Showing posts with label Blog Mirror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blog Mirror. Show all posts

Sunday, August 10, 2025

Lex Anteinternet: Subsidiarity Economics 2025. The Times more or les...

Lex Anteinternet: Subsidiarity Economics 2025. The Times more or les...

Subsidiarity Economics 2025. The Times more or less locally, Part 10. The killing the messenger edition.



August 10, 2025

Some really interesting things are going on that are definitely Wyoming centric that we haven't noted, or haven't noted much, and should.

The first might be that a proposal to put in a nuclear generator construction facility in Natrona County north of the town of Bar Nunn has really turned out to be controversial.  This comes on the heels of a nuclear power plant in Kemmerer that is also controversial.

The ins and outs of the controversy are a little difficult to really discern, but at some level, quite a few people just don't like the idea of something nuclear.  It's not coal, and its not oil.  Chuck Gray, for example, has come out against this and wind energy.  Chuck hasn't worked a day in his life in a blue collar job and he's just tapping into the "no sir, we don't like it" sort of thought here.

What's going to happen?  We'll have to see.

Another local controversy is the approval of a 30 lot subdivision on Casper Mountain.  This has drawn the ire of a lot people who live on Casper Mountain, and most of it is posed in conservation or even environmental terms.

The irony there, of course, is that people who have already built a house on the mountain are somewhat compromised in these arguments.  I get it, however, as I really don't think we need more rural subdivisions in the county, at all.

On the mountain, I'd note that one of the really aggravating things that has happened recently is that last year a joint Federal/State project paved the dirt road on the backside of the mountain to the top of Muddy Mountain.  It didn't need to be done and it just encourages land rapist to built houses on the backside of Casper Mountain.

Natrona County Bans Big Trucks On 26 Roads Amid Gravel Mine Controversy

I understand the opposition here, but in context, things seem to lack consistency.

Which gets back to this, I suppose.  If a person just doesn't want development, they can say that.

What you can't do, however, is pretend that some major pillars of the state's economy are going to be here forever.  The extractive industries are basically on their way out right now.

One of the amusing things about all of this is that the MAGA hat wearers locally who are opposed to nuclear energy are facing it in part due to the current administration.


Last edition:

Subsidiarity Economics 2025. The Times more or less locally, Part 9. Waist Deep in the Big Muddy. It's Donald Trump's economy now.

Tuesday, August 5, 2025

Going Feral: Boycott

An interesting, and frankly shocking to a degree, post by a co-blogger.  First the post, then some comments here.

The Post.  Going Feral: Boycott:    

Boycott

  


Cpt. Charles Boycott was an agent for remote land owners in Ireland who was regarded as particularly severe.  During the Irish Land War the Land League  introduced the boycott, directing it first at Cpt. Boycott. They refused him everything, even conversations.  The concept was introduced by Irish politician Charles Parnell, noting:

When a man takes a farm from which another has been evicted, you must shun him on the roadside when you meet him, you must shun him in the streets of the town, you must shun him at the shop-counter, you must shun him in the fair and at the marketplace, and even in the house of worship... you must shun him your detestation of the crime he has committed... if the population of a county in Ireland carry out this doctrine, that there will be no man ... [who would dare] to transgress your unwritten code of laws.

Charles Stewart Parnell, at Ennis meeting, 19 September 1880.

Maybe it's time to take a page from the Land League.

This comes up in the context of a Reddit post on Fred Eshelman's Iron Bar Ranch, his toy ranch in Carbon County about which he's zealously pursuing litigation in trying to keep people form corner crossing.  So far, he's losing, having had the local Federal District Court first, and then the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals endorse corner crossing as legal.  As we've noted here:

Fred Eshelman is the founder of Eshelman Ventures LLC, an investment company primarily interested in private health-care companies. Previously he founded and served as CEO and executive chairman of Pharmaceutical Product Development (PPDI, NASDAQ) prior to the sale of the company to private equity interests.

After PPD he served as the founding chairman and largest shareholder of Furiex Pharmaceuticals (FURX, NASDAQ), a company which licensed and rapidly developed new medicines. Furiex was sold to Forest Labs/Actavis in July, 2014.

