Occupy Hazard's Beach! We are the 99%!

Just leave multi-millionaire, trust fund baby, "alleged" inside-trader Whitehouse alone - he's a progressive, after all.

Sometimes these posts say more about the writer than the subject. I read this one as "I care little about the environment and approach most decisions based on the short-term benefits for me and my family, therefore everyone must approach decisions in the same way."

Thank you, Sen. Whitehouse for protecting these areas from further development. btw, here's the story reported elsewhere...
www.ecori.org/press-releases/2011/12/8/us-senate-approves-bill-to-better-protect-ri.html

Correct me if I'm wrong but did Chafee Sr. do the same thing? Wasn't his summer home also in or surrounded by the original protected area?

@Russ,
Too bad we all know you're absolutely serious about this. Lucky for creeps like Sheldon that they have ball washing liberals like you that can explain away a conflict of interest even if it hits you like a bat in face.

Protecting his own interests and those of his friends while not spending a dime of his own money.

Old trick, new dog.

Isn't the human "footprint" big enough here already? In our island community efforts to control new development, especially on the waterfront and in watershed areas, should be lauded.

I think this is about keeping things beautiful and healthy while bracing for inevitable weather-related damage.

Not sure how balls figure in to all of this.

Russ the apologist to the rescue of RI-brand soft political corruption. Apparently the wealth-hoarding, elitist, gated-community "1%" with multiple homes are okay as long as they are socially "progressive" RI Democrats.

If Whitehouse cares so much about the environment, he should move out of his lavish beachhouse polluting the "watershed area" and covenant the land into a nature reserve. Excuse me - it's okay for him to live there, but nobody else.

"...explain away a conflict of interest even if it hits you like a bat in face."

What conflict of interest? No one should be building in these hurricane prone areas. It's bad environmentally and bad fiscal policy. If that benefits the residents of Newport and Middletown (whoever they are), that would be expected and all the better.

I fish along that shoreline so I guess I too have a conflict of interest in keeping out ill advised condo developments. BTW, guess who pays when those shoreline houses/condos get washed out?

You guys hear Whitehouse and common sense goes out the window.

"You guys hear Whitehouse and common sense goes out the window."

It typically occurs in the opposite sequence - common sense goes out the window and then we are not surprised to learn that Whitehouse is behind it.

I'd oppose the same hypocrisy and soft corruption from any elected official, even one I initially supported, but I can't exactly prove that point because I don't support the types of RI-brand politicians who do these things.

If Whitehouse is corrupt then he should obviously go away. His house does look pretty sweet though. I bet the mosquitoes get pretty bad at dusk during the annual croquet tourney and clam bake. Besides, people that live out that way keep people like the author of this piece collecting paychecks. Trickle down!

Seriously though--facts can always use checking but on the surface cost-saving and local buy-in seem to further support the action. From the ecori.org piece mentioned above:

"..the CBRS limits eligibility for federal subsidies on undeveloped coastal barriers in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and Great Lakes. The program has saved taxpayers more than $1 billion since it began, according to federal officials.

In Rhode Island, the approved legislation would revise the CBRS boundaries surrounding Easton’s Beach, Hazards Beach and Almy Pond in Newport, and Sachuest Beach in Middletown. The surrounding communities, including the city of Newport and the town of Middletown, as well as the Rhode Island Audubon Society and the state Coastal Resources Management Council, support the recommended changes."

If Whitehouse is corrupt then he should obviously go away. His house does look pretty sweet though. I bet the mosquitoes get pretty bad at dusk during the annual croquet tourney and clam bake. Besides, people that live out that way keep people like the author of this piece collecting paychecks. Trickle down!

Seriously though--facts can always use checking but on the surface cost-saving and local buy-in seem to further support the action. From the ecori.org piece mentioned above:

"..the CBRS limits eligibility for federal subsidies on undeveloped coastal barriers in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and Great Lakes. The program has saved taxpayers more than $1 billion since it began, according to federal officials.

In Rhode Island, the approved legislation would revise the CBRS boundaries surrounding Easton’s Beach, Hazards Beach and Almy Pond in Newport, and Sachuest Beach in Middletown. The surrounding communities, including the city of Newport and the town of Middletown, as well as the Rhode Island Audubon Society and the state Coastal Resources Management Council, support the recommended changes."

I've yet to hear any reason why anyone would oppose protection of areas surrounding those beaches or the National Wildlife Refuge at Sachuest. I haven't even seen anything even close to supporting the suggestion that any of this "improves the view," as if the towns of Newport and Middletown would shoot their tourist industry in the foot by building highrises along some of the most scenic coast in New England. Notably both those towns supported this measure as did the National Audubon Society.

This site is truly devoid of all credibility on environmental issues. At least at one time many, many conservatives could be counted on for their love of nature that was shared with the left.

