PPA ORV Meeting Today
- Thread starter Ben Ruset
- Start date
i read the PPA's website, and i wished i referenced them to my previous posts. Talk about a do nothing, pay for activisim group. Talk about fighting for stupid causes when not fighing for the Pinelands itself, by not fighting against expansion, even if its x per x acres by control of a municipality. I dont get not fighting to stop any of this, by state, or federal means of development. Corruption of building is basically 100%, its 90% in pocket of the people in control and 10% in spreading it away in the township so the elected officials seem to be i in control, just they are not the 90% of accepting anything for backdoor cash, they just accept it but make demands for themselves to keep being elected from the locations. Im laughing at the PPA, didint they buy out a florist, and f/v seller for the land for an insane cost? Nice choice of location, the same cash could have bought, and preserved an actual farm. I dont get the fight for stupid things to ingore the real things, i wonder who is floating pure cash to them. I dont want to hear any bullshit about "bribery doesnt happen anywhere", if you say that, you are in fantasy land, talk to people who deal with things like this, and understand reality, and even accept PUBLIC ADMITTED CORRUPTION, dont be an idiot, but this PPA, seems way out of touch with what is supposed to be for the Pinelands.
Super,
You are incorrect about the PPA. They do a lot of good. You have not looked deep enough into their structure, mission and successes.
Its the Pinelands Commission you have to watch.
You are incorrect about the PPA. They do a lot of good. You have not looked deep enough into their structure, mission and successes.
Its the Pinelands Commission you have to watch.
Well i dont get making noise about developments in areas where Pinelands rules say they should not be. These developments get made anyway, or the developer could cut a deal with the township to pay them, X amount per house to be used for clean water, or preservation, but it just goes into the general budget. It seems to me Saxton is about helping on preservation, id rather see alot of work buying development rights in the border towns to create a buffer. Im sure if the guy in Alaska can get funding for the $100+ million bridge to nowhere, Saxton could score $100 million per budget for preservation. Im sure they are working hard, but maybe im wrong, i think it seems their statements are not really about solving the issue.
I don't think Saxton does all that badly with Pinelands conservation. He was endorsed by the Sierra Club for the last three Congressional elections, which is pretty remarkable for a Republican. That being said he doesn't carry nearly as much clout as Don Young from Alaska who's been in Congress 10 years longer, not to mention the fact that he represents an at large district. Having Ted Stevens (longest serving Republican and President Pro Tempore) as a Senator helps too.
Sorry if i implied as being against Saxton, i fully support him 100%. I was just saying i think he could score alot money then he does. Saxton is a big support in conserving land, i just think he could score more cash since the federal government hands out cash like it was used toilet paper. I would rather see less money for roads or bridges, and more for preservation.