Government
Coastal gentrification in Puerto Rico is displacing people and damaging mangroves and wetlands
Puerto Rico’s tourism industry is booming as nations lift COVID-19 travel restrictions, but development is displacing people who have lived along its…
Share this:
As world travel rebounds after two years of COVID-19 shutdowns and restrictions, marketers and the media are promoting Puerto Rico as an accessible hot spot destination for continental U.S. travelers. The commonwealth set a visitor record in 2021, and it is expanding tourism-related development to continue wooing travelers away from more exotic destinations.
Tourism income is central to Puerto Rico’s economy, especially in the wake of heavy damage from Hurricane Maria in 2017. But it comes at a cost: destruction of mangroves, wetlands and other coastal areas. Puerto Rico is no stranger to resort construction, but now widespread small-scale projects to meet demand for rentals on platforms like Airbnb are adding to concerns about coastal gentrification and touristification.
As scholars who study anthropology and coastal communities, we believe it is important to understand what Puerto Rico is losing in the quest for ever-increasing tourist business. For the rural coastal communities where we do our research, habitat is tied to residents’ cultural identity and economic well-being.
For the last two decades, we have documented how many rural Puerto Ricans’ lives are inextricably linked to coastal forests and wetland habitats. These communities often are poor, neglected by the state and disproportionately affected by pollution and noxious industries. Decisions about the future of the coast too often are made without accounting for human impacts.
Once-scorned areas are now in demand
Estuaries and coastal forests are some of Earth’s most biodiverse and productive ecosystems. Millions of people rely on mangroves and coastal wetlands to make a living.
Around the world, these areas are under stress from climate change, tourism and luxury residential development. But these zones weren’t always prized so highly.
In Puerto Rico and elsewhere in the Americas, wetlands historically were seen as undesirable and even dangerous places to live and work. They often were settled by the poor and dispossessed, most notably Afro-descendant people and Indigenous communities, who made livings fishing, foraging, harvesting coconuts, cutting wood and making charcoal.
In the early 20th century, however, tropical coasts started attracting attention from the global leisure class. In 1919, the Vanderbilt Hotel opened in San Juan, followed in 1949 by the massive Caribe Hilton resort – the first Hilton hotel outside the continental U.S., built in partnership with the Puerto Rican government. Many more hotels followed, along with casinos and golf courses.
Today, Puerto Rico’s rural coastal communities have to compete for space and resources against tourism development, gentrification, urbanization, industry and conservation. Often these uses are not compatible with local lifestyles.
For example, people from communities near mangrove forests, like Las Mareas in southern Puerto Rico, are no longer permitted to harvest small amounts of mangrove wood to build traditional fishing boats. At the same time, they see wealthy residents and developers destroying entire tracts of mangrove forest with impunity. Some coastal communities are starting to push back.
Beaches are for the people
In March 2022, Eliezer Molina, an environmental activist, engineer and 2020 gubernatorial candidate, posted an exposé on YouTube of the illegal cutting and filling of a mangrove shoreline in the Las Mareas neighborhood in Salinas’ Jobos Bay. As Puerto Rico’s second-largest estuary and only Federal Estuarine Reserve, the bay is an important and sensitive habitat for birds, turtles and manatees, and a nursery for many types of fish.
Wealthy Puerto Ricans clandestinely developed this waterfront site for weekend homes. Residents of Las Mareas had been alerting local authorities for well over a decade about destruction of the mangroves, to no avail. Federal authorities and Puerto Rico’s Justice Department are now conducting a criminal investigation of the illegal construction.
This case led to widespread public outrage about similar instances around the archipelago. Puerto Ricans are condemning local government agencies online and in person for what they describe as incompetence, corruption and a lack of monitoring and oversight.
One hot-button issue is privatization and destruction of the Zona Marítimo Terrestre, or Terrestrial Maritime Zone. This area is legally defined as “Puerto Rico’s coastal space that is bordered by the sea’s ebb and flow” – that is, between the low and high tide or up to the highest point of the surf zone. It includes beaches, mangroves and other coastal wetlands, and is publicly owned.
Activists are urging Gov. Pedro Pierluisi to declare a comprehensive moratorium on all coastal construction, a demand the governor calls “excessive.” A popular protest slogan, “Las playas son del pueblo!” (“Beaches belong to the people”), aptly summarizes popular feeling.
Overlooked value
Coastal development generates a lot of money in Puerto Rico, but what is gained by conserving these areas for use by local communities? In research that we carried out in 2010-2013 and 2016-2021, we found that coastal resources provide many benefits for local residents that are not easily replaced.
