Wednesday, February 02, 2011

"Joint Land Use Resolution"

One topic that keeps showing up in the Clovis news, and that I know better than to try to write about in the Clovis paper, is the air force's "Joint Land Use Resolution" that it keeps seeking to impose on local property owners.

I have no problem with two people working out a mutually-voluntary agreement so they can both use real estate they both own- like a time share arrangement.

But this "joint land use" topic that keeps coming up is no different than me driving out to some place I think looks like a useful area (useful to me) and telling the property owners that we are going to work out an arrangement wherein I will shoot my deer rifle across their land and over their homes, and they must accommodate me. They will not be allowed to interfere nor build anything new that sticks up that I might hit. Maybe I'll even get an airplane and buzz their property. What's the difference?

This is just another bit of proof that the US military is a force for evil, not a protector of liberty.


  1. You're analogy is false. According to your "logic" each property owner has the "right" to charge or bar aircraft from flying over their land because that's considered treaspassing; they don't and it's not. The Joint Land Use Survey is just that; a survey. All this non-binding survey does is examine some of the pending problems the base and community expect to encounter and analyzes how to best handle it. These land use and airspace issues have been addressed since the 1920s when the Supreme Court ruled on a small but unimaginably far reach case. Try going to a government funded library because your private, market driven one doesn't seem to be working out for you.

  2. A property owner does have the right to bar aircraft from flying over his property below a certain height. What that height is would probably depend on several different things.

    The problem I have (well, one of them) with this "survey" is that property owners could be prohibited from using their property as they see fit because of the "requirements" of someone who does not own the land. Structures which are "too tall" and could get in the way of the trespassing aircraft could be prohibited. Just because the Supreme Court has ruled does not mean the ruling is ethically or Constitutionally correct.

    In case you care to read it, here is what I have pointed out about government-funded libraries in the past. But thanks for ending with the childish snipe, since it does as much to expose your misguided opinion for what it is as anything I could have said.