Fighting the good fight

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by Penny S., Jan 30, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Penny S.

    Penny S. Guest

    http://www.lsw.org/saveourbluff/

    http://www.spokesmanreview.com/news-story.asp?date=013003&ID=s1295442&cat=se ction.spokane

    There is a "petition" at teh site, and there is also a place to enter editorial commentary at the
    newspaper site

    Spokane

    Developer's plans upset West Cannon residents Neighbors accustomed to using nature trail on the
    private property

    Mike Prager Staff writer

    The house was packed at the Woman's Club of Spokane two weeks ago. But this was no social occasion.
    Scores of Cannon's Addition residents turned out to hear plans by a developer to turn a slice of
    undeveloped land into exclusive home sites. The private wooded property overlooking the Latah Valley
    holds a popular, but unsanctioned, recreation trail that residents have used for years. It connects
    to a web of trails on city-owned conservation land farther south.

    Citizens wanted answers. How could a private developer take away the trail? Instead, they heard
    details of the proposed 8.47-acre development known as Ashland Estates and a discussion of the
    land-use process the developer must follow to obtain city approval.

    "It would have been nice if you would have come here and told us how to keep the trail," one
    resident said midway through the meeting.

    The meeting teetered on the edge of civility. Some in the crowd were openly hostile. At one point
    the developer's attorney was shouted down by a young man.

    Most of the people in the crowd were unaware the developer and co-owner was seated in the crowd
    listening to the exchanges.

    The developer -- Steve Smart of Ashland Estates LLC -- stood and introduced himself. His voice
    sounded nervous. He said he had been receiving angry calls from residents upset about the
    development and possible loss of the trail.

    "I really resent it," he told the audience. "I've just been lambasted. My character has been
    lambasted."

    He said he thought his development would be a good thing because it would improve the property and
    bring new residents to the neighborhood.

    "Do I look like a rich developer who goes around raping and plundering things?" he said.

    Smart is a landscape architect with Environment West and an owner of Smart Gardens, a popular
    nursery at Bigelow and Argonne roads.

    He bought the bluff property from Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad seven years ago.

    The land sat unused since the original plat was filed in 1910 with 41 homesites. A high-voltage
    power line was later erected across the property.

    Over the years, the land and its trail fell to the surrounding residents almost by default.

    Why is it, Smart pondered aloud, that strangers act like a piece of private land is theirs when the
    only permission they had to use it came from the owner not saying no?

    Back in the late '90s, city parks officials were wondering themselves. Trails were being secretly
    constructed without Parks Department permission. These trails line the steep slopes of city
    conservation land along the bluff below High Drive to the south.

    Parks officials didn't get too excited with the trail builders because the unsanctioned construction
    helped stem erosion from a parade of mountain bikers who frequent the land.

    The proposed Ashland Estates would be built over one of the most popular accesses to the
    conservation land from the secluded intersection of 16th and Ash.

    This system of trails, including the portion over Smart's property, has a passionate following in a
    neighborhood ready to do battle over preserving its segment, even though it's privately owned.

    Following the community meeting on Jan. 16, a newly formed group called Save Our Bluff amassed a
    calling list with 300 names.

    They have created a Web site at www.lsw.org/saveourbluff/ and have enlisted support of other
    neighborhood groups, including two neighborhood councils and the Alliance of Neighborhoods of
    Spokane County.

    "There's no room for houses, yards and a trail," said Heidi Gann, an organizer of Save Our Bluff.

    "Who wants to run through a development?"

    This wildfire of grassroots action has sparked an activist bent in this neighborhood of older,
    single-family homes. Gann said it has brought a sense of camaraderie, and this in the dead of winter
    when people are more likely to be indoors.

    "It's magical," she said.

    The group is gearing for a land-use fight that could unfold at a public hearing later this year. The
    developer is seeking to replat the parcel as well as gain approval of a planned unit development,
    which would allow a private road to be built rather than a public one.

    Neighbors are saying the plans call for a gated housing development, but the developer said no
    decision has been made.

    Smart told the audience he will look at the possibility of including a trail in the development if
    it can be done safely and if it does not create a liability risk for private interests.

    One resident sent the developer a letter suggesting that part of the property should be sold to
    public ownership through the county's Conservation Futures program. The futures purchase would be
    used to preserve the trail.

    Gann and her organization want nothing of a compromise for now. "There are very few open spaces in
    the city and those should be preserved forever," she said.

