$205,075 spent to relocate a "wild" bush

gothamhunter

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2010
4,466
6
81
http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/04/13...enn-reveals-how-much-was-paid-to-move-a-bush/

It's full of political propaganda, so be sure to ignore all of that, but I found the actual info to be pretty crazy.

CNSNews reports that “government spent at least $205,075 in 2010 to ‘translocate’ a single bush in San Francisco that stood in the path of a $1.045-billion highway-renovation project that was partially funded by the economic stimulus legislation President Barack Obama signed in 2009.”

“You don’t stop progress,” Glenn joked upon reading the story.

The bush, a Franciscan manzanita, was found in the median of a highway in San Francisco and is thought to be the last example of the species in “the wild”. However, the commercially cultivated shrub can be purchased in nurseries for about $16 a bush.

Keep in mind, that $205k was used to move a single plant. How could that be? After all, Pat said he could have done it for about $20.

Well, first there were the “hard costs” (digging the plant up, moving it somewhere else, replanting, etc) which totaled $100k.

Then there was $25,000, an annual salary for some, that covered “reporting requirements”.

And, of course, $79,470 to pay for the “establishment, nurturing and monitoring” of the plant for the next decade. Because, of course, spending eighty grand on nurturing a bush makes a whole lot of sense!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
69,032
26,909
136
http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/04/13...enn-reveals-how-much-was-paid-to-move-a-bush/

It's full of political propaganda, so be sure to ignore all of that, but I found the actual info to be pretty crazy.
Did you find the actual info? The source for Beck's story is another story posted on another political hack site. The only hard info there is a link to the endangered species listing for the species in question. The accounting the author used appears to be simply adding up every line of a contract and appears to be double, triple, and possibly quadruple counting of costs.
 

gothamhunter

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2010
4,466
6
81
Did you find the actual info? The source for Beck's story is another story posted on another political hack site. The only hard info there is a link to the endangered species listing for the species in question. The accounting the author used appears to be simply adding up every line of a contract and appears to be double, triple, and possibly quadruple counting of costs.

Can you post sources (I'm lazy)? If so, then I'll update and instead post about how ridiculous the OP is lol.
 

SZLiao214

Diamond Member
Sep 9, 2003
3,273
2
81
That is why I get angry every time i see one of those signs that says, "This county is spending xx million for xx project"
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
69,032
26,909
136
Here is the MOU:
http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/MOA%20-%20Fran%20Man%20-%202009.pdf

The total cost to the taxpayer of the 15 year recovery plan for the species covered by the MOU is $128,600. This seems like a lot and is a lot. But it is not the cost of "relocating a single bush". The alternative is that, by law, in the absence of a feasible recovery plan the Fish and Wildlife Service would have been required to return a "jeopardy opinion" on the project. This would have, at a minimum, delayed the project and possibly resulted in a redesign or cancellation of the billion dollar road project. Instead, the agencies worked it out to keep the road project on track while complying with existing law.

The $100,000 cost of moving the bush is not documented.
 
Last edited:

Rage187

Lifer
Dec 30, 2000
14,276
4
81
I read today that the GSA spent $330,000 to relocate 1 person from Denver to Hawaii.

And they spent "millions more" moving 14 other employees.



Maybe, you know, we'd be able to pay for the necessities if there wasn't so much government waste and corruption.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,074
5,557
146
OK, I can see the ugly this thread is going to turn into...mod, please move to P&N lol.

Maybe in the future don't take sources like that at face value and you won't have that problem.

You definitely should have known better, as evidenced by your little disclaimer in your OP.

Here is the MOU:
http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/MOA%20-%20Fran%20Man%20-%202009.pdf

The total cost to the taxpayer of the 15 year recovery plan for the species covered by the MOU is $128,600. This seems like a lot and is a lot. But it is not the cost of "relocating a single bush". The alternative is that, by law, in the absence of a feasible recovery plan the Fish and Wildlife Service would have been required to return a "jeopardy opinion" on the project. This would have, at a minimum, delayed the project and possibly resulted in a redesign or cancellation of the billion dollar road project. Instead, the agencies worked it out to keep the road project on track while complying with existing law.

