Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Challenge Federal Jurisdiction . . .

This nonsense has really gone on long enough: Officials wait for decision on need for permit for nano site.
But the Army Corps doesn’t want the site’s wetlands to be touched until a buyer is found.

The theory for federal control and the need for federal permission to develop the site is that the "wetlands" on the site are somehow connected to the navigible waters of the United States. But the federal government has really been pushing the envelope on this to the point where people cannot even develop their own homesites because a drainage ditch runs across their premises.

First, whatever is done to the Marcy site, there is no impact on interstate commerce whatsoever -- meaning that the federal government has no jurisdiction.

Second, there are no "waters of the United States" that could be potentially affected. Unlike non-colonial states that were carved out of federal territory which would have federal waters, New York State was an original colony. It was sovereign after Independence was declared. The waters belong to the state and not the federal government.

No one wants to challenge federal jurisdiction because of the potential loss of federal funds -- the strings holding our puppets. But this needs to be done, otherwise more and more decisions are going to be made by a far off bureaucracy that is unresponsive to local needs . . . unresponsive like King George was unresponsive to the colonies.


Anonymous said...

The basic question is why the EDGE selected a site with regualted wetlands in the first place? And, why have they been spending all the money they have trying to market a "shovel/permit ready" site if that was all important? None of their development strategy has made sense.

Keith said...

I think the Corps of Engineers is doing us a favor. Their delays reduce the rate of money wasted on the site.

Anonymous said...

I agree with anonymous when he asks why the site was chosen when regulated wetlands are a factor.

Of course there is always the fact that in this country in late years, any low spot bigger than a breadbox that is wet enough to support the growth of cat tails is a "protected wet land." God forbid a duck should discover the wet spot and take up residence.

It does seem that the whole process was mismanaged from the very start. The wetlands factor should have been investigated prior to considering the site to begin with.

In an area where even the average homeowner is familiar with the red tape brought into any land use issue by either the Adirondack Park Agency, the DEC, or the Army Corps of Engineers, it is unbelievable that such research and consideration would have been a factor in choosing the site.

It may be simply my personal opinion, but I think that with the Utica Marsh just down the hill from that site, there is plenty of protected wetlands to support any wildlife or migratory birds in the area.

Anonymous said...

One of the options is in fact to mitigate the wetlands issue. As another pointed out, why was this not done from day one? With all of the money spent on the EDGE, County Planning and the like, how did we wind up with this problem? Oh well, it's only taxpayer money. Who cares?

Dave said...

Strings holding our puppets, indeed!
And tied around our necks. I know it's a waste of time, only a daydream, but I sometimes wonder what things would have been like had withholding tax been declared unconstitutional way back when. Can you imagine the reaction on the part of most people when asked to fork over a check for between ten and thirty thousand dollars to the federal government each year?