[steelie]

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.

[SierraWasp]

I realize you were tryin to do the right thing, but you got out voted and over-ruled and rolled-up in the emotional stampede spurred by the militant EnvironMental Socialistas.

I'm not criticising you, but trying to get you to relate the evils occuring with this in terms that everyone else seeing this part of the thread that has not served on a Planning Commission, or BOS(County Bored of Stuporvisors) as you and I have/are.

I think there are legions lurking as well as those interacting with this site that have need of understand more precisely how landowners rights, privelidges and responsibilities as well as increasing risks are being made horribly more expensive and discouraging in a land that is supposedly free for free enterprise that is becoming extinct!!!

Some scenario descriptions complete with object lessons and examples without exposing individual privacy would be most interesting and probably useful to other FReepers.

[SierraWasp]

"That is the way the current owners planned the development."

Have you ever seen a satisfied militant and confrontational EnvironMentalist???

I guess that's ok, if the current owners planned it that way, but did they get pressured into doing it that way in the first place and are now being double crossed by their tormentors? Just asking because I've seen it happen over here in the Schwartzenegger Sierra-Nevada CONservancy!!!