalk@contesting.com Subject: Re: [TowerTalk]
Towable towers available from the government
Heck, that's a lot more substantive than the sort of BS I get when I write
my Congressperson.
73, Pete N4ZR
Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at
http://reversebeacon.net,
blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com.
For spots, please go to your favorite
ARC V6 or VE7CC DX cluster node.
On 8/30/2013 6:29 PM, Jon Pearl - W4ABC wrote:
...and here's the *answer* that I received, today:
August 30, 2013
Thank you for letting me know of your concerns regarding the way in which
the Department of Defense (DOD) disposes of certain surplus assets by
auctioning them to the public. As the Chairman of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on National Defense, you can be sure that I share your
interest in this regard and appreciate knowing your thoughts.
The Defense Logistics Agency(DLA)Dispositions Services is charged with
disposing ofthe U.S. military'sexcess property. According to the DOD, the
excess property "is first offered for reutilization within the Department
of Defense , transfer to other federal agencies, or donation to state and
local governments andother qualified organizations." In 2008, $2.2
billion worth of property was reutilized.DLA Disposition Services
maintains a Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO)to coordinate transfers
to state, local, and federal; more than 11,500 agencies in all 50 states
participate in this program. In 2011, over $500 million worth of
equipment was transferred to law enforcement agencies. Property that has
not been transferred or donated can be made available for purchase by the
public. Of course, assets with military characteristics must be
demilitarized prior to being made available to the public.
In an effort to be of all possible assistance to you, I have taken the
liberty of contacting Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, to share with him
your thoughts. The Secretary has assured me that your views will be given
serious consideration. This is a matter under careful scrutiny by the
Congress and you can be sure that I will continue to monitor any new
developments that occur.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding this matter
of mutual concern. It is my hope that you will continue to keep me
apprised of your interest in legislative issues important to you.
With best wishes and personal regards, I am
Bill Young
Member of Congress
On 8/14/2013 7:24 PM, Jon Pearl - W4ABC wrote:
I saw this ad, earlier this month.
I sent a letter to my Congressman asking how it was this didn't somehow
qualify as waste, fraud or abuse of our wallets?
73,
Jon Pearl - W4ABC
www.w4abc.com
On 8/14/2013 6:50 PM, Mickey Baker wrote:
Careful - this appears to be 198,000 pounds of scrap, now selling at
$45
per pound, about $9M dollars, probably close to what the government
paid
for it.
It looks like a better deal... but that's the way I read it.
73,
Mickey N4MB
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|