| . |
Editorial
Howling
Wilderness, Reprised and Earmarked
By Martin Harris
Thanks
to the Internet, basic research is now so easy that even a caveman can
do it. Thus, this troglodyte was able to determine that the phrase "howling
wilderness" comes from the Bible, specifically Deuteronomy XXXII-10, and
that since then it’s been applied to a number of places, among them northern
New England, and specifically to that part of the region traversed by Benedict
Arnold’s army in the course of his unsuccessful assault on Quebec. There’s
a book by that name: "Through a Howling Wilderness, Benedict Arnold’s March
to Quebec, 1775" by one Thomas desJardin, which describes in some detail
the Maine woods as Arnold’s army struggled through it (them?) not unlike
Roger’s Rangers’ struggles through the Vermont woods 16 years earlier as
his troops returned south from their 1759 St. Francis raid, a story vividly
told in the 1940 movie, Northwest Passage. In subsequent decades that same
countryside was cleared for farmland and villages (in the late 19th century
it was 80% cleared, and now it’s the other way, about 80% wooded) in non-professionally-regulated
patterns of land use, sub-division, urbanization, and development, which
proved to be so attractive to vacationing urbanites that they began moving
in as soon as the railroads were put in through and suitably up-scale accommodations
built and staffed. They and their peer-groups haven’t stopped since.
Now
the descendants of those early in-migrants, as well as new ones in sufficient
numbers to create a dominant political majority, want to re-create as much
as possible of Roger’s and Arnold’s howling wilderness by taking land out
of use and back into forests. Of course, the paper and lumber industries
have been doing just that for more than a century, buying up woods and
abandoned farms for forestry purposes, but it has been with their own nickel,
and for actual –ugh—commercial use. The new forestry/wilderness initiative
is typically conceived by the Beautiful People who aggressively advocate
this sort of "re-wilding" (their phrase, not mine) and prefer using OPM,
Other Peoples’ Money, rather than their own, and so it’s perhaps not surprising
that you’ll find an earmark for this purpose inside the recent Farm Bill
(silly you, thinking that the Farm Bill was about pricing structures for
farm commodities), inserted there by Vermont’s own Senator Patrick Leahy,
"to create and include the new Community Forest and Open Space Conservation
Program in the 2008 Farm Bill". The quote comes from a laudatory press
release by a national advocacy group calling itself "The Trust for Public
Land". Whether this sort of thing ought to be tacked onto a Farm Bill (in
my opinion, as befits an opinion column) I’d say is highly challengeable;
whether it ought to be called an "earmark", with all the pejorative overtones
which accompany that word, I’d say "yes" but I offer the following Office
of Management & Budget definition for you to decide for yourself. Here’s
what the OMB says:
"Earmarks
are funds provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the Congressional
direction (in bill or report language) circumvents the merit-based or competitive
allocation process, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise
curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to properly manage funds".
The nominal
purpose of this earmark may well be to re-create at least a little of the
"howling wilderness" experienced by the troops under Roger’s and Arnold’s
commands, but a closer read of the press release suggests a more pressing
agenda: development prevention. Consider, for example, this quote, which
views with alarm the prospect of "500,000 acres of private forestland considered
at extreme risk for development in and around Vermont’s Green Mountain
National Forest" by 2030.
As
a counterpoint, consider this quote from Robert Bruegman’s 2005 book Sprawl:
A Compact History, to be found on page 57. It speaks of "affluent citizens",
those whom I more crudely described above as the Beautiful People, who
"have found that they can use zoning ordinances, historic preservation
measures, environmental regulations, and other means to resist continued
change, to control the appearance and character of their neighborhoods,
and stop densities from rising". Further into the book (page 151) he writes
of the "obvious class bias in these judgments" and a bit further (page
162) he writes of such already-in-place folks doing so for "personal advantage"
and refers to them as "the incumbents’ club". There’s more but I must stop
here; my editor forbids me to sprawl over more column-inches.
Martin
Harris is a former Chairman of Citizens for Property Rights
# # # # #

|