Our results show that about one-third of households in these communities rely on coastal goods for at least part of their income, while more than two-thirds rely on them as food sources. Local harvesters supply family-owned seafood restaurants with foods such as land crabs, helping to attract economic activity to the coast.
We also found that residents rely more heavily on local coastal foods during times of severe economic stress, such as recessions and natural disasters. In the aftermath of Hurricanes Irma and María, for example, many residents in the southern towns of Salinas and Santa Isabel harvested unusually abundant land crabs when it was hard to find other foods. Some even saw this abundance as divine restitution for the suffering the storm inflicted on them.
Local economies in these communities consist mainly of small-scale, community-based transactions that include gifting, bartering and selling. Their social and economic impacts often go unnoticed and are underestimated in official economic accounts, so they aren’t reflected in decisions about coastal development. But as our work shows, coastal ecosystems are ecologically, economically and socially productive places.
In 2010, we asked people living along Puerto Rico’s southern coast: “What would your community look like without access to the mangrove and its bounties?” The owner of a family restaurant, replied: “The answer is easy. Without access to coastal resources, this community would be dead and sad.”
Carlos G. García-Quijano has received funding from the National Science Foundation and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Sea Grant.
Hilda Lloréns has received funding from the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Sea Grant, and the University of Rhode Island's Arts & Sciences Dean's Opportunity Fund.
governor covid-19
Government
“The Face Of The Digital Censorship Movement”: Matt Taibbi Calls Out Amy Klobuchar
"The Face Of The Digital Censorship Movement": Matt Taibbi Calls Out Amy Klobuchar
Authored by Matt Taibbi via Racket News,
If you read this…
Share this:
Authored by Matt Taibbi via Racket News,
If you read this morning’s Racket article about Senator Amy Klobuchar’s letter to Jeff Bezos asking for “proactive measures” to suppress sites like Substack or Rumble, you probably gathered I’m in a mood.
I’ve had it.
Whether it’s NewsGuard slapping “anti-US” labels on Joe Lauria and Consortium News, or Drs. Jay Bhattacharya, Aaron Kheriaty, and Martin Kulldorff censored on multiple platforms for being right on Covid, or podcaster Alison Morrow fired from a state job for interviewing Kheriaty, or friend CJ Hopkins in Germany criminally convicted for a book cover, or the FBI asking Twitter to remove Aaron Mate for the Ukrainian Secret Police, or ballooning budget requests of “counter-disinformation” enforcement agencies, or the new jailing even of Owen Shroyer for having “helped create January 6th” with speech, or of course the forever-detention of Julian Assange, and above all the total indifference of legacy media to all of it, it’s over. I’ve lost patience. Time for a more focused approach.
A problem when grappling with the censorship hydra is that it has no public face, no Tipper Gore or Jerry Falwell to personify the topic. Klobuchar, for reasons listed this morning and beyond, is right for this role. She needs to be Red Pencil Amy, Blacklist Amy, Amy “Thought Police” Klobuchar. And longshot or not, removal of her from office in next year’s election or even from Senate leadership positions is a worthwhile goal. The rest of Washington needs to read public sentiment about this issue through a colleague’s public relations dilemma.
I’ve already got a lot on my plate, but I’ll make Klobuchar a personal branding project, even if it takes time. I’ll write up any move she makes in this direction, or not in this direction. Her lesser-known partner in the bid to make Amazon a “verified sources only” zone, congressman Joseph Morelle of the Rochester, New York area, can be thrown in. Think of Morelle as the VP half of the censorship movement’s ticket. It’s nothing personal. At earlier times this person could have been anyone from Rick Stengel to Adam Schiff (especially him) or Mark Warner. Klobuchar and Morelle just picked the wrong time in my personal downward spiral to pull this stunt.
T-shirting, postering, meming ideas very welcome.
Incidentally, I’m still planning town halls on the speech subject, and in fact have one confirmed at my old college in the third week of November. (Details to come). Willing to do more if anyone can help on the venue side. Although perhaps these events would be best held in Minnesota now.
For readers who might be concerned I’m losing my mind, you’re not wrong. What can I say? Even my dog flashes worried looks at me these days. But I was pushed. Pushed I say! And so were many, many others. A la bataille!
Government
Massachusetts Lawmakers Pass Sweeping Gun Bill Months After 6–3 Supreme Court Decision
Massachusetts Lawmakers Pass Sweeping Gun Bill Months After 6–3 Supreme Court Decision
Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis…
Share this:
Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
The Massachusetts state House of Representatives approved a sweeping gun law that aims at restricting more firearms and cracking down on AR-15-style rifles—after a unanimous coalition of police chiefs in the state publicly opposed it.