His career has also included positions as senior vice president (development) and board member of the former Glaxo, Inc., as well as various management positions with Beecham Laboratories and Boehringer Mannheim Pharmaceuticals.

Eshelman has served on the executive committee of the Medical Foundation of North Carolina, was on the board of trustees for UNC-W and in 2011 was appointed by the NC General Assembly to serve on the Board of Governors for the state’s multicampus university system as well as the NC Biotechnology Center. In addition, he chairs the board of visitors for the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, one of the top pharmacy programs in the United States. In May 2008 the School was named for Eshelman in recognition of his many contributions to the school and the profession.

Eshelman has received many awards including the Davie and Distinguished Service Awards from UNC and Outstanding Alumnus from both the UNC and University of Cincinnati schools of pharmacy, as well as the N.C. Entrepreneur Hall of Fame Award. He earned a B.S. in pharmacy from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,  received his Doctor of Pharmacy from the University of Cincinnati, and completed a residency at Cincinnati General Hospital. He is a graduate of the Owner/President Management Program at Harvard Business School.


The Reddit post, which was linked into an out of state news article, provoked a series of responses on how locals shouldn't accommodate Iron Bar economically, the posters apparently being unaware that he's a wealthy out of state landowner that doesn't, for example, hit the feed store in Rawlins.

But I wonder if they were on to something?

Iron Bar is employing locals, and those locals are serving to oppress Wyomingites.  There's no real reason to accommodate them. They probably do go to the feed store in Rawlins, probably stop by Bi-Rite in that city, and probably go into town there, or maybe Saratoga, from time to time.

Why accommodate them?

They're serving the interest of a carpetbagger and have chosen their lot. There's no reason to sell them fishing tackle or gasoline, or take their order at the restaurant.  

Beyond that, as I've noted before, in his lawsuit Eshelman is making use of local lawyers.  His big guns are, of course, out of staters, but he still needs some local ones.  Originally that person was Greg Weisz, who now works for the AG's office in the state. Megan Overmann Goetz took over when Weisz left.  Maybe she had to, as when a lawyer goes into the state's service, he leaves the work behind.  Both of them are of the firm Pence and MacMillan in Laramie.

I don't know anything about Weisz, but a state website disturbingly places him in the Water and Natural Resources branch of the AG's office, noting:

Gregory Weisz

Greg joined the Water and Natural Resources Division in January 2024 after almost thirty years in private practice. While in private practice, he focused on real estate transactions and litigation, easement law, water law, general civil litigation, agricultural law, and natural resources. At the Attorney General's office, he represents many Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality agencies including the Land Quality Division, Industrial Siting Division, Solid and Hazardous Waste Division, Storage Tank department, Abandoned Mine Lands Division, and DEQ itself with general legal issues. He graduated with an undergraduate degree in Natural Resources Management and a law degree from the University of Wyoming. His prior work experience included private forestry consulting, oil & gas exploration, water treatment, ranch labor, and forest products manufacturing.

Lawyers very strongly believe that the justice system is great, and that by serving client's, they're serving truth, justice, apple pie, and motherhood.  That allows them to stand themselves.  And to some extent, it's true, particularly in the criminal justice system.  The entire system depends on the accused getting representation, which is in everyone's best interest.

But that's not true of Plaintiff's cases.  Plaintiff's lawyers make a big deal of how they serve the little man, but much of it is a crock.  And in something like this, Weisz was serving the interest of a wealthy carpetbagger.  Maybe he believes in the cause, but that doesn't mean that people have to accommodate him, then or now.  Now there are questions that Wyomingites in particular and public lands users in general have a right to demand of Weisz, most particularly does he believe in  Eshelman's cause.  If he does, do we want him in the state's law firm, the AG's office?

Beyond that, for the Wyoming lawyers actively representing Eshelman, why accommodate them. They can be comforted by chocking down their service to a bad cause by liberal doses of cash.  Locals don't have to accommodate them, however.  Laramie and Cheyenne are not far from Colorado, they can buy their groceries there.

I know that if I was shopping for somebody to provide legal services, I'd shop elsewhere if I found my law firm was representing somebody trying to screw public land access for locals.

