[roc-chat] Re: Launch site.
- From: Allen Farrington <allen.farrington@xxxxxx>
- To: "roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 21:08:55 -0700
Those squares have been privately held for at least 20 years, if I remember the
land records that I have.
Allen
Terseness and mis-spelling courtesy of my iPhone
On May 9, 2012, at 6:49 PM, David Erbas-White <derbas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 5/9/2012 5:05 PM, Allen H Farrington wrote:
>
> Allen, first off, thanks to you (and the rest of the Board) for all the great
> effort and work that you put forth on behalf of ROC. The following rant is in
> no way directed at anyone in ROC, or associated with ROC, I just have to get
> this off my chest...
>
> In looking at your attached maps, it appears that three of the four 'squares'
> that make up Lucerne Dry Lake have been purchased by private parties. WTF???
> This area has been held by BLM, in trust for the public, for decades, and has
> been used for recreational purposes for as long as I can remember. When, and
> how, did the BLM get it in their heads that they could/should sell these
> lands to private parties? When/where were any hearings held for interested
> public members to comment about how keeping these lands public serves a
> PUBLIC benefit?
>
> I've been pissing/moaning for years about how the decline of the educational
> system has been degrading our culture. I've been equally pissing/moaning
> about how governmental regulation has been doing the same. But now, on top of
> this, we see this type of handling of public lands?
>
> I'm so made I could... I could... well, I was going to say "spit," which is
> what my grandmother would have said, but somehow it just doesn't seem harsh
> enough...
>
> David Erbas-White
>
>
>> For everyone interested, here is the actual plot of where the traditional
>> ROC range head is. We will issue more later but rest assured that we're
>> trying hard to minimize the change to the membership. This change was
>> prompted to keep most of our recovery area on the BLM "square" of land (#26)
>> thus limiting our incursions into privately held land. We're trying to
>> minimize our incursions on the private land in order to prevent the need for
>> insurance certificates, permission, etc… (per NFPA& CA law, not BLM rules)
>> for launching operations.
>>
>> Based on what we're planning, other than getting to the range head, there
>> should be no changes to our camping or OHV policies.
>>
>
>
> --
> ROC-Chat mailing list
> roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> //www.freelists.org/list/roc-chat
>
--
ROC-Chat mailing list
roc-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
//www.freelists.org/list/roc-chat
Other related posts:
