-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
-
Hello all! We will be performing a website & forum update soon. You may get logged out so now is the time to make sure your email address in your account is correct - go to your account to check it and update it now. Send us a message with your username and/or email address if you need help.
County sued for $3 Million+
- Thread starter Matt J
- Start date
Smiling JOe
SoWal Expert
Non-approved projects are not subject to any Code. They are simply in planning stage, prior to Final Approval, AND ONCE AGAIN, the project not being approved was not due to building height!!! What other part of the Code was changed during this project?
aabsolute, we've hashed this out many times before in the past on this board. Ownership does not entitle you to do anything you want on your property. You cannot legally make meth on your property, just because it is yours. You cannot legally dump toxic chemicals into the soil, simply because you own the property below the surface. How high or low above or below the surface, do you own anyway?
Again, why didn't any of you speak out at any of the meetings regarding this planned project? It seemed that the only people speaking in favor of it, were hired planners and attorneys, working for the property owners, plus the one neighbor who owns the adjacent property to the west, though he also spoke against it.
aabsolute, we've hashed this out many times before in the past on this board. Ownership does not entitle you to do anything you want on your property. You cannot legally make meth on your property, just because it is yours. You cannot legally dump toxic chemicals into the soil, simply because you own the property below the surface. How high or low above or below the surface, do you own anyway?
Again, why didn't any of you speak out at any of the meetings regarding this planned project? It seemed that the only people speaking in favor of it, were hired planners and attorneys, working for the property owners, plus the one neighbor who owns the adjacent property to the west, though he also spoke against it.
Matt J
SWGB
See your not incapable of cynicism.
wrobert
Beach Fanatic
They never called me and offered me a check. Plus since the whole BCC is supposedly made up of small government Republicans
, I should not have had to go and speak out for something that they should have fundamentally been in support of. I swear if this keeps up I am switching to NPA.I understand that property rights are not absolute, however, there should be a clear and overwhelming reason to hamper a property owners right to use his property. Further, if government restricts the use of a piece of property, the government should compensate the owner for the loss of the use of his property. That is only fair.
We have too many people who want to get their slice of heaven just like they want it, then keep everyone else out. Example is the condo that sued the adjacent landowner to try and stop a development, then turns around and sues the county for preventing them from using their beach property like they want. You cannot have it both ways.
Smiling JOe
SoWal Expert
My signature line is in regards to the US Constitution. Let me remind you of something which you have pointed out. The would-be developer in this case is a business entity, not individual people.
I believe you must be referring to Amendment 5 of the Constitution which reads: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in a jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
*************
Now, the property wasn't taken by the gov't. The County has not stated that the owners couldn't build on it. Of course to build on the wetlands, they would have to receive permits from other entities. There was due process in that the developer submitted application and it was reviewed and passed on to the local gov't for consideration. Testimony and evidence was given by both the applicants and the public, in a open-door public forum. The County Commissioners voted, and rejected this particular plan, after hearing all of the testimony and evidence. The applicants were not treated any differently than other applicants.
AAbsolute
Banned
Smiling Joe, I appreciate you disagreeing with me out in the open. I don't take kindly to the Private Messages route.
Everything you said that I highlighted in red I agree with. Most of the rest doesn't seem to square with your own beliefs and I think it's hypocritical.
Smiling JOe
SoWal Expert
How is the rest hypocrytical, especially the last paragraph regarding if you want to have a voice, you better speak up?
Oh, by the way, merry Christmas!
Oh, by the way, merry Christmas!
AAbsolute
Banned
Merry Christmas to you too.
I bought six acres one time. Immediately touching my six acres were about 40 different property owners. None of the adjacent lots were more than 1/4 acre. I proposed a 3 lot minor sub-division with each lot being estate sized. I was highly selective about the great big oaks and mountain laurels that I would save. I'm a Libertarian and at the same time I highly value nature. My tree save delineation left 93% of the existing vegetation in place.
At the public meeting I had about 30 families appear in vocal opposition. There was no opposition on engineering or environmental grounds. The opposition was, "Please don't fence our woods." My sub-division was approved, but I learned to have disdain for the ignorant. I don't tolerate the exercise of control or undo opinion about private property rights.