    If anything, the Conservation Futures program should be used to buy the entire parcel, she said.

    The city's two-year-old comprehensive plan calls for keeping the land as open space, but
    doesn't prohibit Smart from developing it as single-family residences under its historical
    zoning and platting.

    An Avista power line would have to be relocated. Avista is seeking alternate routes but has filed a
    condemnation lawsuit against the property to preserve the company's need to maintain the power line
    in the event an alternative route cannot be found.

    Aesthetic values aside, neighbors claim the land is not suitable for development. The sandy soil is
    so steep in some places it poses a geologic hazard, they contend.

    Already, there are erosion problems on the upper bluff, Gann said.

    A development could trigger landslides, they said. Such a disaster might not only ruin any newly
    built homes but could bring down existing homes higher up on the bluff along Maple Boulevard.

    Gann lives in one of them, a historic Arts and Crafts jewel overlooking the proposed
    development site.

    The developer's consultant, Dwight Hume, said geologic studies are yet to be done, and the
    scientific research should determine whether the land is suitable for construction.

    Rick Dullanty, attorney for Smart, appealed to neighbors to cooperate.

    "We'd like to make this a win-win for all of us, make it safe and improve the property," he said.

    So far, the request is being resisted.

    "We're looking for lawyers now," Gann said.

    .Mike Prager can be reached at 459-5454 or by e-mail at [email protected]
     
    Tags:


  2. Nelson Binch

    Nelson Binch Guest

    "Penny S." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    | http://www.lsw.org/saveourbluff/
    |
    |
    http://www.spokesmanreview.com/news-story.asp?date=013003&ID=s1295442&cat=se
    | ction.spokane
    |
    | There is a "petition" at teh site, and there is also a place to enter editorial commentary at the
    | newspaper site
    |
    | Spokane
    |
    | Developer's plans upset West Cannon residents Neighbors accustomed to using nature trail on the
    | private property

    With all due respect, Penny, the only proper course of action for these folks would be the purchase
    of that property to maintain the trail. Anything else would be nothing but outside people telling an
    owner what he could and could not do with his property. It truly would be a shame to lose this
    trail, but the rights of property owners in this country have eroded enough. It is like the example
    of people living alone on a country road near a city. The only own the plot of land their house sits
    on, then a developer buys up all the surrounding land. The people living there throw a fit since
    they bought the place so they could live in peace and quiet. I say, if that is what they wanted,
    they should have secured more land around their home as a buffer.

    Perhaps these folks could persuade the local planners that the land is more valuable to the area as
    a whole in its current condition, but at least where I live, they wouldn't have a prayer considered
    how this county and city are addicted to growth at all costs.

    ---
    __o _`\(,_ Cycling is life, (_)/ (_) all the rest, just details. Nelson Binch =^o.o^=
    http://intergalax.com

    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 -
    Release Date: 1/27/2003
     
  3. Cleanbean

    Cleanbean Guest

    I think what you need to do is to find some form of wildlife that will be affected if they put
    structures there. Get the Green folks on you're side. They will tie things up in disputes for years.

    Cleanbean

    "Penny S." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > http://www.lsw.org/saveourbluff/
    >
    >
    http://www.spokesmanreview.com/news-story.asp?date=013003&ID=s1295442&cat=se
    > ction.spokane
    >
    > There is a "petition" at teh site, and there is also a place to enter editorial commentary at the
    > newspaper site
    >
    > Spokane
    >
    > Developer's plans upset West Cannon residents Neighbors accustomed to using nature trail on the
    > private property
    >
    >
    > Mike Prager Staff writer
    >
    > The house was packed at the Woman's Club of Spokane two weeks ago. But this was no social
    > occasion. Scores of Cannon's Addition residents turned out to hear plans by a developer to turn a
    > slice of undeveloped land into exclusive home sites. The private wooded property overlooking the
    > Latah Valley holds a popular, but unsanctioned, recreation trail that residents have used for
    > years. It connects to a web of trails on city-owned conservation land farther south.
    >
    > Citizens wanted answers. How could a private developer take away the
    trail?
    > Instead, they heard details of the proposed 8.47-acre development known as Ashland Estates and a
    > discussion of the land-use process the developer
    must
    > follow to obtain city approval.
    >
    > "It would have been nice if you would have come here and told us how to
    keep
    > the trail," one resident said midway through the meeting.
    >
    > The meeting teetered on the edge of civility. Some in the crowd were
    openly
    > hostile. At one point the developer's attorney was shouted down by a young man.
    >
    > Most of the people in the crowd were unaware the developer and co-owner
    was
    > seated in the crowd listening to the exchanges.
    >
    > The developer -- Steve Smart of Ashland Estates LLC -- stood and
    introduced
    > himself. His voice sounded nervous. He said he had been receiving angry calls from residents upset
    > about the development and possible loss of the trail.
    >
    > "I really resent it," he told the audience. "I've just been lambasted. My character has been
    > lambasted."
    >
    > He said he thought his development would be a good thing because it would improve the property and
    > bring new residents to the neighborhood.
    >
    > "Do I look like a rich developer who goes around raping and plundering things?" he said.
    >
    > Smart is a landscape architect with Environment West and an owner of Smart Gardens, a popular
    > nursery at Bigelow and Argonne roads.
    >
    > He bought the bluff property from Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad seven years ago.
    >
    > The land sat unused since the original plat was filed in 1910 with 41 homesites. A high-voltage
    > power line was later erected across the
    property.
    >
    > Over the years, the land and its trail fell to the surrounding residents almost by default.
    >
    > Why is it, Smart pondered aloud, that strangers act like a piece of
    private
    > land is theirs when the only permission they had to use it came from the owner not saying no?
    >
    > Back in the late '90s, city parks officials were wondering themselves. Trails were being secretly
    > constructed without Parks Department
    permission.
    > These trails line the steep slopes of city conservation land along the
    bluff
    > below High Drive to the south.
    >
    > Parks officials didn't get too excited with the trail builders because the unsanctioned
    > construction helped stem erosion from a parade of mountain bikers who frequent the land.
    >
    > The proposed Ashland Estates would be built over one of the most popular accesses to the
    > conservation land from the secluded intersection of 16th
    and
    > Ash.
    >
    > This system of trails, including the portion over Smart's property, has a passionate following in
    > a neighborhood ready to do battle over preserving its segment, even though it's privately owned.
    >
    > Following the community meeting on Jan. 16, a newly formed group called
    Save
    > Our Bluff amassed a calling list with 300 names.
    >
    > They have created a Web site at www.lsw.org/saveourbluff/ and have
    enlisted
    > support of other neighborhood groups, including two neighborhood councils and the Alliance of
    > Neighborhoods of Spokane County.
    >
    > "There's no room for houses, yards and a trail," said Heidi Gann, an organizer of Save Our Bluff.
    >
    > "Who wants to run through a development?"
    >
    > This wildfire of grassroots action has sparked an activist bent in this neighborhood of older,
    > single-family homes. Gann said it has brought a
    sense
    > of camaraderie, and this in the dead of winter when people are more likely to be indoors.
    >
    > "It's magical," she said.
    >
    > The group is gearing for a land-use fight that could unfold at a public hearing later this year.
    > The developer is seeking to replat the parcel as well as gain approval of a planned unit
    > development, which would allow a private road to be built rather than a public one.
    >
    > Neighbors are saying the plans call for a gated housing development, but
    the
    > developer said no decision has been made.
    >
    > Smart told the audience he will look at the possibility of including a
    trail
    > in the development if it can be done safely and if it does not create a liability risk for private
    > interests.
    >
    > One resident sent the developer a letter suggesting that part of the property should be sold to
    > public ownership through the county's Conservation Futures program. The futures purchase would
    > be used to
    preserve
    > the trail.
    >
    > Gann and her organization want nothing of a compromise for now. "There are very few open spaces in
    > the city and those should be preserved forever," she said.
    >
    > If anything, the Conservation Futures program should be used to buy the entire parcel, she said.
    >
    > The city's two-year-old comprehensive plan calls for keeping the land as open space, but doesn't
    > prohibit Smart from developing it as single-family residences under its historical zoning and
    > platting.
    >
    >
    > An Avista power line would have to be relocated. Avista is seeking
    alternate
    > routes but has filed a condemnation lawsuit against the property to
    preserve
    > the company's need to maintain the power line in the event an alternative route cannot be found.
    >
    > Aesthetic values aside, neighbors claim the land is not suitable for development. The sandy soil
    > is so steep in some places it poses a geologic hazard, they contend.
    >
    > Already, there are erosion problems on the upper bluff, Gann said.
    >
    > A development could trigger landslides, they said. Such a disaster might
    not
    > only ruin any newly built homes but could bring down existing homes higher up on the bluff along
    > Maple Boulevard.
    >
    > Gann lives in one of them, a historic Arts and Crafts jewel overlooking
    the
    > proposed development site.
    >
    > The developer's consultant, Dwight Hume, said geologic studies are yet to
    be
    > done, and the scientific research should determine whether the land is suitable for construction.
    >
    > Rick Dullanty, attorney for Smart, appealed to neighbors to cooperate.
    >
    > "We'd like to make this a win-win for all of us, make it safe and improve the property," he said.
    >
    > So far, the request is being resisted.
    >
    > "We're looking for lawyers now," Gann said.
    >
    >
    > .Mike Prager can be reached at 459-5454 or by e-mail at
    [email protected]
     
  4. John Harlow

    John Harlow Guest

    > With all due respect, Penny, the only proper course of action for these folks would be the
    > purchase of that property to maintain the trail.

    Yep; the trail users have been getting off scott free for years with the property owner paying the
    taxes and giving them unrestricted access - which exposes him to huge liability as well. So, IMHO
    this is not a "good" fight. It sucks that you lose some trails, but as Nelson said, either buy it or
    let the owner use his property as he sees fit.
     
  5. Penny S.

    Penny S. Guest

    Nelson Binch wrote:
    > "Penny S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >> http://www.lsw.org/saveourbluff/
    >> > With all due respect, Penny, the only proper course of action for
    > these folks would be the purchase of that property to maintain the trail. Anything else would be
    > nothing but outside people telling an owner what he could and could not do with his property. It
    > truly would be a shame to lose this trail, but the rights of property owners in this country have
    > eroded enough.

    We have a conservation futures program set aside just for stuff like this... this is the route I'm
    hoping that will be taken. I don't advocate "robbing" a property owner. However, the developers have
    a nasty habit around here of trying to sneak things in without proper public input. What a lot of us
    would like to see if a program like Boise has, of purchasing the open space and ridge lines to
    preserve it. There's not much left here, and the county and city government seem to be in the
    developer's pockets. Or, I"d be happy to just the accesses maintained... a lot of public (city/
    county) land here get's it's accesses closed off by (IMO) thoughtless development.

    I wish I had some photos.. if nothing else this area is very unstable, There was big expensive
    development put in, same area about 4 miles down the creek that now has the back yards of all these
    $500K homes eroding into the creek. What hilarious is that anyone with a soil/geologic background
    can see it's cutting bank of a active creek, really stupid place to build. Of course the lawyers are
    having a field day.

    point taken.

    Penny
     
  6. Penny S.

    Penny S. Guest

    John Harlow wrote:
    >> With all due respect, Penny, the only proper course of action for these folks would be the
    >> purchase of that property to maintain the trail.
    >
    > Yep; the trail users have been getting off scott free for years with the property owner paying the
    > taxes and giving them unrestricted access - which exposes him to huge liability as well. So, IMHO
    > this is not a "good" fight. It sucks that you lose some trails, but as Nelson said, either buy it
    > or let the owner use his property as he sees fit.

    see my reply to Nelseon re:the conservation futures program here.
     
  7. John Harlow

    John Harlow Guest

    "Penny S." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > John Harlow wrote:
    > >> With all due respect, Penny, the only proper course of action for these folks would be the
    > >> purchase of that property to maintain the trail.
    > >
    > > Yep; the trail users have been getting off scott free for years with the property owner paying
    > > the taxes and giving them unrestricted access - which exposes him to huge liability as well. So,
    > > IMHO this is not a "good" fight. It sucks that you lose some trails, but as Nelson said, either
    > > buy it or let the owner use his property as he sees fit.
    >
    > see my reply to Nelseon re:the conservation futures program here.

    Just did that; sounds like a good idea. I hope things can work out well for all involved.
     
  8. L Hays

    L Hays Guest

    "Cleanbean" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > I think what you need to do is to find some form of wildlife that will be affected if they put
    > structures there. Get the Green folks on you're
    side.
    > They will tie things up in disputes for years.
    >
    > Cleanbean

    No can do. Then they'll fence it off as a "Green Area" so you can gaze lovingly at it from behind
    the barriers as not to upset the balance.

    Lance
     
  9. "Nelson Binch" <[email protected]> wrote
    >
    > Anything else would be nothing but outside people telling an owner what he could and could not do
    > with his property. It truly would be a shame to lose this trail, but the rights of property owners
    > in this country have eroded enough.

    One might argue the merits of this particular case. Just because a piece of land has gotten popular
    with the local community as a "nature" area doesn't mean it belongs to the community outright.
    However, if you read the website that Penny provided, the landowner is looking to the city for a
    giveaway of an easment for a PUBLIC road so the land can be turned into a suburban fortress, aka a
    "gated community". Furthermore, the preferred solution being proposed here is to buy the land from
    the owner on behalf of the public.

    All that aside, this whole idea that "the rights of property owner in this country have eroded
    enough" is pure horseshit. People in this country do not have the unrestricted right to do whatever
    they wish with their property. They never have. This is what zoning laws, mineral rights,
    architectural codes, environmental regulations, etc. etc. etc. are all about. Sometimes this stuff
    goes overboard, but when it does it is often the suburban developers who are responsible, not the
    government. I have a friend who is a Chinese immigrant living in a suburb in Oklahoma who is in
    constant trouble with her neighbors because she doesn't cut her lawn often enough. They've been
    taking pictures of her yard and filing complaints with the board for the development, who has the
    power to fine her over her fucking lawn. She says it's just like the cultural revolution, except her
    neighbors are spying on her because of her shrubs rather than her political activity. At least she
    appreciates the irony.

    I often lament the fact that we don't have land use laws like the Brits, protecting public rights of
    way on private land. In England, by and large, you can't shut down a trail going across your land
    just because you own the land. The trail that was there before the land owner (often for hundreds of
    years) has more "rights" than somebody who takes temporary posession of it for a half century or so.
    This is as it should be.

    CC
     
  10. Penny S.

    Penny S. Guest

    Corvus Corvax wrote:
    > "Nelson Binch" <[email protected]> wrote
    >>
    >> Anything else would be nothing but outside people telling an owner what he could and could not do
    >> with his property. It truly would be a shame to lose this trail, but the rights of property
    >> owners in this country have eroded enough.
    >
    > One might argue the merits of this particular case. Just because a piece of land has gotten
    > popular with the local community as a "nature" area doesn't mean it belongs to the community
    > outright. However, if you read the website that Penny provided, the landowner is looking to the
    > city for a giveaway of an easment for a PUBLIC road so the land can be turned into a suburban
    > fortress, aka a "gated community". Furthermore, the preferred solution being proposed here is to
    > buy the land from the owner on behalf of the public.
    >

    I'm wondering if Paladin might be willing to dig up some links on what Boise has done to preserve
    it's open space and green space. I mean, what are the conservation futures good for if not buying
    land like this piece?

    penny
     
  11. John Harlow

    John Harlow Guest

    > I have a friend who is a Chinese immigrant living in a suburb in Oklahoma who is in constant
    > trouble with her neighbors because she doesn't cut her lawn often enough. They've been taking
    > pictures of her yard and filing complaints with the board for the development, who has the power
    > to fine her over her fucking lawn.

    She might live in an area with "restrictive covenants". They have become quite popular nowadays;
    mainly because of the actions like those of your "less than conscientious" friend. And they make
    sense, too. Not only is she devaluing her yard, she's affecting the value (aesthetically and
    monetarily) of those around it. I'm sure if you were her neighbor and she moved in and let the place
    go to shit, you wouldn't be exactly pleased about it. If there are covenants there, she likely even
    signed a contract to them.

    > She says it's just like the cultural revolution, except her neighbors are spying on her because of
    > her shrubs rather than her political activity. At least she appreciates the irony.

    No; they are simply trying to protect their investment. You might want to explain this to her.

    > I often lament the fact that we don't have land use laws like the Brits, protecting public rights
    > of way on private land. In England, by and large, you can't shut down a trail going across your
    > land just because you own the land. The trail that was there before the land owner (often for
    > hundreds of years) has more "rights" than somebody who takes temporary possession of it for a half
    > century or so. This is as it should be.

    Actually there might be a way still... check out "EASEMENTS ACQUIRED BY USE OF PROPERTY" on
    http://www.lectlaw.com/files/lat06.htm
     
  12. Penny S.

    Penny S. Guest

    John Harlow wrote:
    >> I have a friend who is a Chinese immigrant living in a suburb in Oklahoma who is in constant
    >> trouble with her neighbors because she doesn't cut her lawn often enough. They've been taking
    >> pictures of her yard and filing complaints with the board for the development, who has the power
    >> to fine her over her fucking lawn.
    >
    > She might live in an area with "restrictive covenants". They have become quite popular nowadays;
    > mainly because of the actions like those of your "less than conscientious" friend. And they make
    > sense, too. Not only is she devaluing her yard, she's affecting the value (aesthetically and
    > monetarily) of those around
    > it. I'm sure if you were her neighbor and she moved in and let the place go to shit, you wouldn't
    > be exactly pleased about it. If there are covenants there, she likely even signed a contract
    > to them.

    We made the realtor dig them out on our house that we bought in an older development. Most of our
    neighbors don't even know that our plat has them it's so old. Fortunately they only prohibit
    livestock and junkyards. None of this landscaping and house color approval. Some areas restrict the
    kind of swing set you can put up for your kids. You really need to be careful these days. Unless you
    live in a shack in the boonies somewhere.

    penny
     
  13. John Harlow

    John Harlow Guest

    "Penny S." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > John Harlow wrote:
    > >> I have a friend who is a Chinese immigrant living in a suburb in Oklahoma who is in constant
    > >> trouble with her neighbors because she doesn't cut her lawn often enough. They've been taking
    > >> pictures of her yard and filing complaints with the board for the development, who has the
    > >> power to fine her over her fucking lawn.
    > >
    > > She might live in an area with "restrictive covenants". They have become quite popular nowadays;
    > > mainly because of the actions like those of your "less than conscientious" friend. And they make
    > > sense, too. Not only is she devaluing her yard, she's affecting the value (aesthetically and
    > > monetarily) of those around
    > > it. I'm sure if you were her neighbor and she moved in and let the place go to shit, you
    > > wouldn't be exactly pleased about it. If there are covenants there, she likely even signed
    > > a contract to them.
    >
    > We made the realtor dig them out on our house that we bought in an older development. Most of our
    > neighbors don't even know that our plat has them it's so old. Fortunately they only prohibit
    > livestock and junkyards. None of this landscaping and house color approval. Some areas restrict
    > the kind of swing set you can put up for your kids. You really need to be careful these days.
    > Unless you live in a shack in the boonies somewhere.

    Smart for you to check out beforehand! Yup, they can be real restrictive. I was seriously
    considering a house a few months ago when I asked for the development's covenants. NO detached
    structures AT ALL allowed (this includes swing sets, carports, _sand boxes_ etc). Loo dee chris.
     
  14. Pete

    Pete Guest

    "Penny S." <[email protected]> wrote
    >
    > We made the realtor dig them out on our house that we bought in an older development. Most of our
    > neighbors don't even know that our plat has them it's so old. Fortunately they only prohibit
    > livestock and junkyards. None of this landscaping and house color approval. Some areas restrict
    > the kind of swing set you can put up for your kids. You really need to be careful these days.
    > Unless you live in a shack in the boonies somewhere.
    >

    That's why i will NOT live in a subD with an HOA. Idiots. Friend of mine lives in one...the mailbox
    has to be the same as all the others...the doghouse paint & roof has to match the house, etc, etc.

    There's also a guy that lives in an area that disallows trucks with signs on them. He has to park
    his work truck in back. He owns the company.

    Pete
     
  15. Glenn Dowdy

    Glenn Dowdy Guest

    "L Hays" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Cleanbean" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > I think what you need to do is to find some form of wildlife that will
    be
    > > affected if they put structures there. Get the Green folks on you're
    > side.
    > > They will tie things up in disputes for years.
    > >
    > > Cleanbean
    >
    > No can do. Then they'll fence it off as a "Green Area" so you can gaze lovingly at it from behind
    > the barriers as not to upset the balance.
    >
    I don't think there is any real wildlife on High Drive. I've never seen any.

    Glenn D.
     
  16. "John Harlow" <[email protected]> wrote
    >
    > She might live in an area with "restrictive covenants". They have become quite popular nowadays;
    > mainly because of the actions like those of your "less than conscientious" friend.

    Which is why I wrote (and you omitted to quote), "Sometimes this stuff goes overboard, but when it
    does it is often the suburban developers who are responsible, not the government."

    > And they make sense, too. Not only is she devaluing her yard, she's affecting the value
    > (aesthetically and monetarily) of those around it. I'm sure if you were her neighbor and she moved
    > in and let the place go to shit, you wouldn't be exactly pleased about it.

    Sorry. I have better things to do than spy on my neighbors' lawns. Besides, I thought I could do
    whatever I want with my land!

    > No; they are simply trying to protect their investment. You might want to explain this to her.

    But I thought I could do whatever I want with my land!

    (Of course not. But, then, that was my whole point in the first place. I suggest you check your
    reading comprehension circuits.)

    CC
     
  17. John Harlow

    John Harlow Guest

    > > And they make sense, too. Not only is she devaluing her yard, she's affecting the value
    > > (aesthetically and monetarily) of those around it.
    I'm
    > > sure if you were her neighbor and she moved in and let the place go to
    shit,
    > > you wouldn't be exactly pleased about it.
    >
    > Sorry. I have better things to do than spy on my neighbors' lawns. Besides, I thought I could do
    > whatever I want with my land!

    You seem to be a little "new" to this whole home ownership stuff. The fact of the matter is;
    depending where you buy, no - you *can't* do whatever you want with your land. You sign statements
    acknowledging this when you buy the place. This has the benefit of keeping the neighborhood
    consistent and up to minimal standards -and assuring your investment (which is usually high in
    these subdivisions) remains intact. If you don't like these restrictions, live somewhere else.
    Pretty simple.

    However, regardless of where you live, your mortgage lender expects their secured property (your
    land) to maintain it's value. They've had bad experiences with deadbeat slobs. So, restrictive
    covenants or not, if you let your house and property to go to shit, your lender can "accelerate the
    loan" (make you pay it off NOW). And that can be a bad thing too.

    > > No; they are simply trying to protect their investment. You might want
    to
    > > explain this to her.
    >
    > But I thought I could do whatever I want with my land!
    >
    > (Of course not. But, then, that was my whole point in the first place. I suggest you check your
    > reading comprehension circuits.)

    My reading comprehension is fine; I'm just trying to help you understand why you sometimes can't do
    "whatever you want" with your land.
     
  18. Paladin

    Paladin Guest

    "Penny S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > Corvus Corvax wrote:
    > > "Nelson Binch" <[email protected]> wrote
    > >>
    > >> Anything else would be nothing but outside people telling an owner what he could and could not
    > >> do with his property. It truly would be a shame to lose this trail, but the rights of property
    > >> owners in this country have eroded enough.
    > >
    > > One might argue the merits of this particular case. Just because a piece of land has gotten
    > > popular with the local community as a "nature" area doesn't mean it belongs to the community
    > > outright. However, if you read the website that Penny provided, the landowner is looking to the
    > > city for a giveaway of an easment for a PUBLIC road so the land can be turned into a suburban
    > > fortress, aka a "gated community". Furthermore, the preferred solution being proposed here is to
    > > buy the land from the owner on behalf of the public.
    > >
    >
    > I'm wondering if Paladin might be willing to dig up some links on what Boise has done to preserve
    > it's open space and green space. I mean, what are the conservation futures good for if not buying
    > land like this piece?
    >
    > penny

    Well, we have a lot of good things going for us. One, is our BLM director for the state is an avid
    mountainbiker. Another is that our economy is finally stagnating after 10 years of absurd gonzo
    growth, so the pressure to expand up into our foothills has slackened dramatically. Another still is
    more than 70% of our state is already official "hands-off" wilderness. We're also pretty well
    organized when it comes to defeding our world-class trail system and quality of outdoors life.

    You get folks all across the spectrum coming together to stop the developers and city do-gooders.
    (Right-wing, "America, love it or leave it" pickup driving, short-haired conservationists like me
    linking arms with latte-sipping, pony-tailed euro-trash gay roadies is always worth a photo.)

    The last stunt they tried to pull around here was to pave "8th Street" a dirt road that goes up
    about 3,600' to our ridge road, and is the major tributary for half the trails in this part of the
    Boise front. we shut that stupidity down hard.

    Petitions, letters to the editor, overwhelming turnout at P&Z and City Council meetings, phone
    blitzes, lobbying hard and smart, etc. are the traditional ways to keep the status quo from going
    down the shitter. You can probably find green-friendly lawyers who can help coordinate your efforts.

    Like Mark Twain said,

    fight like you mean it Paladin
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...