The Bush Landgrab

May 9, 2001 6:28 PM

The Bush Landgrab George's latest: get the federal government to seize land so the power companies can string more power lines up. Aren't the Republicans supposed to be against federal land-grabs like this, or is it okay as long as we're not saving endangered animals?
posted by owillis (22 comments total)

This is definately a big no-no for conservatives. The thing that truly puzzles me is that I have never heard of a shortage of a place to put more powerlines.

From the article it sounds like they are talking about big transmission lines. Lines that could transmit power from one region of the country to another - like into California from the power-rich south. Hopefully this federal land grab will be limited to just such a scenerio.
posted by schlyer at 6:42 PM on May 9, 2001

I have a unique gift -- perfect clairvoyence, but only when it comes to disputes of political ideology. And in case you were wondering, the libertarians are scheduled to start yelling at the socialists... now!
posted by tweebiscuit at 6:55 PM on May 9, 2001

i've got the solution to any power line issues. now, this one's been brewing for a while, so bear with me... we've got wireless phones, wireless pagers, even wireless internet. what's next? wireless powerlines! current carried directly through the air!

sure, you have to stay out of the line of sight of the transponders, and a few million pigeons will be left without a place to roost, but think of the savings in copper alone!

(all ideas in the above post are ©2001 john poulos, so hands off!!!)
posted by jpoulos at 7:09 PM on May 9, 2001

Today's Slate on the emergence of an 'energy policy', and the spinning thereof.

Note also that Exxon announced a obscenely large profit, so there's obviously no "energy crisis" for them, nor for the other petrochemical giants. As for Enron, nuff said.

Payback time? Sheesh, it's good business. If you can get the state to appropriate vast swathes of land for just a few million in the campaign kitty, why bother with mortgages? I'm going to stump up a few thousand to the re-election fund, and maybe Bush will grab me a house.
posted by holgate at 7:12 PM on May 9, 2001

Sorry, jpoulos. Nikola Tesla had you beat on the wireless power transmission idea by about 100 years.
posted by MrBaliHai at 7:16 PM on May 9, 2001

Is there anything uglier than power lines strung across a mountain? I've been to a couple of towns where they bury the lines underground. What a difference.
posted by keithl at 7:50 PM on May 9, 2001

Arrrgh! I always hated that band.
posted by jpoulos at 8:01 PM on May 9, 2001

Ugly powerlines, sure...not to mention cancer-causing (ooooooh, i can hear the stampede already).
posted by mapalm at 9:12 PM on May 9, 2001

Ugly powerlines, sure...not to mention cancer-causing

Recently the Germans did a study on it and it came up positive. Something like 20 years of research. But most 'North American' (in the broad sense of the terms to include Canada) studies indicate otherwise.

Dunno, but that much power surging through wires can't be good for you.
posted by o2 at 10:01 PM on May 9, 2001

Well said aaron . . .

Indeed, it seems this "energy crisis" is being used by the current administration to rationalize a slew of federal initiatives aimed at helping out those poor energy companies, suffering as they struggle to fully enjoy their record profits.

Adding grist to the mill, the President was recently heard uttering the following:

"Drill!!! We've no choice but to drill, and drill we must! Fuck all them lil' varmints the hippies are worried about. And power lines!! Let's build lots of em' all over the place. Here's an idea, let's use money that would otherwise go to the NEA!! Yeah, them power poles are kinda purdy . . . we'll call it a national art project!! Pappy will be so jealous that he never thought of this."
posted by aladfar at 12:50 AM on May 10, 2001

There are too many people in California and not enough elsewhere [NYTimes]. "In Kansas, for example, there are now more "frontier counties" — defined by the census as having from two to six people per square mile — than there were in 1890."

Many of the infrastructure problems American cities have would vanish if a few million people would and could start fresh somewhere else. Maybe it just needs a start...

'Dear Mr. Gates,

Please move Microsoft to Kansas. In return, we will give you, personally, an entire county and build you an airport.

Signed,

[the governor of Kansas]'
posted by pracowity at 2:34 AM on May 10, 2001

Bill Graves = Kasas Governor
posted by schlyer at 7:09 AM on May 10, 2001

Power consumption in California has not increased much.
Yet, somehow, Edison has been taking plants offline. There's your manufactured "power crisis", there's your corporate bailout.

The tree huggers are innocent here.
posted by owillis at 7:11 AM on May 10, 2001

owillis. Get used to it: Republicans will contradict even thier own basic principles when it suits the political interest. Now that they are in control, they really have no interest in the stated principle of state's rights because ultimately, it will limit their power. And if a wave of Democratic governors take over in the states (actually, this is already begun) expect them to be even less state's rights happy. This is just not news anymore in the post Bush v. Gore era.


pracowity,

did you ever get any of those emails after the election
claiming Bush won 'more counties' than Gore. Those frontier counties
in Kansas are part of the reason why. In England, they call them 'rottenboroughs' - places
that still get an electoral vote but have little population.
posted by brucec at 7:20 AM on May 10, 2001

Sending more people to the "frontier counties" is a bad idea. They're much better suited to other inhabitants.
posted by norm at 7:32 AM on May 10, 2001

Republicans will contradict even thier own basic principles when it suits the political interest.

