Sirotablog
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. David writes about political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties.
-
July 6, 2007 11:32 AM
Land Politics: Progressives' Big Opportunity in the West
Tired and worn out from the difficult slog of a populist campaign in the red state of Montana, I penned three articles (in the Washington Monthly, the American Prospect and In These Times) in December of 2004 showing how the politics of property rights, hunter/angler access and energy development - let's call it Land Politics - has the potential to scramble the traditional Republican coalition in places like the Great American West, if progressives plot a course to advantage of the changing political topography. These articles were met with typically blank looks in Washington, until about 2005 when the New York Times essentially reprinted the articles in a "new" piece by Tim Egan. Now, three years later, we see the fissures that were mere tiny cracks in 2004 are becoming potentially wide chasms, replete with serious political opportunities. Considering the fact that many of the 97 out of 100 fastest growing counties in America that Bush won in 2004 are out here and face these issues, Land Politics could be the key to progressives fundamentally changing the national electoral map.
Here in Colorado, Land Politics (in the sense I'm talking about) has a lot to do with the conflict between those who own surface rights to land and those who own the mineral rights (aka. subsurface drilling/mining rights) to the same land. Typically, this pits people who live in houses versus oil/gas/mining companies that own the mineral rights to that land and thus - because of lax laws - are allowed to plant their giant oil drilling operations right in people's front yard or backyard.
Back in 2005, Republican legislators joined with energy industry lobbyists to kill legislation that would have forced oil and gas companies to pay more when they harm private property during energy exploration. They rejected the bill in the face of the Rocky Mountain News' expose on how land owners are often poorly compensated when oil/gas companies drill under their land - and how ordinary citizens' property rights are abused.
Now, today, the Greeley Tribune reports that Weld County is facing increasing friction between its residents and the oil industry over the exploitation of mineral rights:
"Most people who own rights to surface land don't own the rights to the oil, gas or other minerals beneath, which turns out to be a big problem, said Jana Easley, a city planner. Since the beginning of 2006, when Colorado law changed to allow more wells per parcel of land, 67 wells have been approved by Greeley. Officials say the new law has made for strained relations between landowners and mineral rights owners, especially near residential areas in places such as Greeley...There are 1,243 wells inside Greeley's long-range expected growth area, the area the city plans to annex within the next 20 years. Under Colorado law, land owners have to make reasonable accommodation for those who own the mineral rights under the land to extract the minerals. In addition, a Colorado law enacted at the end of 2005 allows eight oil and gas wells per 320 acres...Like most property owners, the city does not typically own the mineral rights on its land."
Remember, in this swing state of Colorado, Weld County is represented by fringe conservative Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R) and is a bedrock Republican stronghold, having delivered 63 percent of its vote to President Bush and 55 percent of its vote to Republican Senate candidate Pete Coors in 2004. But the friction between ordinary Republican-leaning voters/landowners there and the Republican Party elite's Big Money oil industry donors means great potential for Democrats if they have the guts to take the side of the former, whether with similar legislation that they pushed in 2005, or with new legislation to strengthen surface owners rights against energy company intrusion. This could be politically crucial, as both Colorado is up for grabs in the presidential election and Musgrave could be a top House target in 2008.
A similar dynamic is playing out in the Republican stronghold of Wyoming - another state in political flux due to the death of Republican Sen. Craig Thomas and the surprisingly strong candidacy of Democrat Gary Trauner in 2004. There, we find this Associated Press story today:
"Newly appointed U.S. Sen. John Barrasso (R) says he would support buying back oil and gas leases to prevent further energy development in the Wyoming Range...Barrasso said he would support limiting development if property rights could be upheld. 'It would be nice if there was a way to buy back those leases or work in a way that respected those private property rights but still protected an area that needs to be protected long term,' he said...Barrasso has taken a similar stance on other environmental issues on which Thomas was working. Shortly before his death, Thomas introduced the Snake Headwaters Legacy Act of 2007. The act would protect 443 miles on 14 streams from water quality degradation and dam building."
