Posted on 11/18/2005 4:54:43 AM PST by TaxRelief
RATHDRUM, Idaho (AP) -- A developer has threatened to make a big stink after the Kootenai County Commission denied his request to rezone property he owns at the edge of town for a professional building.
Specifically, Steve Nagel plans to park a pig farm on the site, with hundreds of squealing porkers greeting visitors to the northern Idaho town.
(snip) Nagel doesn't want to be in the city because he would have to pay an estimated $300,000 to extend a sewer line a half-mile and a water line a mile under railroad tracks to the property.
(snip)Nagel, a Rathdrum native, said the pig farm, which he calls "Makin' Bacon Ranch," is no bluff, and that he's negotiating a contract to buy hogs from southern Idaho.
"I'm not going to stand back and let them stab me in the back again," Nagel said.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Well, I hope he follows through and there's no change in zoning and maybe the developer will move on. What's the point of zoning if developers can just operate with the assumption they'll change the use at their whim?
As long as people keep having kids, they have to live some where. If you are living in a place built in the last 40 years, I'm sure it was not built without some type of opposition.
The folks should embrace and celebrate the pig farm - just to piss him off more.
Who's property is it?
The reason was given for denying him his request. And it wasn't anything to do with zoning.
They want to annex the land into the city and force him to pay for water and sewer to the property that he would not otherwise be required provide. The city also gets to tax him forever on too.
Screw the city.
Start the pig farm.
All hail the Pig Farmer!!
Wow, if you don't want to spend $300,000 just because the city wants you to then you're a chump... Considering where his project is, $300,000 is probably 50% or more of the planned budget... Ya, what a chump...
Exactly WHY do the people in the rest of the town have to pay to extend the sewer and water lines to his property so he can make a profit? Sounds like you have your priorities backwards. Let the developer pay for the infastructure costs his development will require.
" Setting up a noxious business for spite should be punished."
Not if its an approved land use. There was a guy in my area who did the exact same thing. Had 200 acres on the edge of a town he wanted to sell developers. County refused to rezone the land from agriculture. He put in a mud pig pen with 300' of road frontage about 200' from the entrance to a high dollar neighborhood.
The land was rezoned within the year.
How about because nowhere does it say he is asking for sewer or water service. His land isn't in the city, it's county. Water and waste is his problem anyway. A well (or and existing well) and septic system are likely what his plans were.
The city wants to annex his land so that he is required to extend the cities sewer and water. Big plus for the city's infrastructure for other new development and tax base. Not so great for the one paying for it who doesn't want or need it.
I'm against the annexation, but also against his attempt to rezone it. Like I said, I wish him well with his pig farm.
From the article: "He also said the city shouldn't be able to sway planning decisions of the county. In protest, he plans to raise breeder hogs on the property, a use that's already allowed."
Let's see, he owns the property, he wants to build an office building to accomodate a business that he owns. The city denied this request, but the land is outside the city. The land is already zoned for use as a pig farm. Now the city is upset because he plans to use HIS land for a LEGAL purpose.
And your response is: "Setting up a noxious business for spite should be punished."
Why should he be punished for following the LAW?
Everyone should read this article from Imprimus:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1522350/posts
Why bother with zoning, then?
Did you read the article? It's a city battling with an entrepreneur who can match wits with them...What have you got against free enterpise?
I know what you mean. I know of a couple of instances around my small town where - after the subdivision is built - the developer lets it become annexed - and now all the problems become the city's - poor drainage - cul de sac's too small for school busses - etc... Now the developer is rich - with no more resposibilty for his development. We don't care for developers 'round here.
It may not be a case of can't, but of economics. That $300k could be a substantial portion of the potential profit. Most of these guys do a supply/demand analysis for the planned use before they buy the property, so he knows there's a market. But the idea is to make money, good ol' capitalism.
I worked in land development (as an engineer) for several years. I have never heard of an office building on a septic tank. If you have ever had to maintain a septic tank you know why. If he wants to put up the building, he needs the services to protect the health of the occupants. If he doesn't want to put up the building, he doesn't need them.
The biggest problems I ever had in land development was when some yahoo (usually with inherited land) came in and wanted to put up a high-rise building out in a cornfield somewhere. He ALWAYS wanted the City (read at taxpayers) to extend roads, sewers, water, and other utilities to his property at NO COST to him. They were idiots.
Those who expect the taxpayer to pay big bucks so that a developer can pocket even more money is NOT a conservative. Let the one who requires the services pay for them.
You forgot your </ sarcasm tag.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.