SEEKING A VOICE: GROUP CALLING FOR MORE CONTROL OVER DEVELOPMENT

Mercury News ^ | Posted on Mon, Aug. 25, 2003 | Nerissa Pacio

[risk]

Residents of San Martin cherish their open spaces, roadside fruit stands, farm animals and quiet. That's why some want the unincorporated community to become Santa Clara County's 16th city -- to defend its agricultural countryside from encroaching developers.

Fed up with being what many longtime residents refer to as the county's ``dumping ground,'' supporters of San Martin's cityhood want the political clout that would give them control over land use.

[risk]

Mercury News tries to show that members of small, rural Californian communities want to be told how to manage their own land.

[risk]

ping

[sauropod]

Mercury news shows that eco-fascists don't want to pay for the land use that they appropriate!

[Lorianne]

NIMBY's strike again.

[TastyManatees]

Usually, government land use plans do not have the effect of reducing development, just certain types of development. The average result is expensive, low-density housing development becomes the only type of development project which can obtain approval. This keeps undesirable low-income types out of the neighborhood and locates commercial development in particular areas, well away from established and wealthy activists. Tasty Manatees has seen his fill of these types. They are never willing to reimburse the owners for the property value they destroy with government micro-management, yet every governmental action is geared towards maintaining their own property's value.

Tasty Manatees

[Question_Assumptions]

Ah, but liberal judges in New Jersey have thrown a monkey wrench into the expensive low-density no-undeserables housing racket. They started to require a certain amount of low income housing as part of new development so as to be more fair to the poor.

[TastyManatees]

Most of the activists use the Federal courts to get around any state problems. For instance, as an environmentalist, you sue your compatriots at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list a species as endangered and establish "critical habitat" for it. FWS promptly offers to settle your case in exchange for hefty restrictions on development in the area on a strict time table. The state and local governments, using potentially draconian Federal action as a wedge, gets a county-land use plan put into effect. This plan stands up to any state court action because it is done to comply with Federal law. If you do a little research on California development patterns and enviro litigation, you'll see the disturbing trend. San Diego is a prime example, as is San Fransisco.

Tasty Manatees

[Lorianne]

Which is the intent of zoning laws since their inception, the protection of property values. The consequence of course is loss of freedom of property owners.

I bet most people would try to control their neighbor's property if he were planning use his property to junk old cars, or if he wanted to put in a metal smelting plant.

They really should raise the cash to buy out those who don't want to acquiesce to such controls on their property. But of course, what if they also don't want to sell?

Ah zoning, a real can of worms for the hard-core property rights people.

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.

[blackie]

Protect Private Property Rights!

Stop the attacks on our Freedoms by the wacko, extreme left-wing, lunatic fringe, dirt worshipping Green Jihadist, enviro-nazis terrorist's and their toadies in the media!

Drill for oil and gas, build more oil refineries, build more power plants, including nuclear!

Protect The Forest ... Eradicate The Greenies!

Fighting Irresponsible Radical Environmentalism!

Freedom Is Worth Fighting For!

Let's Roll!

Molon Labe!

[Lorianne]

Right wing conservatives are just as big NIMBY's as are left wing liberals. I know, they show up at anti-development (near them) meetings all the time.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[TastyManatees]

Exactly. They are usually not as well organized as the "environmentalist" groups, but they provide much support.

[XRdsRev]

The reason many Conservatives show up to protest undesirable development is that we do not live in a vacuum.

What happens with a particular property often effects other properties detrimentally. I crack up at some private property rights folks who complain they should be paid for the loss of their property's "potential value"...I have yet to ever hear any of these same folks volunteer to compensate their neighbors for losses in property value caused by the development projects they want to build or to compensate (long term) municipalities who are detrimentally effected by a new development's municipal infrastructure costs which numerous studies show rarely pay a tax amount equal to the services and improvements they use over time.

There is a reason why many communities in suburban and rural areas are fighting some forms of development....they figured out that these developments are a boondoggle that make a few people rich but end up costing the bulk of taxpayers money. Depending on the types of developments, traffic concerns, environmental issues (runoff etc.) and other factors, some types of development lower existing property values, further eroding municipal tax bases.

Not all development is bad but not all of it is good either. It has been recognized historically that property owners and municipalities have a say in what can or cannot be built if there is any chance it could affect their assets also.

Local zoning has been around in various form since the United States was founded. It is hardly a recent left wing concept.

[blackie]

Most conservatives are pro-growth ... most liberals are anti-growth.

Be Well ~ Be Armed ~ Be Safe ~ Molon Labe!

[sergeantdave]

This is real easy. If you don't want factories, malls or churches next to you, if you want save farmland, ducky swimming holes and old growth yarrow, buy the bloody property.

[Lorianne]

I disagree. They are fair-weather pro-growth. They like growth unless it affects THEIR property. When that happens, liberals, conservatives, it makes no difference, they all become NIMBY's.

[Lorianne]

Exactly. Well said.

The only true property rights advocates are those who favor NO ZONING. There are few people like this of any any stripe, virtually none I'd wager among property owners.

[XRdsRev]

How about this. If you want to develop property, you certainly may do so but you should be legally liable to compensate any property owners you might detrimentally affect and you must pay up front for any municipal improvements needed for your development, on and off site.

That seems fair. If you want to make a buck off development, that is fine but you cannot expect other people to sacrifice their assets or tax dollars so you can make a profit.

The problem with many private property zealots is that they want all the benefits of property ownership but they never want to pay for the results of their actions.

Like I said before, nobody lives in a vacuum. That is a basic concept that even a child can understand.