But it doesn't stop there.  All three of Wyoming's "representatives" in Congress voted against what Wyomingites overwhelmingly believe. That ought to be enough to vote them out of office.  But people don't need to wait until then.  All three are still showing up, I bet, at Boy Scout, sportsmen's and other events.  Quit inviting them. And if they do show up, do what Hageman did at the State Bar Convention last year, walk out on her if she speaks as she did to a speaker.

Is this extreme?  It is.  But these efforts never cease.

When being an employee of Fred Eshelman means you have to drive to Ft. Collins in order to buy a loaf of bread, it won't be worth it.  When Escheman can't get a plumber or electrician to come to his house, or anyone to doctor his cattle, or give him a ride from the airport, it won't be worth it for him. When lawyers have decide if that one case is worth not getting anymore, I know what decision they'll make. When John Barrasso quits getting invitations to speak, he'll know what to do.

There are limits, of course, to all of this.  You can't hurt people or property. If somebody needs medical service, they should get it.  If somebody is stuck in a blizzard and you come upon the, they should get the ride.  But you don't have to serve them at the restaurant or agree to fix their pickup truck.

Or, so it seems to me.  It would at least seem worth debating.

Boycott.


The comment.

Hobby ownership of substantial amounts of property like this ought to be banned.  If you own agricultural land, your primary income should be derived from it.

This could very easily come to be the case if states, including my home state of Wyoming, adopted agricultural corporation laws providing that only bonafide agriculturalist could own agricultural property, which I'd set at any amount of real property not used for industrial use which exceeded five acres in size.  That'd help preserve farm and ranch land from being busted up, and it would mean that the people who owned agricultural land were actual agriculturalist.  In order, let's way, to hold stock in such a corporation, no less than 65% of your income would have to be derived from agricultural pursuits.

Thursday, July 17, 2025

Lex Anteinternet: I hope you don’t have friends who recommend Ayn Rand to you.

Lex Anteinternet: I hope you don’t have friends who recommend Ayn Ra...

I hope you don’t have friends who recommend Ayn Rand to you.

I hope you don’t have friends who recommend Ayn Rand to you. The fiction of Ayn Rand is as low as you can get re fiction. I hope you picked it up off the floor of the subway and threw it in the nearest garbage pail. She makes Mickey Spillane look like Dostoevsky.

Flannery O'Connor

Saturday, July 12, 2025

Lex Anteinternet: Extension denial leaves Wyoming ranch owner a week...

Lex Anteinternet: Extension denial leaves Wyoming ranch owner a week...

Extension denial leaves Wyoming ranch owner a week to convince SCOTUS to hear corner crossing case

Extension denial leaves Wyoming ranch owner a week to convince SCOTUS to hear corner crossing case: Eshelman has until July 16 to state why the court should consider the corner-crossing conflict between public access to public land and private property rights.

Rancher owner?

Well, yes, he owns a ranch.  But a working owner he is not.  He's a pharmaceutical industry titan. 

In a more just society, frankly, he wouldn't own the ranch at all.  It'd be owned by those who actually derived a living from it.

Also of interest, Iron Bar Holdings, the petitioner, is represented by Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP of Denver, with Robert Reeves Anderson as counsel of record.  The respondent is represented by a local Wyoming firm.  I note this as there's no reason that the common attorney bullshit claim "I'm only doing my job" really ought to hold, for civil litigation.  If you run into a Colorado attorney in Wyoming, ask them who they work for.  if they work for this outfit, tell them to go home, we don't want them here.

For that matter, if you are a Colorado user of public lands, as they want to take part of what you own, there's no reason to accommodate them with a seat at the table, literally.  "Want a cup of coffee sir?  Drive to Texas. . . ."

At the trial court level, Iron Bar had been represented by Gregory Weisz, who is a Wyoming attorney.  He's left private practice and is with the AG now.  A lawyer with his firm took his place, but the case was well developed by then, and in the appeal stage, so they really had no choice.

So, what am I saying.  Well, I'm saying that people who don't derive their income principally form a ranch, ought not to own it.  And I'm saying that by representing carpetbaggers, you are a carpetbagger.  The old lawyer bromides about serving the system are BS.  Regular people, including other lawyers, don't have to excuse your choice of clients when you are taking on a plaintiff.  It's not like being assigned a defendant.

Saturday, June 28, 2025

Lex Anteinternet: Hoping this is true.

Lex Anteinternet: Hoping this is true.

Hoping this is true.

I'm really hoping this is true.  Lee has shown a total disregard for the wishes of nationwide voter.

And Hageman, Barrasso and Lummis have shown a contempt for Wyoming's voters that the electorate should remember.

This is only one aspect of the Big Ugly Bill that will come back to haunt us in spades. But at least, if this is true, this is past us.

Hopefully Lee is too.  Utah's voters should send him back to the private sector.

Tuesday, June 24, 2025

Lex Anteinternet: Teton County Wants Same Federal Land Sale Exemptio...

Lex Anteinternet: Teton County Wants Same Federal Land Sale Exemptio...:  

Teton County Wants Same Federal Land Sale Exemption Montana Got

 This is one of those areas which Mike Lee imagines will benefit from his land sale provision:

Teton County Wants Same Federal Land Sale Exemption Montana Got Teton County commissioners have sent a letter to Wyoming’s congressional delegation asking that federal lands in the county be exempt from any proposed sale. Montana got an exemption, and Teton

Wyomingites don't want this.  Teton County, which has a housing problem (caused by the super wealthy) doesn't want it.

When will we see Hageman, Barrasso and Lummis begin to reflect what Wyoming wants?

Lex Anteinternet: Congress woman Hageman responds, and Sen. Lee reacts.

Lex Anteinternet: Congress woman Hageman responds, and Sen. Lee reacts.

Congress woman Hageman responds, and Sen. Lee reacts.

Lee Offers Compromise On Public Land Sales Bill, Hunters Say No Deal

Sen. Lee is apparently offering something, but it's not clear what, and the opposition is saying no.  I'm saying no as well.  I adamantly opposed transferring public lands away from public hands.

Congressman Hageman responded, or somebody working for her did, to a letter I wrote.  It may of course be a form letter.     

          Dear Mr. Yeoman

Congress is currently in the budget reconciliation process, which allows for expedited consideration of certain tax, spending, and debt limit legislation. The House recently passed its version of the bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which now awaits Senate consideration. Those Senate committees that received reconciliation instructions pursuant to H.Con.Res.14 have begun releasing legislative text for reconciliation consideration, but I want to note that such materials are not the final bill. These committee proposals must still be reviewed by the Senate parliamentarian for compliance with the Byrd rule and then pass the entire Senate to officially become part of the reconciliation bill. Such bill will then come back to the House for consideration in relation to what we passed earlier.   

On June 11, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee released legislative text to be considered as part of Senate Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill. As you have noted, Subtitle C of the bill instructs the Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to identify not less than 0.50 percent and not more than 0.75 percent of the lands managed by these agencies for disposal pursuant to the specific conditions set forth in the statutory instructions. This would amount to between two and three million acres of the roughly 640 million acres owned by the federal government, with such lands to be made available solely for the purpose of housing and community development. 

There is an extensive amount of downright flagrantly incorrect information being circulated as to the intent of this proposal, what lands would qualify for disposal should this become law, and how the process would proceed. Most notably, the Wilderness Society has produced a map for the purpose of ginning up opposition, despite the fact that such map has nothing to do with Subtitle C in any way whatsoever. It is thus necessary to clarify the situation, starting with the readily confirmable observation that there are no specific parcels or areas designated under the bill, and the details of the bill itself show that this is a commonsense proposal to identify and dispose of those BLM and USFS lands that are hindering local communities from meeting their housing and infrastructure needs, an issue with which Wyoming is all too familiar.

First, the bill does not propose selling off all federal lands. As I mentioned, it would only make available two to three million acres within the jurisdiction of the BLM and USFS in eleven states, including Wyoming. All such lands that are subject to valid existing rights (including grazing permits, ski areas, etc.), and those that are not located in the eleven eligible states are not subject to the bill. Those “Federally Protected Lands” (for example, National Parks, National Monuments, the National Wilderness Preservation System, the National Wildlife Refuge System, and more as defined in the bill) are not eligible for sale. All the lands sold pursuant to this proposal must be used “for the development of housing or to address associated community needs,” limiting not only the number of buyers, but likely making state and local governments the primary advocates and purchasers. 

Second, this legislation does not directly offer any parcels for sale but instead provides for a robust public identification and nomination process to evaluate those unused lands that are close to existing infrastructure (such as surrounding Kemmerer, Wyoming), that are ideal for addressing the affordable housing crisis. 

Both the BLM and USFS must consult with the governor, local governments, and Indian tribes regarding the suitability of the particular parcel of land for disposal before the proposed sale. Both agencies must also give priority to those lands that are nominated by state and local governments, are adjacent to existing developed areas, have access to existing infrastructure, are suitable for residential housing, reduce checkerboard land patterns, or which are isolated and inefficient to manage. All sales are to be held at fair market value, must provide state and local governments the first right of refusal, limit individual persons in how many acres they can acquire, and share revenue of the sales with the local government to assist with housing development.

This legislative proposal is now pending in the Senate and is thus not something I am currently being asked to vote on as your representative. This proposal was not included in the OBBBA that I voted for and which passed the House. However, I want to reiterate that much of the maps and information circulating about the bill are incorrect and that the proposal as drafted is a much more targeted approach to answer the needs of our local communities, who are hampered from further development due to the oversized footprint of the federal government in our states.  

I encourage you to read the bill itself to understand what it does, and as importantly, what it does not do, when considering the benefits of this legislation. Thank you for reaching out to us.  

Sincerely,

Rep. Harriet Hageman

Member of Congress

Well, at least its a response.

A few things.

I've taken at look at the bill, and I had before I received this letter, contrary to Congressman Hageman's suggestion that I, and others opposing this didn't.

This proposal still sucks.  I have no interest, for example, in reducing checkerboard land patterns, particularly if we are now able to corner cross, as it sees we can.  This land just opened to the public and now 

Nor do I have any interest in disposing of Federal lands for an alleged "housing crisis" that largely doesn't exist in the form these things suggest.  There's no requirement in any of these proposals to restrict sales of land to those really in need of housing.  A process already exists to transfer lands where such things really exist.  Sales for "fair market value", in the areas where this would apply in Wyoming, would result in transfers of land in Wyoming for castles for the rich, which I do not support.  There's nothing to suggest the land would go to state and local governments given that, and I don't want state in local governments in the housing business to start with.

More than anything, this is the wolf's nose in the door.  Once its passed, it'll push its way into the house.

Saturday, May 24, 2025

Here's Six Ways Trump’s Budget Will Hurt Rural Americans

Here's Six Ways Trump’s Budget Will Hurt Rural Americans: Right now, Congress is working on a giant, fast-track bill that would make historic cuts to basic needs programs to finance another round of tax breaks for the wealthy and...

Thursday, May 22, 2025

Going Feral: Blog Mirror: Public Lands Victory: BHA Applauds R...

Going Feral: Blog Mirror: Public Lands Victory: BHA Applauds R...

Blog Mirror: Public Lands Victory: BHA Applauds Removal of Public Land Sale Amendment from House Budget Reconciliation Bill

Very good news:

Public Lands Victory: BHA Applauds Removal of Public Land Sale Amendment from House Budget Reconciliation Bill

Voters need to remember who favored this horrific action to privatize public lands in 2026.  All over the West there seems to be a view that you have to vote for Republicans.  You don't, if they aren't voting for you.  There are other options, or there can be if people consider what's being done and oppose it.

Anyhow, this is good news.

Friday, May 9, 2025

Sunday, April 27, 2025

Foothill Agrarian: Just a Piece of Land

Foothill Agrarian: Just a Piece of Land: Today, I moved most of the rest of my belongings from Oak Hill Ranch. My landlords, Rich and Peggy Beltramo, from whom I’d leased irrigated ...

Lex Anteinternet: Roads not taken.

Lex Anteinternet: Roads not taken. :  Roads not taken. I've noted here before that I'm highly introspective.  Given that, I can'...