As I expected, even Pat Lyons decided he couldn't endanger Chaco Canyon by allowing an oil and gas company from Colorado to drill within site of the National Monument. I am glad he made his decision and I cant help but notice he has a new speech writer because his statements in the media today were thoughtful.
There are some remaining perplexing things about this situation. How could the Land Office put up a lease in the area in the first place? If only $10,000 was paid for it then it should have been obvious that this wasn't worth the endangering the monument. Did the Land Office send anyone to the site before granting the lease.? Its that whole thing of due diligence. (What ever happened to the "Worlds Largest Solar Plant" near Deming that Lyons failed to check out. Remember that group was comprised of con men and felons.) Also, who will make sure that the land that is provided to the oil company in exchange will be of equal value? Did this company donate money to Lyons in the last campaign. Probably, every oil company did.
At any rate, Lyons made the right call here and he should be recognized for it.
4 comments:
Now hold on. If there’s no oil there, that's one thing. But why should he be caving in to the likes of you? He won! Besides, they weren't going into the park, were they? Where does it stop with you people? Lyons knows what his job is -- making money, nothing else. Remember all the whining down in Ruidoso last year? Some didn't want development? Well, tough, that's his job. He doesn't have any choice if he's doing his job, which he made clear. If it makes money, that's what Lyons is supposed to do, and that's why he got re-elected. We need the energy (and the $$) wherever we can get it. If you and the rest of the granola-eaters don't like it, start pedaling to Chaco!
Well, following your logic I guess you think all Governors and members of our Congressional delegation are failures for not obeying the New Mexico State Constitution that prohibited Asians from owning property. They had the good sense not to enforce that because if would have been wrong. (The clause was voted out last year I believe.) Remember the old fall back of war criminals....."i was just following orders."
I find Hank's label of "you people" especially endearing. His rationalization that the Land Commissioner's job is simply to make money (read at any cost) supports the sentiment I so cynically portrayed yesterday on my blog.
While I am thankful that Lyons did the right thing, I'm also thankful to Hank for supporting the assertion that Mankind really is part of the lowest common denominator as much as we would like to convince each other of the contrary.
I'm going to pedal down to the store now to restock my supply of granola.
Hey, jimbo. Got Milk?
If not, I'm your huckleberry.
lol I'll join you in a bowl of granola.
Granola methane advice aside...
I can remember when that same ol' "We need oil/power." rhetoric came down when they wanted to drill for oil and/or put in a nuclear power plant along the California coastline.
We need alternative fuels and thoughtful, careful protections of our lands/resources.
I'm very glad Chaco Canyon has been spared.
Half the people on this planet don't even have any kind of idea what the State Land Commissioner/State Land Office does or is supposed to do. Sure, money makes the world go 'round and the oil companies and their lobbyists have plenty of it.
Here's the ABC's of the SLO:
(Just for you Hank 'cause you people need to reread this.)
Administer state trust land to generate the highest possible level of sustainable revenue for New Mexico's public schools, public institutions of higher learning, and other public institutions so that all New Mexicans can enjoy a higher quality of life.
Benefit the trust and its natural resources through responsible stewardship which creates a strong economic environment that will contribute to healthy rural and urban communities so that future generations will continue to benefit from their endowment.
Conduct the operations of the State Land Office with the highest level of fiscal accountability, efficiency, customer service and employee relations.
This was the right decision and the questions you raise are good ones. It's all a tremendously precarious balance.
Post a Comment