tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7795579343043597734.post4662594037788849963..comments2023-09-11T23:04:12.671-06:00Comments on NO Village at Wolf Creek: Questioning ANILCA and Village at Wolf Creekcitizenschallengehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7795579343043597734.post-13012327876490132452017-03-15T21:35:54.662-06:002017-03-15T21:35:54.662-06:00I don't think so.
Please share your alleged &q...I don't think so.<br />Please share your alleged "precedence" - lets look at it or them closer.<br /><br />ANILCA was about the situation in Alaska - Red McCombs' was no property owner in distress by suddenly finding himself surrounded by National Forest - Alberta Park was 'real estate poker game' and is a totally different set up - deserving totally different handling.<br /><br />Slick lawyers may attempt retooling ANILCA for this ad hoc situations - such as Red's pipe dream of building a town in the middle of this precious watershed that belongs to the Rio Grande River and that LMJV very sneakily hoodwinked the Department of Agriculture out of.<br /><br />You forget that aspect. For me this isn't about a typical real estate deal, this is about saving a precious biological jewel from destruction. A jewel that is an integral part of the Rio Grande River watershed and headwaters to this critical interstate international river.<br />citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7795579343043597734.post-87876384018573470892015-06-04T10:56:23.253-06:002015-06-04T10:56:23.253-06:00This view of ANILCA is tainted by your disdain for...This view of ANILCA is tainted by your disdain for the village of wolf creek. You're doing the same thing that you are accusing lawyers of doing: Interpreting a law that fits your specific interests with no regard for precedence. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com