OCR Text |
Show Responding To Past Letters All three letters in the current (51399) Garfield County News are directed at me, personally, andor at my recent letter about land trusts. I begin by replying to Larry Withers' letter. Larry asserts that rights ought to be earned. There is no constitutional or legal basis for this position. Our human rights are ours because we are human beings; the rights guaranteed by the American Ameri-can Constitution are ours because we are citizens. The guarantee is made not merely for the sake of individual citizens, but for the good of society as a whole. Free speech and free association are indispensable indispensa-ble to a free society. It is crucial that we listen to and learn from each other. I truly believe that we all have a piece of the truth; a group that refuses to heed the diverse di-verse truths of its members hurts itself. Larry is correct in stating that I refuse to pledge allegiance to the flag. I would be happy to pledge allegiance to our founding documents docu-ments - the Declaration of Independence, Inde-pendence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights -at any time. They represent ideals that I hold very dear. By contrast, for me, the flag is a piece of cloth, an idol (on idol worship, see Exodus 20:4-6) which represents reflexive obedience to the government of the day. Our government gov-ernment continues to maintain many thousands of nuclear weapons on hairtrigger "launch on warning" status even though the Cold War ended a decade ago, and even though both the Bush and Clinton administrations admini-strations have had the whip hand over the Russians, and every other nuclear power, throughout that decade. dec-ade. To me, nuclear weapons are an absolute and unacceptable evil. Not only do they destroy indiscriminately, indiscrimi-nately, the poisons that they create go on ruining lives and killing for decades. (Talk to the "downwinders" over by Cedar City, or in the West Desert, about what nuclear tests did to them and their children.) I have spent 20 years fighting against this evil, going to jail many times as a consequence of non-violent acts of civil disobedience. As long as nuclear nu-clear weapons exist, I will fight them; as long as our government , persists in its addiction to them, I will withhold my allegiance from-our from-our government. I respect Larry's willingness to risk his life in battle. But I also think the Vietnam War was a thoroughly thor-oughly bad, misconceived war, disastrous dis-astrous for this country, and still more disastrous for all the Vietnamese, Viet-namese, our allies as well as our adversaries. If only LB J had had the political courage to listen to Mar-riner Mar-riner Eccles (one of the most extraordinary ex-traordinary citizens Utah has produced) pro-duced) when, in 1965, Eccles called on the President to end the war! Eccles foresaw quite accurately the calamitous results if LBJ expanded American involvement, which he proceeded to do. I see my whole generation, including Larry Withers, With-ers, as a victim of a tragic error committed by our government. When I was in Washington, D.C., recently, I visited the Vietnam Viet-nam Veterans Memorial. While I was there, I helped someone take a rubbing of one of the thousands of names, high up on the wall of black granite. The stone had been absorbing the sun all day; it was warm, like flesh. When I touched it, I felt as if I were touching the warm cheek of the dead soldier moments after he was killed, back in 1967 - touching the warm, living liv-ing memory of all the dead. Tears ran down my face as I stood there, reaching out, touching the past. I knew then how fresh the wound still was that the war made in all of us men who were young in the 1960show this nation still bears the dark weight of the war upon its spirit, pressing it down like a mountain of black granite. For my own part, by 1968, when I went in for my induction physical, I had grave doubts about what was happening, but lacked the clarity or the courage to act on them. But I was lucky, in a sense. I was classified "1Y," a medical deferment, because of the double vision with which I have had to live since I was three years old, and which impairs both my depth perception per-ception and my coordination. Thanks to this misfortune, I never went to Vietnam. Thinking about war reminds me that I am puzzled by something. Why is it that so many people regularly say they detest the federal government, yet seem to be ready to support and even participate in whatever war the government decides de-cides to wage, constitutional or not? Why the quickness to obey what is otherwise treated with such distrust and contempt? Is it the hypnotic influence of the flag, dazzling daz-zling our eyes and our reason? Must we always be victims? Next to these deep and fearful matters, the issue of land trusts seems superficial. The letters from Richard Crawford, Senior, and Mar-lene Mar-lene Haws both concern that issue, however, and something needs to be said in