June, 03 2015, 04:00pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Chris Eaton, Earthjustice, (303) 996-9616, ceaton@earthjustice.org
Robin Silver, Center for Biological Diversity, (520) 345-5708, rsilver@biologicaldiversity.org
Sandy Bahr, Sierra Club – Grand Canyon Chapter, (602) 253-8633, sandy.bahr@sierraclub.org
Kati Schmidt, National Parks Conservation Association: 415-847-1767, kschmidt@npca.org
More Than 200,000 People Urge Forest Service to Reject Mega-development Near Grand Canyon
Public Overwhelmingly Opposes Threat to National Treasure
FLAGSTAFF, Ariz.
More than 200,000 people flooded the U.S. Forest Service with comments over the last month calling for the agency to reject a plan for roads and infrastructure that would enable construction of a mega-development on the Grand Canyon's doorstep.
The proposed roads, sewers and other utilities would pave the way for a multinational developer to transform the 580-resident community of Tusayan, Ariz., from a small, quiet tourist town into a sprawling complex of high-end homes, retail stores and restaurants only a mile from the Grand Canyon National Park boundary. The development threatens groundwater that feeds the Grand Canyon's creeks, springs and seeps, endangering some of the park's most important and biodiverse wildlife habitat.
The outpouring of public opposition included that from business owners in Tusayan and nearby Flagstaff, a former Coconino County development director, a former Grand Canyon National Park superintendent, outdoor enthusiasts, and thousands of park visitors who want to keep the experience of visiting the Grand Canyon unmarred by a massive commercial development. The Department of the Interior warned that the massive development was raising international concerns over the potential harm to Grand Canyon, a World Heritage Site.
"Building a massive sprawling development at the gateway to Grand Canyon threatens the very things that the park was established to protect -- the waters, wildlife, dark skies and opportunities to experience natural quiet," said Sandy Bahr, chapter director for Sierra Club's Grand Canyon Chapter. "That is why thousands of people here in Arizona and across the country are asking the Forest Service to reject this proposal."
Commenters also noted that the project would increase car and plane traffic and light and noise pollution in Grand Canyon National Park. The National Park Service has called the project one of the biggest threats to the park in its nearly 100-year history.
"The Grand Canyon is one of our most beloved and iconic national parks -- a sentiment that reverberated in messages of opposition sent by our members, supporters, and partners in Arizona and across the country," said David Nimkin, southeast senior regional director for the National Parks Conservation Association. "Water is a precious resource in the park and throughout the West, and we call on the Forest Service to recognize the resources in Grand Canyon and the nearby Havasu Canyon that would be jeopardized, and reject this proposal."
Earthjustice, on behalf of the National Parks Conservation Association, the Grand Canyon Trust, Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity submitted a letter urging the Forest Service to reject the proposal or, at a minimum, to prepare a full environmental impact statement disclosing the impacts of the massive development on water, wildlife, air quality, traffic, crime and other resources and factors.
"The flood of opposition to this project shows that the public doesn't want Grand Canyon's unparalleled natural values given away to developers hoping to cash in on its popularity," said Chris Eaton, an Earthjustice attorney.
"The local, national and international communities have spoken, and the message is clear -- this development doesn't belong next to Grand Canyon," said Robin Silver, a founder of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Now it's up to the Forest Service to act in the public interest and reject this proposal"
The comments and signatures included nearly 200,000 from members and supporters of conservation and advocacy groups including more than: 52,000 from the Center for Biological Diversity; 55,000 from Earthjustice; 13,000 from the National Parks Conservation Association; 30,000 from the Sierra Club; and 50,000 from the activist website RootsAction.org.
The Forest Service will review the public's comments over the next month or two and then decide whether to reject the application outright, proceed with a minimal "environmental assessment" with little public review, or prepare a more rigorous environmental impact statement. An environmental assessment would likely take up to a year to complete; an impact statement would take twice that long.
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
Warren Bill Would Stop Companies From Placing Shareholder Paydays Over Worker Rights
"Following the most lucrative election in history for special interests," said the senator, "my bill will empower workers to hold corporations to responsible decisions that benefit more than just shareholders."