The measure, which passed in a 120–38 vote on Oct. 18, prohibits people from carrying firearms into other people's homes without their consent. It also would force major gun components to have serial numbers, which would be registered with the state of Massachusetts, while also expanding the state's "red flag" law that allows a judge to suspend the firearms license of someone who is considered a risk to harming others.
The legislation advanced in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling in 2022 that Americans have the Second Amendment-enshrined right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, according to Democrats in Massachusetts, a state that has long had stringent gun laws.
"The Supreme Court’s Bruen decision nullified existing components of our gun laws, threatening the safety of the Commonwealth’s residents. With the passage of this legislation, the House has once again displayed an unwavering commitment to ensuring that Massachusetts remains one of the safest states in the country," state House Speaker Ronald Mariano, a Democrat, said in a recent statement about the measure and the landmark high court decision.
The proposal would create new laws that bar firing guns at or near homes and outlaw carrying firearms while intoxicated. It would also prohibit carrying firearms in schools, polling places, and government buildings.
The bill expands the state’s ban on certain types of rifles, prohibiting new purchases of AR-15-style firearms. It would also ban someone from turning a legal firearm into an automatic weapon.
The proposal includes an enhanced system to track firearms used in crimes to help curb the flow of illegal guns into the state. It would also modernize the existing firearm registration system while increasing the availability of firearm data for academic and policy use, lawmakers said.
The state Senate has yet to release its version of a gun bill. It will be up to both Democrat-led chambers to hammer out a single bill to ship to Democrat Gov. Maura Healey’s desk for her signature before it can become law.
State Rep. Michael Day, the Democrat who authored the bill, claimed that "we are in the midst of a public health crisis and it is unrelenting" before blaming firearms.
"It's time for the House to once again act in this area and ask for your support on this bill," he said.
Republicans and gun rights groups say the law overreaches.
State Rep. Peter Durant, a Republican, said on the floor that he sees only "one goal" in the bill, which is to target law-abiding citizens who own firearms.
"When the listening tours were going on, when we were having the informational sessions, when this bill was being written, we were all told that the legal gun owner is not the not the target here. We're not going after them," Mr. Durant said, according to a local NBC affiliate station. "But it certainly seems to be that that's exactly what we're doing."
Another GOP state lawmaker, Rep. David Muradian, said that the "legislation is an egregious infringement on all lawful gun owners, and frankly, all residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts."
"I have had interactions with hundreds if not thousands of constituents within my district on this matter. The resounding question remains: What is the new proposal trying to solve?" he said.
A coalition of all the Bay State's police chiefs issued a statement saying the bill would affect only lawful gun owners.
“Although disappointed in this very predictable vote—in a proceeding where the House failed to follow their own rules—we applaud those Legislators who recognized that this bill makes no one safer. As we’ve said, the answer lies in the vigorous prosecution of criminals, who have no regard for gun laws, whether old or new. We look forward to addressing this matter with our Senate,” Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association director Mark Leahy told the Boston Herald.
Gun owners opposed to the bill have said that the measures outlined in the legislation do more to target gun owners than to reduce crime. “All of it goes against us, the lawful people. There’s nothing in there that goes after the criminals,” Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners’ Action League, said, adding that the bill is merely an overreaction to the Supreme Court's decision last year.
The Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision last June, ruled that a state law in New York was unconstitutional because it unlawfully restricted an individual's right to carry a firearm in public.
The majority affirmed that such a right is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, adding that the states can enforce "shall-issue" permitting, meaning that applicants for concealed-carry licenses have to satisfy criteria. But their ruling stipulated that "may-issue" mandates that use arbitrary evaluations that are made by local officials are unconstitutional.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
International
‘I see no happy ending’ − a former national security leader on the Gaza hostage situation
No government wants to have to deal with a hostage crisis. A former US national security official explains that there is no winning without losing in such…
Share this:
Hamas took more than 200 people hostage during its deadly rampage in Israeli border towns on Oct. 7, 2023. Among the hostages are children and the elderly. While four of them have been released, the fate of the rest is unknown, as Qatar serves as an intermediary in working to free the hostages. In this interview with Naomi Schalit, The Conversation U.S. senior politics and democracy editor, Gregory F. Treverton of USC Dornsife, a former chairman of the National Intelligence Council in the Obama administration, says most hostage-taking has specific goals. This one, says Treverton, “is basically an adjunct of warfare, and that makes it very different” – and very hard to solve.
How do people in your field think about hostage-taking? I would imagine that the feeling is, “Oh, my god, please let nothing like that happen.”
It’s an utter dilemma, because on the one hand you feel for the hostages. And as we’ve seen in the past, the Israelis have been prepared to – and did – release a thousand hostages to get one Israeli back.