reply. First, ideas should be considered on their merits, not judged by who voices them. (Thank you, Richard.) I did not invent the idea of land trusts; I just think it should be seriously se-riously considered. Land trusts are a particularly effective mechanism in current use all over the country to protect agricultural land, which is disappearing at a frightening rate. In Utah, there is so little arable land to begin with; subdividing and paving pav-ing what's left seems very unwise. Marlene's letter attacking land trusts appeared in early February. Wendy Fisher of Utah Open Lands wrote a response in March. I waited for it to appear. It never did I waited for someone - anyone - to answer Marlene's letter. No one did. Why? Probably because they were afraid to speak. Finally, I decided to write the reply myself. Since we have to eat to live, the preservation of agricultural land concerns all of us, whether or not we happen to own any. In addition, a lot of people in Escalante, including includ-ing myself, would rather look out (See LETTER On Page 4-A) LETTER From Page 3-A at green fields north of the river (for example) than at acres of houses. Land trusts offer a way to accomplish accom-plish both objectives, without infringing in-fringing on the rights of landowners. landown-ers. In addition, farmers and ranchers ranch-ers can use the money they get for their development rights to improve their operations and help themselves them-selves stay in business. As a result, re-sult, the land remains agricultural, a source of food (directly or indi-.rectly) indi-.rectly) for us. Everyone comes out ahead. In such a context, a large reservoir no longer constitutes a potential threat to local agriculture. With the land solidly protected, the water will be used for the stated purpose: irrigation of crops. The concern which I expressed in the Tribune happily becomes obsolete. My letter provided the phone numbers of Utah Open Lands and the Colorado Cattlemen's Association. Associa-tion. Marlene assures the reader that she "will not be calling the phone numbers any time soon." This reminds me of an old one-liner: one-liner: "I've got my theories - don't bother me with facts." Richard Crawford, Senior, states that supporters of land trusts are(l) fools, (2) seeking the demise of their own towns, or (3) greedy farmers. I hope he will convey his views to the Cattlemen's Association Associa-tion in our neighbor state, and to the farmers and ranchers and land trust groups who are seeking to preserve agricultural land elsewhere for everyone's benefit. I am sure struggling farmers and ranchers for whom the sale of development rights provides the means to survive sur-vive will appreciate being called "greedy, or "fools;" or enemies of their communities. Richard's trust in the power of city government to control land use is misplaced. Most of the privately owned land around Escalante is outside out-side the city limits and beyond city control. More important, money (See LETTER On Page 5-A) LETTER From Page 4-A talks in the real world, and big developer de-veloper money talks very loud indeed. in-deed. Left to the mercy of local politics and politicians, farmland inevitably loses out to development. develop-ment. Money buys elections, officials, offi-cials, and finally, the land itself. It has happened in so many places; Escalante is just as vulnerable to this scenario as any other place. Richard calls land trusts "a past dictatorship." This implies that private property rights are a "present dictatorship." In both cases, landowners decide what happens hap-pens on their land. What exactly is the difference between someone saying, "I choose to keep farming my land," and someone saying, "I choose to put a clause in the deed for my land so that it can continue to be farmed?" Note also that paving pav-ing and building on agricultural land also dictate future use. In any case, a great deal of the land around Escalante is not suitable suit-able for farming. If more housing is going to be built (and it undoubtedly un-doubtedly will be), let it be on uncultivated un-cultivated ground, not on farmland. There will still be plenty of room for our town to "progress," hopefully hope-fully in a way that will not reduce it to Anywhere, USA, with all the character developed out of it. The choice is not between "growth" and "no growth." There is a third way, the way of controlled growth, in which we work together to get the best result from the influx of people peo-ple and money, instead of standing by with folded hands and letting the worst happen. In closing, I want to say that there seems to be a lot of wild talk around town about myself and my partner, Tori. Rather than fantasizing fantasiz-ing about us, people could talk to us directly. We don't bite. Also (to quote Exodus 20 again), it is worth remembering the commandment, command-ment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Even if the false witness makes a much more exciting story than the truth. Patrick Diehl Escalante |