Russ - I have read through Justin's original post and all of the comments in this thread. Not a single person has stated that they oppose the environmental protections in question. The issue here is hypocrisy and conflict of interest. You have yet again misframed the issue at hand.

Your mind is like a stray dog - it eats up garbage, relieves itself on various posts, and wanders around wherever it pleases with no regard for its surroundings. It's no wonder that the contributors and posters here have lost all patience for you. The sad thing is you actually think you are contributing to the discussion.

What's really funny is that this obviously upsets you so. Again, I asked.

What conflict of interest? No one should be building in these hurricane prone areas. It's bad environmentally and bad fiscal policy. If that benefits the residents of Newport and Middletown (whoever they are), that would be expected and all the better.

Notably not Justin nor anyone has explained why preserving RI coastline and saving taxpayers money is a conflict of interest.

Apparently anyone who enjoys a walk on the beach is hopelessly compromised as is anyone living on the south part of Aquidneck Island where property value depends heavily on those beaches (well at least those residents that have a "D" after their name).

What's really funny is that this obviously upsets you so. Again, I asked.

What conflict of interest? No one should be building in these hurricane prone areas. It's bad environmentally and bad fiscal policy. If that benefits the residents of Newport and Middletown (whoever they are), that would be expected and all the better.

Notably not Justin nor anyone has explained why preserving RI coastline and saving taxpayers money is a conflict of interest.

Apparently anyone who enjoys a walk on the beach is hopelessly compromised as is anyone living on the south part of Aquidneck Island where property value depends heavily on those beaches (well at least those residents that have a "D" after their name).

I live on the island and access a few of those areas on a regular basis. I'm for it. I have no "D" after my name. Sadly, I have no trust fund either.

Five demerits for the stray dog comment. Name calling does not drive your point anywhere.

"Your mind is like a stray dog - it eats up garbage..."

Hehe, did Dan just say the diaries and comments on this site were akin to garbage?

There should be an attribution to Happy Gilmore along with that last comment.

Russ - You really don't understand how advocating for a piece of legislation that directly benefits properties you and your family members own is a conflict of interest? You really don't understand how prohibiting people from living on a plot of land for environmental and public interest reasons while living on it yourself is hypocrisy? It has nothing to do with the substance of the law in question - you completely missed the point of the post.

Mark - I didn't say Russ was a stray dog. A fine distinction but a valid one. He regularly calls conservatives here "brownshirts," including me and I had family members die in the Holocaust, so I think my own "namecalling" is pretty tame. You can judge for yourself, of course. Personally, I don't mind namecalling if there is truth behind it or if it is particularly creative.

Only a partisan extremist like Russ could so wildly distort the plain meaning of Justin's post, and then throw up a bunch of completely BS straw-man arguments. One wonders if there is an honest bone in his body.

Nice attempt at class warfare by anchorrising

In response: The 1% announce...."Occupy Norman Bird Sanctuary!"

It will be a progressive event complete with dugout latrines, public sex courtesy of migrating plovers and RI Reds defecating in plain view. MSNBC will cover the event 24/7.

This is akin to a town council person who sells her water front property to the land trust in a local community. The problem is she still owned the abutting property that landlocked the land trust property. The property comes off the tax rolls and she has the only access. The issue is not in the details of the actual transaction. It's who surreptitiously benefits. Somewhere along the line a light bulb should have gone on in Whitehouse's head but just like sponsoring a lawyer that contributed hundreds of thousands to his party's candidates, the light never goes on. As if the area wasn't exclusive enough, it will be more exclusive when this bill passes.

"You really don't understand how advocating for a piece of legislation that directly benefits properties you and your family members own is a conflict of interest?"

I would if that were the case, but simply being of benefit to the environment and to the towns of Newport and Middletown does not rise to that level. That's just sound representation. I

t's a carnard that ignores that the view is already spectacular there and most everyone (except maybe some condo developers) wants to keep it that way and to protect existing home owners and wetlands from what we know will be increasingly common storm surges. What they've already done at Sachuest Point is truly something to be lauded. Small wonder the Audubon Society agrees with the Senator on the importance of this designation.

As I mentioned above that you folks don't see that speaks volumes about your own worldview.

Russ,

Whitehouse doesn't just live in the neighborhood. His ocean view is pretty much Hazard's Beach.

Ahhh, clearly he should move out of state so as to better represent us.

There is no reasoning with Russ - this thread is evidence of that much. He continues to miss the central issues that even a 5-year-old could grasp if properly explained to them.

Russ - This isn't an environmental issue. This is a conflict of interest issue. The views of the Audobon Society are irrelevant here.

Let me break it down for you:

Judge takes on an environmental case that affects him tangentially in essentially same way as any other citizen - OK.

