(July 20, 2013 at 4:41 pm)Rhythm Wrote: No..more like "different choices". There would be choices available to you under priority use that are not available under ownership, of course. "More choices, more freedom" seems a hell of a stretch.
For example?
(July 20, 2013 at 4:41 pm)Rhythm Wrote: -and we know that the ownership model curtails at least one freedom available to us in the priority model. As far as valuing it, no argument from me there - I value my rights to ownership as well.
We do? I don't.
(July 20, 2013 at 4:41 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Try applying the concept of deferment to a hostile audience (like my children). This is just chewy back and forth - the sword cuts both ways.
Its not deferment that's valuable here but the choice of deferment. You are not being forced to defer under the ownership model, but you are being forced to "use it or lose it" under priority use model.
(July 20, 2013 at 4:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Agreed, but since we're chalking this one up to government it's possible in either system- so long as there is government.
No its not. What's being chalked up to the government is using possibly corrupt reasons for exercising its right to defer - a right not available to it under priority use.
(July 20, 2013 at 4:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It is similar, but similar doesn't mean equivalent, obviously. Many of the tools we use in our current system are equally applicable to a priority system - we use priority based systems in some areas already. Changes would have to be made, yes.
And we are back to square one. The point I'm making is that it is that the current system is not similar to priority use system - for the reasons I've already given.
(July 20, 2013 at 4:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Good for them, may the best proposal win. They've ceased to be lobbyists, or at least ceased doing that which diferentiates them -as- lobbysists, relative to a guy like myself just trying to get the best proposal in the bundle.
They'd still end up the bigger problem.
(July 20, 2013 at 4:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote: A principle that could be included in either system (though I, personally, wouldn't include it)
And how exactly would it be enforced in the priority use system?
(July 20, 2013 at 4:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote: More like a clause that states that the highest level of environmental controls must be applied and will be rigorously tested at random to check for a breach of contract. This is assuming that the proposal requirement for this parcel could even include mining (and why would we agree to such a thing if the above could not be accomplished - if we wished to both preserve environment and resources while availing ourselves of their use?
By its very nature, the "highest level of environmental controls" is a compromise. It is used when the need for development is great enough to justify a certain amount of damage to the environment and the controls are just a way to minimize it. Under the ownership model, even the compromise would be limited - certain sections of environment must remain inviolate. The same cannot be enforced under priority use.
