Letter from William Thomas 3/17/89
P.O. Box 27217
Washington, D.C. 20038
March 17, 1989
c/o Southwestern Regional rainbow Family
PO Box 26195
Tucson, Arizona 85726
On a positive note, "(a)n application and written
authorization are not required unless the activity will involve
is expected (to) involve more than 50 persons and those numbers
cannot be accommodated at an available designated developed or
undeveloped site. Users in this latter category must contact the
local Forest officer to determine if a site is available." Pg.
251.6 (a). If this means that when 50 or more persons can be
accommodated at an available designated developed or undeveloped
site they do not need any permit, then it may only be necessary
insure that, should the local Forest officer determine that no
is available, the local Forest officer be required to explain his
determination in writing.
It was very nice of the Forest Service to conduct the
last fall, but the working draft makes it seem as if "consensus"
-perhaps the most essential aspect of Rainbow belief - which I
repeatedly heard stressed at the meeting - has been completely
overlooked. E.g. 251.2, Definitions, "Authorization."
The working draft begins, "(t)herefore, for the reasons set
forth in the preamble ...." But there is no preamble, thus "the
reasons" are not readily apparent. The letter to "Reviewers"
by noting "legal deficiencies in ... regulations ... with regard
... First Amendment implications." But it seems that both "First
Amendment implications" and the Administrative Procedure Act
forbid augmenting "legal deficiencies in regulations" which would
have no substantial effect beyond impacting "an establishment of
religion, the free exercise thereof, freedom of speech, freedom
the press, and the right of the people to peaceably assemble....
The "philosophical objections" which I heard expressed at
meeting seemed to go well beyond semantics to the core concept
"permits" are inconsistant with the right of people to peaceably
assemble. Notwithstanding the working draft of March 16th that
objection remains and cannot, I my opinion, be resolved merely by
substituting. "the words `use agreements' and `authorization'"
"permits" or "permission to occupy." Pg. (2)
What's the problem with printed matter? Pgs. 4, 10, 11.
"Private uses. A broad term...." Sure is, should be much
narrower. Pg. 4.
What difference does it make if "(t)he use can be reasonably
accommodated on non-National Forest System land"? Pg. 6, (5).
What is meant by "permenant ... hospital, school, (or)
church"? Pg. 7 (7).
Why should "duration of use" not "exceed 14 days"? Pg. 19.
Rental fees, service fees, insurance?
To end on a positive note, I would respectfully insist that
the agency concentrate on formulating a simple "use agreement,"
while abandoning attempts to "balance" "legal deficiencies in
... regulations ... with regard to ... First Amendment implications."
Practicing the thought of a loving Creator,
FS Regs Page | PCU Administrative Record
Rainbow in Court | Government Views | Public Views
1601 Pennsylvania Avenue