| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 8: |
Line 8: |
| | <TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2"> | | <TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2"> |
| | === Transcript === | | === Transcript === |
| − | Congressman Udall of Arizona's back with the land use bill the House of Representatives rejected last year. Does it deserve a different fate now? I'll be right back.
| + | Not Available yet. This code is a placeholder. |
| − | | |
| − | In 1974 the previous Congress, specifically the House of Representatives, rejected a federal bill to require the states to adopt land use planning. The bill had influential support and its defeat was a surprise given the so-called Watergate climate of last year. The explanation was an impassioned public outcry against this new form of federal coercion. Now Congressman Udall of Arizona, one of the principal sponsors of last year's defeated bill is back with a new version.
| |
| − | | |
| − | In order to avoid some of last year's objections he's made some changes. Last year's bill would have cut off federal airport, highway and conservation aid to states that failed to adopt federally approved land use plans. This year's bill would not do that. In addition the new bill pays a little more attention to the understandable concerns of a group of America's most important and efficient producers, our farmers. All Mr. Udall wants to do is provide a half a billion, that's billion spelled with a b, one half billion dollars in funds over the next six years to set up state planning councils.
| |
| − | | |
| − | There's just one catch. The states don't get the bulk of their money until and unless their plans win the approval of the Secretary of Interior. Well no one would deny that federal bribery is preferable to federal blackmail. But why in this manner so clearly better suited to handling by state and local governments are we talking about federal intervention at all? With all the issues we the voters have to take into account when we elect an American president, why should we add the issue of state land use planning? Isn't the election for governor more likely to be relevant to an issue of this sort? Why for example, should the voters of New York help to settle the land use problems of Hawaii and vice versa?
| |
| − | | |
| − | Our governors and state legislatures may be far from perfect, I know this all too well, but when it comes to deciding the future of their land I think most Americans would prefer a statewide decision to one blueprinted by a Washington bureaucrat in the federal administration. You could even go a step further and many citizens will. The mayor and city council are in a better position to make sensible land use decisions than is the governor. In the legislature in simpler days this was known as local zoning. Zoning is not a perfect process it has winners and losers but it permits the average American to attempt to protect his property in understandable human terms. Unless and until we want to replace our nation of small land holders with one in which all property is ultimately vested in the state, we'll do well to keep rejecting land use planning at the federal level.
| |
| − | | |
| − | This is Ronald Reagan.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Thanks for listening.
| |
| | | | |
| | </TD> | | </TD> |
| Line 28: |
Line 16: |
| | <TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%"> | | <TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%"> |
| | <TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR> | | <TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR> |
| − | <TD>Production Date</TD><TD>04/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR> | + | <TD>Production Date</TD><TD>XX/YY/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR> |
| | <TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR> | | <TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR> |
| | <TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR> | | <TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR> |
