To: steelie
It may be privately owned, but how is it privately "controlled" if your planning commission and the BOS can be stampeded into controlling it for the owners against their wishes?
63 posted on
01/23/2006 5:58:41 PM PST by
SierraWasp
(GovernMental EnvironMentalism... America's establishment of it's unconstitutional State Religion!!!)
To: SierraWasp
That is the way the current owners planned the development.
The new rules are certainly a stretch towards controlling land use outside the Timber Production Zones, and are a solution looking to find a problem. I did not support the amendment but voted to send it up to the BOS.
65 posted on
01/23/2006 8:25:03 PM PST by
steelie
(Still Right Thinking)
To: SierraWasp
It may be privately owned, but how is it privately "controlled" if your planning commission and the BOS can be stampeded into controlling it for the owners against their wishes?
DING DING DING
You've asked the multimillion dollar California question. Congratulations!
Must be that Gang Green or Schwarzensocialist are involved.
67 posted on
01/23/2006 10:17:57 PM PST by
hedgetrimmer
("I'm a millionaire thanks to the WTO and "free trade" system--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson