On the recordMarch 27, 1996
So in essence what happened with your constituent in this case was you had someone who lost basically nearly all the value of her property, which she was going to use for retirement, but it could have been my property or anyone's property that lost the value of their property, based upon a decision that came out of fish and wildlife, which was, this is an industrial area, it is zoned for industrial use. It is not an isolated area. It is not a pristine habitat area. It is an industrial use that has industrial developments all around it. It borders on a major roadway, a major thoroughfare. But they were going to control any type of development on her property, not because there were endangered species on the property but because it was suitable habitat. If one wanted to live there, it could. It was suitable habitat.
Source
govinfo.gov