Barrasso is not even close to an environmentalist, but he is a politician - and he is pretty clearly responding to the same sort of tensions between landowers and energy companies we see in Greeley and throughout the West. The question is how much of what he is supporting is rhetoric and how much is real? And more politically interesting, how will Wyoming Democrats use the issue and their stance as defenders of the little guy to continue their solid state legislative work driving a wedge between industry-allied Republican Party elites and the Republican voters who would like to see their property rights, tourist economy and landscape preserved/strengthened?
In Montana, while the surface rights vs. mineral rights politics are similar and where there is growing dissatisfaction with oil/gas companies' encroachment on wildlife habitats, the other issue politically opportune for progressives is the conflict over stream and public land access, as I described in my 2004 Washington Monthly article. Montana's constitution deems stream beds public land, and thus allows the public to be within the high-water mark of any stream, even if it runs through private land. Superwealthy private landowners - many who live out of state - hate the stream access law, and have waged a vicious campaign to try to slowly chip away at hunters'/anglers' stream access, to the point where some have even tried to essentially privatize the Ruby River.Montana Republican Party elites have long taken the side of wealthy out of state landowners in these disputes, pitting themselves against often conservative-leaning outdoorsmen. And this past year, Democrats smartly used the legislative session to highlight this split in the conservative coalition. With Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) leading the charge, Democrats authored a bill to strengthen stream access laws, and the Montana GOP responded by publicly opposing it - an insult to hunters and anglers that garnered major headlines throughout the state. This split - and Democrats' courage in taking the side of the little guy - has been one of the key ways Democrats in Montana have branded a new populism and won recent elections.
To be sure, Land Politics is delicate, especially when it comes to energy. Like it or not, in the Great American West oil, gas, coal and other mineral deposits are synonymous in blue-collar voters' minds with jobs and wages. And Republicans - up until now - have been able to successfully turn "environmentalist" into a cuss word in many places by "jobs and wages!" anytime progressives have considered the populist route on Land Politics. Their ability to do this was one of the key ways they converted "Reagan Democrats" into reflexive Republicans, and turned this region from a progressive populist bastion of Mike Mansfield and Frank Church to the Republican stronghold of Wayne Allard and Larry Craig.
But maybe because of high gas prices, or maybe because of something else, the political topography seems to be changing. And whether it's Schweitzer on stream access in Montana, or Rep. Mark Udall (D) on both hunters' rights and oil drilling in Colorado, a new generation of populist Democrats are figuring out how to use these opportunities for both political and progressive policy initiatives that the public now better understands do not automatically fall into the past's Spotted Owl paradigm of "jobs vs. the environment."
I want to reiterate that last point because it's so important: Land Politics is a set of issues where good politics can be great policy that does not endanger jobs. The truth is, the most effective form of public policy populism is that which targets captive interests - those industries that cannot realistically pull the old post-NAFTA threat to ship out in the face of new laws, because what they do is inherently tied to geography.
Natural resources are, by definition, captive - and with energy prices so high, the profit-making potential of all deposits are so great that even if one company left a state in the face of new land protections, another would likely come right in. Same thing with stream/public lands issues. The asset in question with wealthy private landowners - their land - is captive. They can't "move" in the face of enhanced stream/public lands access laws - because their land can't be moved. That means, in short, the public and our elected officials have a lot of leverage in dealing with captive industries - if they have the guts in state legislatures and in Congress to stand up to Big Money interests and use that leverage for the common good.
Originally posted at Working Assets
-
TAKE ACTION
-
About David Sirota
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. He is the New York Times bestselling author of Hostile Takeover. He lives in Denver, Colorado. His daily blog can be found at CREDO Action. He contributes regularly to the Denver Post's Web site, is a senior editor at In These Times magazine and is working on his second book. He has been profiled in Newsweek and the Rocky Mountain News and is widely known for his reporting on political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties. Sirota serves as co-chair of the Progressive States Network, a 501(c)3 organization that supports state legislators and that is a partner of CREDO.
You can subscribe to Sirota's e-mail newsletter by going to davidsirota.com and signing up in the lefthand corner. To find out more about Sirota, download his official biography or see his recent media appearances. You can e-mail him at sirota@credoaction.com.
The views expressed on this blog are his own, and do not necessarily represent the views of Working Assets (publisher of CREDO Action) or the institutions Sirota works for.
-
Recent Sirotablog entries
- Fox News: "Historians Pretty Much Agree" That FDR Prolonged the Great Depression
- Maddow Busts Morgan Stanley Board Member for Conflict of Interest
- Viva Las Vegas?
- Gov. Paterson Is Either Deliberately Deceptive Or Grossly Uninformed
- We WERE Punked
- CO-SEN: Potential Huge Differences Between Candidates Have National Implications
- Kirk as USTR - Changeiness or Change?
- Maddow: Did America Get Punked On the Bailout? Yes...Now Here's What to Do.
- Becerra Turns Down USTR
- In a Recession, Should States Raise Taxes Or Slash Spending?
-
More David Sirota
-
This Modern World
-
February 17, 2009 -
February 10, 2009 -
February 4, 2009 -
January 27, 2009 -
January 20, 2009
-
-
Donations Recipients
-
RSS feeds
Discussion
Land use makes politics very personal and has a way of getting the public to participate in politics.
And yes its easy thing for the Democrats to exploit across the west and mid-west given how badly the GOP is tied into big business.
The thing is, at the local level it helps Democrats but at the national level IMO its not enough to insure Democratic dominance because of a combination of corruption and incompetence that plagues the party. Basically the Democrats are a disaster with no discernable strategy or plan outside of self-enrichment via K Street.
And when you look at all the problems facing this country the Democrats are AWOL on Trade, Off-shoring, the gutting of the EPA and FDA, energy policy, exploding national debt, a collasping dollar, fixing our national energy grid, border security, turning congress into Cheney's doormat, etc.
Here's one to add to your pile of research on land use issues in the west.
Due to the indefinite wars for oil that we've started, the Army is bulking up Fort Carson, and thus is attempting to expand its primary training site east of Trinidad, by 200%. This involves buying (or condemning) a bunch of local ranches, at rock bottom prices, from "willing sellers". Here's how willing the sellers seem to be:
"I hope it doesn't come to this, but some people might end up drawing a line in the dust and defending their land with arms."
Good overview, some details, and the latest map of the proposed expansion here:
http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1181293653/1
3rdoption,
Interesting to see the Congress people whose districts include Pinon all of a sudden stand up to military expansion. I'm rather leary of Ken Salazar's promise though since he is tied to LIEberman and does back the Iraq war.
He is a pure Lieberman protégé.
You should see the email his office sent to me the week after he voted for the Iraq supplemental.
If it smells like Joe, and tastes like Joe...
Oh, and I don't see much trust in his position "against" the Army down here. If you read his actual statements, they are loaded with qualifiers and "but I had my fingers crossed" escape options.
Sometimes I wonder between the two parties, there's got to be some serious difference. I'm thinking that like VA, in CO people know the Republicans they are dealing with regardless of their agreement with their policies whereas with Democrats they can't be sure what to expect of them much less agree or disagree with them. I was returning from the Shenandoah area of VA along the WV border and I can't tell you just how much those people support the GOP simply because they know who they're dealing with. Now Webb isn't too bad and even though he got far less support there than elsewhere, most Democrats in VA are entirely unpredictable. Sometimes I wonder whether it's best to deal with a known enemy or deal with someone who claims nicety but no clue as to whether or not they'll backstab. Good luck in CO. How are the local Democrats in that state putting up with Ken Salazar these days?
