While no one is better aware of the deficiencies of the plan than those who, like us, struggled for years to maximize its benefits, a statement that the outcome is “probably” better than the status quo is simply absurd. Fundamentally, the MSCP harnessed the power of local land-use authority — zoning and entitlement — into a partnership with state and federal agencies in achieving Endangered Species Act mandates. The lack of land-use authority on the part of these agencies is the reason why endangered species protection on private lands typically falls short, resulting in “postage stamp” preserves. Furthermore, collaboration among interest groups was not for the sake of compromise, but to leverage political action.
It should be understood that an ESA-driven process, however scientific, will never be a substitute for sustainable land-use planning.
Unfortunately, policy is made by decision-makers, whose election the environmental community has effectively abandoned to the building and real estate industry. It is apparently easier for environmentalists to criticize decisions and file lawsuits than to get involved in the necessarily impure political process in which decisions are actually made.
Los Angeles, California
The writer is executive director of the Endangered Habitats League.
- Dana Powers on The tenuous fate of the Southwest’s last jaguars
- Mark DeGregorio on Meet the aspiring ranger locked out by National Park Service practices
- Lael Bradshaw on New documentary offers a sharp look at the West’s water crisis
- Steve Snyder on Why has the National Park Service gotten whiter?
- Jim Schumont on Stop the rock-stacking