As will Democrats and most any elected politician who depends on campaign donations from somewhere other than his or her own pocketbook. Even then, it's questionable how closely they'll follow their own basic principles for re-election's sake.

Those frontier counties in Kansas are part of the reason why [Bush won more counties].... still get an electoral vote but have little population.

Um, counties don't get electoral votes.

Many of the infrastructure problems American cities have would vanish if a few million people would and could start fresh somewhere else. Maybe it just needs a start...

Not likely. The infrastructure problems would be much worse if you suddenly transplated a few million people to the middle of frontier territory where the only existing infrastructure consists of a few paved roads, a few more dirt roads, some low-capacity electric lines, and some outdated copper phone lines.
posted by daveadams at 7:36 AM on May 10, 2001

> The infrastructure problems would be much worse if
> you suddenly transpla[n]ted a few million people to the
> middle of frontier territory ...

Obviously, you would build the required additional infrastructure as needed, from scratch, rationally. And it wouldn't have to be absolute frontier; there are very nice mid-sized cities in the middle of farm country that would be wonderful places to raise kids in if good, clean industries moved to them.

A big problem with cities like LA is just that too many people fight to get into them because that's where the work is. These places are overstressed. No amount of roadbuilding and pollution controls are going to make them better. LA will always get worse.
posted by pracowity at 8:29 AM on May 10, 2001

Um, counties don't get electoral votes.

One must be careful of using the elipsis "..." I was strictly refering to England as far as electoral vote, and arguing merely with the point that 'Bush won more counties' is meaningless due to these frontier counties. The closest example I could think of is the English rottenborough.

However, since the subject is up, these frontier counties can contribute to an electoral vote injustice as certian people in low population states will get more bang for their electoral vote, as they get a minimum of three regardless of the population of the state. Therefore a New York voter gets less of a say than a North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Wyoming or Montana voter.

As will Democrats and most any elected politician who depends on campaign donations from somewhere other
than his or her own pocketbook. Even then, it's questionable how closely they'll follow their own basic principles
for re-election's sake.

probably true. It's one of the reasons why Dems have sought out so many people to run with thier own pocketbook. I agree that Dems will start to go for state's rights the very minute that Democratic Governors in those states pass laws that a Republican President would like to see overturned. But Republicans tend to run, and thereby benefit from the 'morality' issue and so one would think they'd keep to a higher standard.
posted by brucec at 9:02 AM on May 10, 2001

Bush didn't seem to mind grabbing private citizens land (completely against his property rights ideas?) when the Texas Rangers pushed people off their property to build a new stadium paid for by the taxpayers of the great state of Texas (an thought that seems completely opposed to conservative thinking).
posted by drezdn at 9:04 AM on May 10, 2001

Yes, both Cheney and Bush made their fortunes in the private sector:

Bush bought a team then benefited from a taxpayer paid stadium
Cheney ran a company that outsourced canteen services to the Army.

Of course remember, Cheney saying in the debate against Lieberman, "Joe, that[financial success] has absolutely nothing to do with the government."
posted by brucec at 10:19 AM on May 10, 2001

Maybe the land grab will only be 50ft wide, though. Vastly different from the large acreage grabs of the previous administration.

> Power consumption in California has not increased much.
> Yet, somehow, Edison has been taking plants offline.

This is a direct result of the California Legislature deciding that it should be difficult to be a reseller and a manufacturer. The money was in the reselling, so CalEd broke down their cheaper plants (mostly natural gas fired) and sold them off so they could keep making money.

A set of these power plants were sold to Georgia, and are being used to balance the power demands of the city of Atlanta in the peak hours of Summer when air-conditioners rev up to maximum, and each uses the same natural gas as a 100,000 person city annually.

As you might guess, our natural gas bills jumped this winter.

> There's your manufactured "power crisis", there's your
> corporate bailout.

Manufactured by the tree-huggers that wrote the laws, and the corporations that look to do whatever the law allows to make money.

> The tree huggers are innocent here.

Not at all -- but, they are only partially liable; how could they be expected to use their brains to figure out the corporate mind, when they don't use them for anything else? Must be the California air, which can be carved into interesting shapes late in the smog season.

Now, excuse me -- I have to go hug a tree, before I go back to trying to work on fianancing for a dual-fuel automobile.
posted by dwivian at 11:29 AM on May 10, 2001