On the other hand, when you do a deal to get hostages released, you’re only encouraging more hostage-taking. So you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. As a result, every government, including the United States, says, “We never deal with hostage-takers.” But of course, they all do – and they have to.
I think it’s one of the hardest parts of being in the national security business. You want to free the people – but you’re also going to get criticized. Every time President Biden has gotten somebody out of Russia, people have said, “Oh, he’s paid too high a price” or “He’s rewarded hostage-taking,” and to some extent, that’s true. You are basically rewarding the hostage-takers. But we still have to deal with them. We want to get our people out. And at some some point – as the Israelis have shown – they’re prepared to pay almost any price to get them back.
Israel released more than 1,000 prisoners in 2011 in exchange for Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, whom Hamas captured and held for five years. This is more than 200 times the number of hostages, so how do you even think about that?
At least in my professional experience, this is without precedent. The closest parallel would be the 1976 Entebbe hijacking and hostage-taking by two Germans and two Palestinians on a flight from Tel Aviv to Paris. Hijackers held 103 Israeli hostages, once they released the 148 non-Israeli hostages. Hamas holds twice the number of hostages, and in very, very different circumstances. In Entebbe, the Israeli government knew where they were, they were in a single place – the airplane – which had been forced to land in Entebbe, Uganda, after taking off from Tel Aviv. And that’s where Israeli commandos were able to rescue the hostages.
In Gaza, we don’t know where they are. We know for sure they’re scattered throughout the tunnels, likely in lots of different small groups. Hamas will presumably then use them as shields if fighting begins on the ground. They might think that that would encourage the Israelis not to make a major attack – to keep Hamas from killing all the hostages. We know that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu isn’t keen on a major ground assault, and this really puts the onus on the Israelis for how the hostage situation ends.
When you think about the history of hostage negotiations, do you see something that has any relevance to what’s going on now?
It seems to me it’s a really different category. Even Entebbe was hostage-taking for some political aim – the hijackers wanted Israel to release a large number of prisoners who were Palestinian. A colleague of mine used to say that the point of terrorism was to do the least amount of violence with the most people watching it. But Entebbe was political theater, basically, and this is not political theater. This is basically an adjunct of warfare, and that makes it very different. It’s not the usual kind of tit for tat, with “How much am I willing to pay?” or “Can I take a hostage to get somebody else out?”
What does Israel’s heavy bombing of Gaza and the beginning of a ground invasion tell you about the government’s approach to the hostage situation?
It suggests either that they have a pretty good fix on where the hostages are located, which seems unlikely given the network of Hamas tunnels, or that they have decided they must proceed in any case and will try their best to safeguard and free hostages as they go. Given the Hamas practice of using civilians as human shields, the outcome is likely to be very ugly.
Where do you see this going?
I see no happy ending. I don’t think there’s a deal that Israel could conceivably make, given its own politics. Or that Hamas would accept. So it does seem to me that at some point there is going to be that ground attack and the hostages are going to be caught in the middle of it. I see almost no alternative, given what Israel has pledged – to destroy Hamas. The Biden administration maintains that Israel doesn’t really have a strategy. They have a desire, which is to destroy Hamas. But that’s not a strategy for dealing with the hostages or for Gaza after the attack.
Gregory F. Treverton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
russia
“The Face Of The Digital Censorship Movement”: Matt Taibbi Calls Out Amy Klobuchar
Maine Gov. Confirms 18 Killed, 13 More Injured In Mass Shootings Overnight, Suspect Still At Large
Massachusetts Lawmakers Pass Sweeping Gun Bill Months After 6–3 Supreme Court Decision
Ukraine recap: future of US support for Kyiv in question as Israel conflict reshapes Washington’s priorities
-
Uncategorized9 hours agoHuge Coca-Cola and Pepsi brands face a new challenge
-
Government5 hours ago
“The Face Of The Digital Censorship Movement”: Matt Taibbi Calls Out Amy Klobuchar
-
Uncategorized5 hours agoAIs could soon run businesses – it’s an opportunity to ensure these ‘artificial persons’ follow the law
-
Uncategorized5 hours agoScammers create spoof Blockworks site to drain crypto wallets
-
Uncategorized6 hours agoPanera Sued For Wrongful Death After 21 Year Old Suffers Cardiac Arrest After Drinking “Charged Lemonade”
-
International13 hours agoElectrifying offshore platforms targets a tiny fraction of the oil industry’s emissions
-
Spread & Containment6 hours agoOregon Schools Eliminate Proficiency Requirements In Math & English For Students
-
International13 hours agoDeepfakes in warfare: new concerns emerge from their use around the Russian invasion of Ukraine