Dec 11, 2024
Aiming to confront "a root cause of many of America's fundamental economic problems," U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday unveiled a bill to require corporations to balance growth with fair treatment of their employees and consumers.
The Massachusetts Democrat introduced the Accountable Capitalism Act, explaining that for much of U.S. history, corporations reinvested more than half of their profits back into their companies, working in the interest of employees, customers, business partners, and shareholders.
In the 1980s, said Warren corporations began placing the latter group above all, adopting "the belief that their only legitimate and legal purpose was 'maximizing shareholder value.'"
That view was further cemented in 1997 when the Business Roundtable, a lobbying group that represents chief executives across the country, declared that the "principal objective of a business enterprise is to generate economic returns to its owners."
Now, Warren said in a policy document, "around 93% of American-held corporate shares are owned by just 10% of our nation's richest households, while more than 40% of American households hold no shares at all."
"This means that corporate America's commitment to 'maximizing shareholder return' is a commitment to making the rich even richer, while leaving workers and families behind," said Warren in a statement.
The Accountable Capitalism Act would require:
- Corporations with more than $1 billion in annual revenue to obtain a federal charter as a "United States corporation," obligating executives to consider the interests of all stakeholders, not just investors;
- Corporate political spending to be approved by at least 75% of a company's shareholders and 75% of its board of directors; and
- At least 40% of a company's board of directors to be selected by employees.
The bill would also prohibit directors of U.S. corporations from selling company shares within five years of receiving them or within three years of a company stock buyback.
Warren noted that as companies have increasingly poured their profits into stock buybacks to benefit shareholders, worker productivity has steadily increased while real wages have gone up only slightly. The share of national income that goes to workers has also significantly dropped.
"Workers are a major reason corporate profits are surging, but their salaries have barely moved while corporations' shareholders make out like bandits," said Warren told The Guardian. "We need to stand up for working people and hold giant companies responsible for decisions that hurt workers and consumers while lining shareholders' pockets."
The senator highlighted that big business interests invested heavily in November's U.S. presidential election.
"Following the most lucrative election in history for special interests," she said, "my bill will empower workers to hold corporations to responsible decisions that benefit more than just shareholders."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Crushing Blow to the Labor Agenda' as Manchin, Sinema Block Biden NLRB Nominee
"These two senators effectively handed Trump control of the board when his term begins," noted one observer.
Dec 11, 2024
In a move likely fraught with major implications for worker rights during the impending second administration of Republican President-elect Donald Trump, Democratic-turned-Independent U.S. Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema on Wednesday blocked Democrat Lauren McFerran's bid for a second term on the National Labor Relations Board.
With every Republican senator except Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas voting against President Joe Biden's nomination of McFerran for a new five-year term, the fate of the woman who has led the agency since 2021 was up to Manchin and Sinema—who, as More Perfect Union founder and executive director Faiz Shakir put it on social media, "consistently spoiled the story of 'what could have been'" by years of fighting to thwart their own former party's agenda.
Sinema struck first, her "no" vote on McFerran grinding the confirmation tally to a 49-49 tie. Manchin, who showed up later, cast the decisive vote, negating speculation that Vice President Kamala Harris, the Senate president who lost the presidential contest to Trump last month, would break the stalemate.
"It is deeply disappointing, a direct attack on working people, and incredibly troubling that this highly qualified nominee—with a proven track record of protecting worker rights—did not have the votes," lamented Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
Chris Jackson, a former Democratic Lawrence County, Tennessee commissioner and longtime labor advocate, called Manchin and Sinema's votes "a crushing blow to the labor agenda."
"By casting decisive NO votes against President Biden's NLRB nominee, they've guaranteed Democrats will lose control of the national labor board until at least 2026," Jackson said. "Their votes effectively hand Donald Trump the keys to the board the moment he takes office again. This is a betrayal of working families—and a gift to corporate interests, which is par for the course for these two."
Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA union, said on social media that while "Manchin and Sinema are responsible for killing voting rights, worker rights, women's rights, LGBTQ rights, childcare, vision, and dental for seniors, and an economy built for the people," the two obstructionist senators "are not the story."