I also view Democratic pols(at least at the state level)as unpredictable here in CA.
By this I mean the Dems have no problem mustering support for legislation to sterilize all pets in CA. But yet you can't find a single one to fight Wal-Mart expansion or any of the eminent domain aquistions that are going on. The locals do it by themselves with no support.
Hell in the town I live in, city hall has decided to destroy the old and original housing(some going back 60 years) and drive out the poor renters and owners who live there. Whats replacing it? Upscale apartments for yuppies and their motorized codpieces.
You'd think booting working class people out of their houses would bring in Democratic pols to protest it? Not a peep.
I'll believe Democrats are for the people when I see it. Right now all I see are a collection of clowns patting themselves on the back over their stupid pet sterilization legislation.
In Texas our governor just vetoed an eminent domain bill that has gotten the rural and urban property owners very upset. Gov. Perry has done this not for oil but to build a toll road through the state and over some of the most productive farmland in the state.
Perry is from a rural farming background and this is a stab in the back to them. This issue is giving Democrats in Texas a great shot at getting those voters back.
I didn't know of this whole rivers access issue, but I do have roots in rural eastern Oregon, where many of the same issues are in the public conversation. It's true: party labels get splash, but the locals do know whose side of the bread is being buttered.
In the same note, this issue shows that it can be less important what party a politician belongs to, than how they represent (or not) their constituents. The Republican party became a progressive's nightmare the day they all decided that Newt and the "Moral" Majority were the wave of the future, but today we see more and more of the rank and file expressing dissatisfaction (finally!) with the shape of that future.
I admit it: I'm a pushover. I was totally against our Alaskan governor, Sarah Palin, when she was running, because anything shaped like a Republican could only work for Commercial-Fascist ends, in my opinion. But Sarah is a "stealth Republican," in the sense that she's not afraid to propose (and demand!) progressive social policies and changes. She sees all of Alaska as her family, and makes clear and timely decisions in that light. She's turned out to be exactly what I value in a public official, and a perfect argument for more women in office.
She combines this with a hard head for business, making the oil and gas development companies tow her line, not vice versa as with Frank Murkowski.
Running government as a savvy business; but including a commitment to progressive social policies: this is a combination I could get used to.
My daughter lives in Weld county.
Around where she lives, you can see the gray Yuppie houses being built around oil well sites. Halliburton trucks are everywhere(Gee, where have we heard THAT name before).
Between the developers, who are bringing in urbanites, and the oil companies disregard for property, conservative Republican farmers are becoming less of a force to be reckoned with.
In Wyoming and eastern Montana, there is are fights with the oil companies over saline gasfield water being pumped into the environment.
There are already Wyoming ranches which as so polluted they can't raise cattle anymore.
And it's not just stream accesses that the Rich and snotty are cutting off in Montana.
There are also the illegal road closures by the uber-selfish, who want to run their trophy "ranches" like fiefdoms.
There was a big fight, here, last year between a Florida developer and the citizens of Silver Bow county because he closed a forest service road, claiming that it was a private road. Silver Bow county made it a county road, based on the facts that, though the forest service had maintained it for the last 50 years, Silver Bow county had maintained it before that for at lease twenty years, probably longer.
The road has been found on a map dated 1869, when it ran to several mining camps. Most ranchers moved into this area in the mid-1870s, when they had rail access and a beef market, so the road probably pre-existed the ranch.
Last I heard the Floridian had hired a lawyer to fight it, probably trying to wear us down. Boy, he don't know Butte.
The Republicans made such asses out of themselves in the state legislative session this year, I really doubt that even the eastern ranchers, who aren't fighting the gasfield water question, will vote for many Republicans in 2008. Especially since Ned Lamont, who was fired by his fellow Republicans as majority leader is running for Bacchus' senate seat. That ought to keep things stirred up.
Butte, Ned Lamont is running for Senator in MT? Ned Lamont is in CT I thought. As for Baucus, he's disgraced himself totally as a sellout Democrat that I'll bet most folks in MT who don't keep track of politics could just as easily mistake him as a Republican, yes?
The American Institute of City Planners offers extra credentials to, I think, 20% of city planners. see www.planning.org//
“(M)embers of the American Institute of Certified Planners, subscribe …Institute’s Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct….Section B contains rules of conduct to which we are held accountable. If we violate any of these rules, we can be the object of a charge of misconduct and shall have the responsibility of responding to and cooperating with the investigation and enforcement procedures. If we are found to be blameworthy by the AICP Ethics Committee, we shall be subject to the imposition of sanctions that may include loss of our certification…d) We shall provide timely, adequate, clear, and accurate information on planning issues to all affected persons and to governmental decision makers….c) We shall avoid a conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest in accepting assignments from clients or employers…..i) We shall systematically and critically analyze ethical issues in the practice of planning….2. We shall not accept an assignment from a client or employer when the services to be performed involve conduct that we know to be illegal or in violation of these rules….We shall not engage in private discussions with decision makers in the planning process in any manner prohibited by law or by agency rules, procedures, or custom…We shall not sell, or offer to sell, services by stating or implying an ability to influence decisions by improper means….We shall not use the power of any office to seek or obtain a special advantage that is not a matter of public knowledge or is not in the public interest…We shall not direct or coerce other professionals to make analyses or reach findings not supported by available evidence….We shall not unlawfully discriminate against another person….We shall not retaliate or threaten retaliation against a person who has filed a charge of ethical misconduct against us or another planner, or who is cooperating in the Ethics Officer’s investigation of an ethics charge…. We shall not withhold cooperation or information from the AICP Ethics Officer or the AICP Ethics Committee if a charge of ethical misconduct has been filed against us….. The person filing a charge should also cite all provisions of the Rules of Conduct that have allegedly been violated. However, a charge will not be dismissed if the Ethics Officer is able to determine from the facts stated in the letter that certain Rules of Conduct may have been violated. The letter reciting the charge should be accompanied by all relevant documentation available to the person filing the charge… anonymously filed charges are permitted….the letter shall accurately identify the Certified Planner against whom the charge is being made and describe the conduct that allegedly violated the provisions of the Rules of Conduct. The person filing a charge should also cite all provisions of the Rules of Conduct that have allegedly been violated. However, a charge will not be dismissed if the Ethics Officer is able to determine from the facts stated in the letter that certain Rules of Conduct may have been violated. ….Identified Charging Parties who are notified of the dismissal of their ethics charges shall have 30 calendar days from the date of the receipt of their dismissal letters to file an appeal with the Ethics Committee. The appeal shall be sent to the Ethics Officer who shall record it in a log and transmit it within 21 calendar days to the Ethics Committee. The Ethics Committee shall either affirm or reverse the dismissal. If the dismissal is reversed, the Ethics Committee shall either direct the Ethics Officer to conduct a further investigation and review the charge again, or issue a Complaint based on the materials before the Committee. The Ethics Officer shall notify the Charging Party and the Respondent of the Ethics Committee’s determination.. ?If the Ethics Officer notifies the Ethics Committee that material facts are in dispute or if the Ethics Committee, on its own, finds that to be the case, the Chair of the Committee shall designate a “Hearing Official” from among the membership of the Committee. At this point in the process, the Ethics Officer, either personally or through a designated AICP staff member or AICP counsel, shall continue to serve as both Investigator-Prosecutor and as the Clerk serving the Ethics Committee, the Hearing Official and the Respondent….The Ethics Officer shall also inform the Ethics Committee if there are any disputed material facts based on a comparison of the documents.” www.planning.org/ethics/conduct.html
maxpayne: You're right, duh! It's Michael Lange, who's the former Majority leader, and is running against Bacchus. My screw up, I guess Lange is just that forgettable.
Join the Discussion