Judge takes on an environmental case that largely affects his family property and could potentially result in it doubling in value - not OK.

It has nothing to do with the merits of the case.

What you guys seem not to realize is that Hazard Beach and Lily Pond is already designated as a CBRS unit. The change just bumps out the boundry a bit and on the side farthest away from the supposed view.

The Senate also heard testimony from the Assistant Director of the National Wildlife Refuge System within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in support of the change.
www.fws.gov/CBRA/Docs/TestimonyHR5331.pdf

The Department supports passage of H.R. 5331. The legislation replaces the existing map for Units RI-04P, RI-05P, RI-06, and RI-07 with a modernized, revised map. All four units were included within the CBRS by the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990...

The revised map, reflecting a comprehensive review process, removes lands that were inappropriately included within the CBRS in 1990 and adds lands that are appropriate for inclusion within the CBRS...

The existing OPA boundaries do not precisely follow the underlying public lands boundaries and inappropriately capture adjacent private land that is not held for conservation or recreation; is not an inholding, and was not intended to be part of the OPA. The proposed boundary of Unit RI-05P is adjusted to remove the property in question (as well as other private lands), add publicly owned beach and wetlands, and more precisely follow lands owned by the City of Newport and Town of Middletown.

When the Service finds a technical mapping error that warrants a change in one part of a CBRS map, we review all adjacent areas on the map to ensure that the entire map is accurate. This comprehensive approach to map revisions treats all landowners who may be affected equitably, and it also ensures that the Service and Congress will not have to revisit the same map in the future. In accordance with this comprehensive mapping approach, the Service reviewed and revised the boundaries of Units RI-04P, RI-06, and RI-07, which are located on the same map panel as Unit RI-05P.

What an outrage, eh! Justin's smear simply doesn't hold water, except as an indication of his own partisan bias and his apparent disdain for environmental protection.

Russ - There. are. no. words.

If you still can not or will not understand that the issue Justin covered is Whitehouse's conflict of interest and has nothing to do with the merits of the underlying legislation, then no amount of reasoning with you will be successful.

You are a trial judge's worst nightmare - the headstrong advocate who ignores all the pertinent issues and only becomes angrier and more impassioned in his irrelevancies each time he is corrected. Thank goodness for the justice system you went into IT instead of law.

What conflict of interest?!!!

Justin claim that Whitehouse is protecting his view is simply inaccurate. Even if we accept this questionable premise, he's asking us to ignore that fact that the view from that pond is already protected!

Hazard Beach has had the designation since 1990. As I mentioned above, the change was implemented to correct a problem with that original map at the request of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The change benefits Whitehouse in no particular fashion.

You guys are simply on a Democratic witch hunt, facts be damned.

So Dan does that mean that a politician can't vote on issue that effect his neighborhood. I have a feeling that Dan is just an angry young boy more needy of a partner/girlfriend than anything else

Russ - You clearly don't understand what a conflict of interest is in the law or politics. It isn't predicated upon intent or the likely outcome.

"Bunerto Dias" - I have already explained and given specific examples of the distinction. Your "counterexample" simply underscores that you do not understand what I have already explained and has been a legal and political tenet for centuries. Your "feeling" is wrong on all fronts: I am quite happy to have left Rhode Island when I did, and I am engaged to my longtime girlfriend. How progressive of you to make completely inaccurate assumptions based on your "feelings" and go personal.

Russ,

I think you need to reconsider the specifics.

http://www.fws.gov/CBRA/docs/HR5331SummaryProposedChanges.pdf

Assuming that nothing has changed since last year's H.R. 5331 (because I can't find details on Whitehouse's legislation), CBRS Unit RI-07 (Hazards Beach) will increase by 25 acres, or to 150% of its size, most of that on the western end of Hazards Beach. Look at aerial photography, and you'll see that the orientation of Whitehouse's house places that area as the central feature of his view. (I know because I spent two years remodeling the house at the end of the beach, and when I was building the roof of the addition, I could see Whitehouse's house dead-on.)

But (as I'll elaborate in the near future) the specific view isn't my main concern.

For now, it's interesting to note that you've gone from lauding Whitehouse's action to casting the revision as a routine clarification hardly worthy of consideration. If the latter is the case (and if so many people support the act), there was very little reason for Whitehouse not to recuse, as it were. Unless, of course, he just wanted to get his name on some environmentalist-friendly legislation, in which case he's made it entirely legitimate to question the appropriateness of his involvement.

Dan do not waste your intellectual energy on "Bunerto Dias". It's actually Russ in Cyber Drag.

Nice post Justin. But as you know, facts are nothing Russ. His posts, for all the detailed quotes and links they contain, are all various forms of falsehood.