Replies

And one other thing, what is wrong with owning land that uses a well and a septic system? I for one do, and as such am really glad! Why? Well for one, I don't have to pay outrageous water and sewer bills, my water is just fine, and I don't have to worry about any fool terrorist putting something in "my" water supply! And I am not bitching about my property value, cause I know it is worth more than a city lot cause I live in "Almost Heaven" in the woods along the river!!!!!!!! Where everybody that lives in a big city wishes they lived! Quess what by the way? I am poor! i don't have two nickles to rub together! My income is less than $30,000 a year!!!!!! But my land is mine, and I know it's value and I don't for any reason want to sell it for anything! This is my home and MY WAY OF LIFE!!!! I don't want any land management rules and regulations over my land, that I pay taxes on, I don't want any intrusions on my privacy and all i want is to be left the hell alone! Just like Clara!

Get off this "for the good of the all" idealization, it is pure poision! The destruction of the American dream! ok, so still, what does any of this have to do with Clara? Why does she have to lose her farm, land and home, because she "might" sell it to developers?

I fail to understand how this message has anything whatsoever to do with Clara?? Clara has owned her lands for over 80 years!!! So what is your point? She was under her own master plan!

That was exactly the point of my post. Clara would be in the same position as the farmer I used in my example. She can be "under her own master plan" for as long as she wants. Anyone who buys her land can be "under his own master plan" as long as he wants. What triggers the change in "controlling master plan" is an application by the land owner for a change in land use that requires a connection to the municipal water and sanitary sewer systems.

None of this would be an issue if every property owner dealt with his own water supply and sanitary sewer service. The whole purpose of a master plan is to maintain some level of control over the number of residents who are using a municipal water supply. If there were no such controls (and I'd be perfectly willing to accept a scenario like this), then poor Clara's farm would be worthless as anything other than a farm because nobody who builds 100 homes could ever pay the cost of providing water to those homes. If the municipality designs a trunk line for 1,000 homes, and someone wants to buy Clara's land to build 100 homes, then that developer would have to pay the entire cost of ripping out the "old" trunk line (which may have been in the ground for all of three years) and replacing it with one that is capable of delivering water to 1,100 people.

Which works just fine until the next developer needs an 1,150-home trunk line. And so the whole process starts all over again. I wouldn't mind having such a system in place, but you have to understand that the end result will be that everyone would have to live in a rural area except for those who can afford the $500,000 price tag for a very modest suburban home. Or everyone would live in a 400 square-foot apartment in a high-rise building made of cinder blocks, because that's the density that would be required to offset the enormous cost of delivering the water.

I'm glad to hear that you love your rural lifestyle so much (and I wish I could live that way myself!), but living in rural West Virginia has absolutely no relevance to the situation that is described here in the largest metropolitan area in the U.S.