The $100,000 cost of moving the bush is not documented.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,318
4,433
136
Did you find the actual info? The source for Beck's story is another story posted on another political hack site. The only hard info there is a link to the endangered species listing for the species in question. The accounting the author used appears to be simply adding up every line of a contract and appears to be double, triple, and possibly quadruple counting of costs.

Fuck even at quadruple the cost they still paid $51,268.75. Which is still all fucked up.
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
67,380
12,129
126
www.anyf.ca
I don't understand why the government seems to aim to make the most simple task as expensive as possible.

If they wanted to preserve it, fine, but this could have been done for under 1k. The most expensive part is the gas to bring it to the new location.
 

gothamhunter

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2010
4,466
6
81
Here is the MOU:
http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/MOA%20-%20Fran%20Man%20-%202009.pdf

The total cost to the taxpayer of the 15 year recovery plan for the species covered by the MOU is $128,600. This seems like a lot and is a lot. But it is not the cost of "relocating a single bush". The alternative is that, by law, in the absence of a feasible recovery plan the Fish and Wildlife Service would have been required to return a "jeopardy opinion" on the project. This would have, at a minimum, delayed the project and possibly resulted in a redesign or cancellation of the billion dollar road project. Instead, the agencies worked it out to keep the road project on track while complying with existing law.

The $100,000 cost of moving the bush is not documented.

Yeah, the only thing I found regarding the $100k move was this:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sho...5-translocate-one-shrub-path-stimulus-project
Furthermore, Presidio Parkway Project spokesperson Molly Graham told CNSNews.com that the “hard removal”—n.b. actually digging up the plant, putting it on a truck, driving it somewhere else and replanting it--cost $100,000.

Still, almost $130k? Dear Lord...
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
69,032
26,909
136
Fuck even at quadruple the cost they still paid $51,268.75. Which is still all fucked up.

They paid $128k to implement a fifteen year species recovery plan, not to move a bush. $128k costs less than a single day's delay on a $billion project. By law, the agencies had a choice: implement a species recovery plan that allowed the project to go forward or have FWS issue a jeopardy opinion on the species and trigger a delay or cancellation of the project.
 

gothamhunter

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2010
4,466
6
81
Maybe in the future don't take sources like that at face value and you won't have that problem.

You definitely should have known better, as evidenced by your little disclaimer in your OP.


I wanted to share it with everyone because not everyone likes to go to P&N; I didn't share it to start some government hate thread, I just thought it was an interestingly absurd amount and wanted to share.

Yeah, I see that the other 100k isn't really listed anywhere' $130k is still quite a bit lol.
 

gothamhunter

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2010
4,466
6
81
They paid $128k to implement a fifteen year species recovery plan, not to move a bush. $128k costs less than a single day's delay on a $billion project. By law, the agencies had a choice: implement a species recovery plan that allowed the project to go forward or have FWS issue a jeopardy opinion on the species and trigger a delay or cancellation of the project.

They should have just grabbed some from the store and said they were "wild" trees too :awe:
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
They paid $128k to implement a fifteen year species recovery plan, not to move a bush. $128k costs less than a single day's delay on a $billion project. By law, the agencies had a choice: implement a species recovery plan that allowed the project to go forward or have FWS issue a jeopardy opinion on the species and trigger a delay or cancellation of the project.
And here we have the justification: government made a law that it was forced to follow. We can justify all sorts of fun things using this sort of circular reasoning.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
And ppl laugh when I say we will go broke and hyper-inflate like Wiemar. We borrow like half the budget these days and gets worse each year because of shit like this x 100000
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
$205,075 spent to relocate a "wild" bush

$200k to relocate a shrubbery is still a better use of funds than giving it to some poor person as additional welfare vouchers or in the 90th plus week of unemployment for some laid-off union asshole.