Something’s Wrong Here

Henry Ingram, Esq. Article Appears in the Pennsylvania Landowner - April 1994
Something’s Wrong Here

In this issue of the Landowner, readers will see a letter purported to have been sent to the “Leaders” of the so-called “Pennsylvania Environmental/Conservation Community” about a closed-door meeting apparently organized and coordinated by a group of environmental organizations and Ed Perry of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss a program to counter the grass-roots momentum of groups like the “Wise Use” movement like PLA. Now I can truly be said the PLA has arrived. This relatively small, under-funded volunteer organization has captured the attention of the somewhat pompously self-declared “Leaders” of the Pennsylvania Environmental/conservation community and obviously aroused their ire.

When you think about some of what the sponsors of the closed-door meeting said in their letter (i.e. “PLA wants to eliminate public control of state parks, forests and game lands”), you begin to sense these “leaders” have about as much commitment to accuracy in speech as they seem to have for private property rights,–almost none. At least PLA opens its meetings to the public and encourages discussion and debate on the issues. You wonder why these “leaders” need to meet behind closed doors. This secrecy stuff sounds just a bit juvenile, maybe even. Do they really think PLA will try to “disrupt” their discussions? I doubt it but it seems obvious that the PLA message is getting through to the people, touching sensitive chords and making some groups nervous.

The anti-development/preservationist movement has grown accustomed to getting its way and receiving generally favorable responses to most of its agenda from the general public and certainly from the media. They want to keep it that way. The formation of what appears to be a new “coalition” with a secret agenda does, however, raise serious issues for Pennsylvania landowners. Apparently the Environmental/Conservation Community now wants to try to restrict the flow of information to the public and foreclose open debate on its regulatory and legislative agenda. The combative, “closed-door,” tone of its letter signals that this new coalition is really seeking to foreclose public discourse on the issues and stifle the advocates of private property and landowners rights. These people have had it pretty much all their way for a long time and, understandably, they want that to continue.

You might think to yourself: “That’s okay, they’re entitled to their views and we’re entitled to ours. What’s the big deal if they get together in State College for a day to discuss the Wise Use Movement?” I’ll tell you what it is. The big deal is that these people can truly put a lot of money where their mouths are! In simple terms, if they want to clamp down groups like PLA, they probably have the power to do it.

The power comes from two sources. First, the preservationist message is, at the moment, politically correct. Until groups like PLA mobilized and began to get their message out to the people, the anti-development/preservationists had a free ride and rein with legislators, politicians and the media. This is precisely why these people are trying to “counter” the PLA message and momentum at the grass-roots level.

The second source of the power is money. The “Green machine” has the “Green!” Three of the sponsors of the closed-door meeting are giant, national preservationist organizations or their state chapters. These organizations have huge budgets, highly paid staffs, with lawyers, media “spin doctors” and “scientists” who crank out the preservationist message and local chapters who deliver it. The chart listed below shows what you’re up against.

Readers of the Landowner should be familiar with these large, national environmental organizations and their resources and influence. These organizations are clearly aligned against the interests of most individual landowners and private party rights in general.

The involvement of Pennsylvania Environment Council (”P E C”) in this enterprise is quite another story. Like the National sponsors of the meeting, P E C is financially powerful and politically influential. It is also a tax advantaged, 501 (c) (3) organization.
P E C has a staff of 16, three offices in Pennsylvania and revenues of over $845,000 last year. PEC’s board and list of benefactors, patrons and sponsors reads like a Who’s Who of prominent Pennsylvanians. The roster of PEC’s financial contributors is truly an honor roll of Pennsylvania business and commerce. What really makes this story different is that unlike some of the other sponsoring organizations, PEC, since its formation and deservedly, has always been perceived as a voice of reason and balance in environmental and land-use policy issues in Pennsylvania. For that reason, the council is highly respected and influential throughout the state. As noted, as a result of its efforts, PEC has attracted impressive support from the corporate community. As an example of its evenhandedness, PEC Co-sponsored with PLA a constructive public education program on wetlands where all viewpoints on the issues were freely presented and openly discussed.

At least until now, PEC has been entitled to its reputation among landowners as a neutral organization which follows its stated philosophy; “To listen to and involve all interests in developing environmental policy recommendations.” PEC certainly qualifies as a leader of the environmental community but it came as a real surprise to see assume such a clearly adversarial posture. It would be unfortunate indeed for Pennsylvania if PEC’s participation in this new statewide “effort to counter the … momentum of groups like PLA” signals an end to its pivotal role in Pennsylvania as a leading mediator and environmental policy issues and consensus builder and announces the beginning of a new advocacy role in alliance with the rest of the environmental advocacy organizations, many of which are viewed by large segments of the public as radical. Landowners and ordinary citizens in Pennsylvania simply don’t have the resources to match up against well bankrolled and politically powerful organizations like those that sponsored the meeting, let alone a real powerhouse like PEC.

This leads me to a final thought. I can understand why the business community has supported organizations like PEC. Can someone explain to me why the business community generously supports some of these environmental advocacy organizations? It bothers me that many organizations which receive significant corporate support subscribe enthusiastically to the anti-development/preservationist philosophy. If we don’t allow reasonable use and development of our land and resources, how are we going to keep the economic machine in Pennsylvania running? To be sure, there are tax breaks. There is a recognition by business of the need for clean air and water and a healthy environment. A “go along to get along” philosophy often makes “practical” sense in dealings with environmental regulators. Maybe the “pro-growth” and “balance in environmental regulation” message is just not getting through. Whatever the reason, the simple fact of the matter is that big corporate dollars continue to find their way into the coffers of the anti-growth, anti-development, anti-private property, environmental advocacy organizations who turn around and pressure government at all levels to take control of, or simply take, your land. To me, it’s as plain as the nose on your face and just plain wrong.

1. It is really laughable when PLA opponents suggest the PLA is a front for and funded by anti-environment, big business. As many of PLA’s members know, PLA survives (just barely) because of the truly remarkable, volunteer efforts of its members, directors and staff and the generosity of certain individuals. Would that PLA had the financial support from the business community that some anti-development/preservationist organizations do!
2. C., trashing the economy-how run away environmentalism is wrecking America, free enterprise Press, 1993.
3. These companies are among those listed as “Contributors” in PECs 1993 activity Report: Air Products and Chemicals, Allegheny Ludlum, ARCO Chemical, Aristech Chemical, AT&T, Bell of Pennsylvania, Chevron U.S.A., CONRAIL CoreStates Bank, Duquesne Light, Equitable Resources, this Eagle, Inc., Hershey Foods, Land Corp., Lukens Steel, Mellon Bank, and a Merck, Sharp and Dohune Inc., P A Power and Light, Pennsylvania Electric Co., Peoples Natural Gas, PNC Bank, PPG, Procter and Gamble, Rockwell International Rohm and Hass, Scott Paper Co., Sun Refinishing, U G I Corp. ., Unisys Corp., United Penn Bank, USX Corp., Washington St., Westinghouse Electric.
4. The anti-development/preservationist organizations we’re talking about typically are tax exempt, and operate, themselves or through affiliates, as the 301 (c) (3) organizations within the meaning of the tax laws so that contributions to them are deductible just as if you are giving to your Church, the Red Cross or the Little Sisters of the Poor. That’s right, large corporations, either by directly or through controlled, tax-exempt foundations can generously support these tax-exempt organizations, take charitable contribution tax deductions and you, the Landowner take on the chin!

Pennsylvania Landowners’ Association, Inc.

P.O. Box 391

Waterford, PA 16441

Phone: 1.814.796.4023