The CBD May be controversial but they’ve done a lot of good, and that is what CA needs in light of its environmental losses not more businessman. We’ve had one running the country for the past three years and not much good has come from that either.
Personally, I can't stand this White House - never could - and I really don't think its resident has much acumen at all for crafting enduring, meaningful agreements. I see instead, more pettiness and bullying - which ironically is exactly what I see from CBD too. Can't get along with someone? Can't meet them part-way? Then smash them, using any means necessary. I just don't see that as a path to enduring, meaningful agreements.
In 2012, Tejon Ranch agreed to pay $136,500 in fines and restitution for illegally killing at least 11 mountain lions to prevent them from competing for game with high-paying trophy hunters in its hunting concession.
Change of topic. So what? They broke the law, got caught, got punished. Awesome. The system, working as it should. What they should have done, was try and get some "depredation permits" to shoot the lions that were impacting their business. That would have been the legal route. Failing that, they should have leaned hard on Cal F&W to get a lion concession on the Ranch, and sell some permits. Failing that, they should have leaned hard on the Legislature to write a law to amend the one resulting from the 1994 ballot initiative outlawing lion sport hunting in the state.
Now, maybe they did all that. Maybe they got to the point where they realized they were being played for fools, trying to work with totally unreasonable people. At that point, watch out. You never know what someone might do. That's why it's best to not be the totally unreasonable person. Do business, not jihad. Jihadis get rolled and smoked.
Conservation easements funded by public dollars have requirements that must be upheld
Absolutely. An easement is typically a real estate deal of sorts, that results in something getting recorded on the title records kept down at the county Recorder's Office. Somebody holds the real interest - say, the development rights. That party has to - or ought to - monitor the seller (now their co-owner or partner) at regular intervals to ensure they aren't cheating. People - partners - can cheat, lie, etc. It's predictable. Watch them, catch them, punish them. If it's a public entity holding the easement, it can get sticky to enforce - politics comes into play, This is where "pulling the fire alarm" comes in, and NGOs have a legitimate role in informing the public. That's all good, to the extent they can
tell the truth.
That - "pulling the fire alarm" - isn't all CBD does. I've experienced some of their BS in a professional context, and I'm not a fan. Honestly, most of the time my complaints are 1) they're focusing on the wrong stuff and 2) their tactics don't seem to be geared towards a coherent strategy - let alone goal - I can get behind. Now, I understand that even a non-profit needs operating capital, they need a revenue model. There are only a few out there - you can work (e.g., as a contractor/consultant), you can beg (ask for donations), or you can take (sue people). Don't get me wrong, begging and taking require work too. But CBD seems, to me, to be in the taking business. Taking to me seems the least honorable route to accomplishing environmental good.
adulation
Uh, no. That suggests a "world as it should be" orientation. I'm talking about the world as it is.
Question - do you own any real estate? Do you own any interest in other businesses? (I do - you learn a lot!) I ask, because the crucial realization when you
do own such things, is "things need to pencil out". Whatever your views or beliefs or sacred cows - you can't own something that generates a lot of expenses, if it doesn't at least generate enough income (or write-offs) to break even. Owning a huge piece of land - whether or not it's got buildings on it - is not free, it actually costs a horrible amount of money. Whoever owns it, needs to be thinking about how to make money off it. Subsidizing a "shiny toy" can work for a while, but there will always come a point when the owner just can't any more. If you can't afford it, you sell it, or you find a way to make it pay for itself. The only difference is (or should be...) with public properties like National Parks. Those, we agree to subsidize - nearly all "lose money", but they don't exist to make money. They are "shiny toys", but they are worth subsidizing, generation after generation.
It is totally unreasonable for the public to expect private property owners to fully subsidize the ownership of private property (e.g., by making something "unbuildable"). It goes both ways too - when private owners expect the public to fully subsidize them, such as through flood insurance or fire protection - that's totally unreasonable. Some things shouldn't be built. Tejon is one such thing.
At the end of the day, 90% of Tejon isn't getting sold to land developers, and built. That's a wonderful outcome. For that, I can hold my nose for a lot of expense (lemme get my wallet out) and a lot of stink, such as "my favorite outspoken researcher is blackballed from there". Sure, there a First Amendment. Doesn't mean nobody can make you pay - perfectly legally - for shooting your mouth off. Not all speech is protected speech.
This of course is all just my perspective. I've been in conservation my whole career - I've worked in or with private for profit, NGO state, fed, and academic sectors. It's hard, and it's complicated. It's neither a sprint nor a marathon, it's a multi-generational relay race. You have to win constantly, and you can only lose once, when the stakes are extinction.
cheers