"Don't bury the lede," implored Nelson. "The entire GOP has relentlessly fought against anything good for the vast majority of the people of this country. The GOP shows once again their total disdain for their constituents."
"But they better watch what they do in implementing their plans to make it worse," she warned. "These laws are set up to mostly protect corporations and getting rid of the last pathetic bits of worker rights under the law will simply lead to more disruption and CHAOS."
Trump's first term saw relentless attacks on workers' rights. Critics fear a second Trump administration—whose officials and agenda are steeped in the anti-worker Project 2025—will roll back gains achieved under Biden and work to weaken the right to organize, water down workplace health and safety rules, and strip overtime pay, to name but a handful of GOP wish-list items.
The latest votes by Manchin and Sinema—who are both leaving Congress after this term—sparked widespread outrage among workers' rights defenders on social media, with one account on X, formerly known as Twitter, posting: "Manchin is geriatric and Sinema has a long fruitful career ahead of her in a consulting firm that advocates child slave labor, but at least they kicked the working class in the teeth one last time. Nothing to do now but hope there's a hell."
Keep ReadingShow Less
With Defeat of Megamerger, Sanders Thanks Khan for Taking On 'Corporate Greed'
"The proposed Kroger-Albertsons merger would have led to higher prices at the grocery store and harmed workers," said the Vermont senator.
Dec 11, 2024
Praise for Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan continued to pour in on Wednesday after a pair of judges blocked the merger of grocery chains Kroger and Albertsons following challenges by the FTC and state attorneys general.
"The proposed Kroger-Albertsons merger would have led to higher prices at the grocery store and harmed workers," said U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders. "Let me thank FTC Chair Lina Khan for successfully fighting this merger and standing up to corporate greed."
Congressman Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) also welcomed the rulings and sent "a big thank you to Lina Khan and her team at the FTC."
Their comments on Wednesday followed similar applause from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal as well as groups including the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP) and Groundwork Collaborative.
Khan addressed the win during a Tuesday stream with political commentator Hasan Piker, noting that "this is the first time that the FTC has ever sought to block a merger not just because it's gonna be bad for consumers, but also because it's gonna be bad for workers."
Khan, an appointee of outgoing Democratic President Joe Biden, has won praise from progressives for taking on not only grocery giants and other companies trying to build monopolies but also Big Pharma and Big Tech.
Sanders recently called her "the best FTC chair in modern history" and AELP earlier this year published a document detailing how, under Khan's leadership, the agency "has entered a new era of more effective, modern, and democratic enforcement to better protect consumers, workers, and independent businesses."
Examples included in the AELP roundup include Khan's "crackdown on deceptive 'junk fees,'" a ban on noncompete clauses that's being challenged in court, a historic lawsuit against Amazon.com, and a "click-to-cancel" rule that requires sellers to "make it as easy for consumers to cancel their enrollment as it was to sign up."
However, the new era of the FTC is set to soon come to an end. Since President-elect Donald Trump's victory last month, speculation has been building that he would replace Khan with someone who would do the bidding of big business. Amid celebrations of the rulings against the Kroger-Albertsons merger on Tuesday, the Republican announced Andrew Ferguson as his pick for chair.
As Common Dreamsreported earlier Wednesday, Basel Musharbash, principal attorney at Antimonopoly Counsel, said that elevating Ferguson, who already sits on the FTC, to chair, "is an affront to the antitrust laws and a gift to the oligarchs and monopolies bleeding this country dry."
Although the agency is expected to be friendlier to mergers under the next Trump administration, Albertsons responded to the Tuesday rulings by bailing on the $24.6 billion deal and suing Kroger for billions of dollars on Wednesday, rather than appealing or moving to in-house FTC hearings.
That move could reflect industry fears of U.S. courts that are willing to block major mergers, as The American Prospect executive editor David Dayen pointed out after the federal court decision on Tuesday.
"The important thing here is not that Biden's enforcers blocked a merger... it's that courts are increasingly comfortable with merger enforcement," he said. "States can sue under the Sherman Act, and they will. The real change to track is in the judiciary. Wall Street, take note."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular