"Elmo" <ElmoHateSpam@noSpam4U.org> wrote in message
news:g16d4b$u1i$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu...
> NapalmHeart wrote:
>> "Elmo" <ElmoHateSpam@noSpam4U.org> wrote in message
>> news:g14hkp$1b1i$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu...
>>> Ann wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 22 May 2008 12:47:33 +0000, JC wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "NapalmHeart" <olsonfamNOSPAM@iserv.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:CsSdnQMA9qk5KanVnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@posted.eaglecomputertechnology...
>>>>>> "JC" <dontbother@imouttatown.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:zL%Yj.519951$uN4.38994@fe07.news.easynews.com...
>>>>>>> "Elmo" <ElmoHateSpam@noSpam4U.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:g11qqu$usa$2@f04n12.cac.psu.edu...
>>>>>>>> JC wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "RT" <RT-not@home.place> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:rnp8345e1jklldmi8s53adhbkb44umlc15@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:42:59 GMT, "JC"
>>>>>>>>>> <dontbother@imouttatown.net>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/us/politics/19oregon.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=William+Yardley&st=nyt&oref=slogin
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The macro trend, which Mr. Hibbitts said held true to
>>>>>>>>>>> varying
>>>>>>>>>>> degrees in
>>>>>>>>>>> some other growing cities as well, like Bend, has helped
>>>>>>>>>>> Democrats
>>>>>>>>>>> win 19 of
>>>>>>>>>>> the last 22 statewide races: Urban, better-off and
>>>>>>>>>>> better-educated
>>>>>>>>>>> voters
>>>>>>>>>>> have moved to rural places for the quality of life and
>>>>>>>>>>> brought
>>>>>>>>>>> their political interests with them. That has helped
>>>>>>>>>>> Democrats in
>>>>>>>>>>> general in
>>>>>>>>>>> places where they typically struggle.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *****
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Notice the statement "Urban, better-off and better-educated
>>>>>>>>>>> voters
>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> moved to rural places for THE QUALITY OF LIFE and brought
>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>> political
>>>>>>>>>>> interests with them"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Listen you damn city folk. OUR political interests is what
>>>>>>>>>>> makes
>>>>>>>>>>> OUR RURAL
>>>>>>>>>>> PLACES have the quality of life you crave. So, do us a
>>>>>>>>>>> favor, KEEP
>>>>>>>>>>> OUT, or
>>>>>>>>>>> LEAVE YOUR POLITICAL INTERESTS BEHIND!!!
>>>>>>>>>> It seems to be pretty close to 50:50 where I live. Locally
>>>>>>>>>> the Dems
>>>>>>>>>> tend to
>>>>>>>>>> win whereas the Reps tend to win more national seats. In
>>>>>>>>>> terms of
>>>>>>>>>> rural
>>>>>>>>>> living, the real threat is the developers, who are largely
>>>>>>>>>> supported
>>>>>>>>>> by Reps-
>>>>>>>>>> at least around here.
>>>>>>>>> They are city folk, right?
>>>>>>>> Around here, the developers are the ones who provide the
>>>>>>>> McMansions
>>>>>>>> for the city folks to move into.
>>>>>>> Where are the developers from?
>>>>>> In my area, not from around here. They come in, buy a tract of
>>>>>> land,
>>>>>> develop it, and leave.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They contribute nothing to infrastructure improvements and the
>>>>>> money is
>>>>>> not there for the road commission or the township government to
>>>>>> do much
>>>>>> either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Due to the economic downturn in Michigan the development in our
>>>>>> township
>>>>>> has greatly slowed down. Right now that's not a bad thing for
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> township as a whole. As to the effects on families and
>>>>>> individuals, the
>>>>>> economy here has many of our children moving away and that is a
>>>>>> sad
>>>>>> thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, they're city folk. That's my point.
>>>> OK, let's say the evil developers do live in the city ... rather
>>>> than on
>>>> sprawling spreads in the 'burbs. What about the rural half of the
>>>> development equation ... the enablers? There are the
>>>> willing-seller
>>>> landowners, realtors, bankers, gravel pit/redi-mix and other
>>>> building
>>>> material suppliers, excavators, loggers, local lawyers who know
>>>> their way
>>>> around the court houses, McDonalds, Burger King, and the
>>>> Dandi-Mart,
>>>> temporary construction workers, and hordes of other locally
>>>> owned/operated
>>>> businesses and services which will benefit from the construction
>>>> and new
>>>> residents. These - and local government - are the people you have
>>>> to
>>>> convince if you don't want development.
>>>>
>>>> Another barrier to limiting development is ineffective (if any)
>>>> zoning
>>>> regulations. Residential "development" hardly exists here, but
>>>> every
>>>> couple decades there will be a blip up in the land market;
>>>> "outsiders"
>>>> from downstate buy a few out-of-production farms. This time, the
>>>> concern
>>>> got so far as the county doing draft zoning regulations and holding
>>>> meetings in the townships for comment. Then it sunk in that the
>>>> proposed regulations would also seriously
>>>> restrict what **local** farmers and other landowners could do with
>>>> their
>>>> land. In this case, much of the fault lies with parts of the draft
>>>> regulations being entirely inappropriate for this area. But, with
>>>> any
>>>> zoning, there are always going to be local winners and losers.
>>> People get all bent out of shape when they think that zoning
>>> regulations might restrict what they can do but are usually more
>>> than happy to support things that keep their neighbors from doing
>>> things that might devalue their property. For example, a nearby
>>> town was shocked when the abandoned church was acquired by someone
>>> who turned it into an exotic dance establishment. They were
>>> suddenly wondering why there weren't any regulations that could stop
>>> such a thing from happening. The answer was, of course, that they
>>> had fought every attempt to put zoning regulations into effect.
>>>
>>> Around here, many of the older farmers want to retire and don't have
>>> any children who want to take over the farm. The land is worth more
>>> to someone who wants to subdivide it and plant houses made of
>>> ticky-tacky than it is to anyone who wants to farm it. They would
>>> like to get the maximum value out of the land and they're a little
>>> bit leery of anything that might restrict them. One of the things
>>> that has been done is to pay them the difference between farm use
>>> value and development value for the development rights which are
>>> owned by a land trust. Then along comes an Amish family who is more
>>> than happy to buy the land without development rights attached and
>>> might even pay a premium compared to what a mechanized farmer would
>>> think it's worth.
>>>
>>> The downside to trying to preserve rural character is that even
>>> though people claim to value it, they're not willing to pay anything
>>> for it.
>>> --
>>> Liquidity itself is one of the more socially discerning
>>> forms of money. As furnished in recent years, it is
>>> almost always found hovering fondly around foolish
>>> bankers, clumsy speculators, and stock markets gashed
>>> by rampaging bears. It is rarely found in ruined farm
>>> districts or cities where giant corporations have laid
>>> off 20,000 employees.
>>
>> IAWTP, whole-heartedly. Many of the same people that scream "Nobody
>> should be able to tell me what I can do with my land" when the word
>> zoning is mentioned are the same ones that scream that the township
>> government should have prevented someone else from doing what they
>> wanted with theirs. You can't have it both ways. Then they scream
>> about how much it cost in legal fees to write an ordinance to control
>> the undesired use.
>>
>> Ken
>
> Even when the ordinance says you can't do something, you can appeal
> and ask for a variance. For example, the people who own the farm at
> the end of our lane wanted to build a new barn. The township zoning
> ordinance says that buildings need to be set back from adjacent
> property lines by 15 feet. The only suitable location would put the
> barn closer to the line than that because of terrain and flood zone.
> So he filed an appeal and demonstrated that it would be an undue
> hardship for him to develop in accordance with the ordinance and was
> granted the variance. It didn't hurt his case that man who owns the
> adjoining land is an attorney who wrote the zoning ordinance and he
> backed up the request.
**********************************************************************************************************
I guess I should get specific. We had a developer that wanted to put an
outdoor amphitheater less than 1/2 mile from a rural residential area.
The residents - approx. 150 - came to the township board meeting when
the developer explained his project. We often have board meetings with
6 or fewer people besides the board members. The people were not
pleased. The will of the people was that we find a way to stop the
project, as they didn't want all of the related problems of traffic,
crime, etc. We had our attorney draft an outdoor entertainment
ordinance that would likely withstand legal challenge and place
reasonable regulations on such operations. It ended up being 11 pages
long and the total legal costs of dealing with this situation was about
$7,000. It was just as well, as the developer later was in trouble for
fraud and tax evasion. I'm really glad we didn't have construction get
started then have the whole thing unravel, as that would have been a
real mess.
In your scenario, the last sentence tells the reasons why. Having the
author of the setback ordinance both own the adjoining property and back
the proposal goes a long way to getting a variance. We have a policy of
reluctance toward variances, as they set a precident and reduce the
effectiveness of the ordinance. Also, we currently have no zoning and
the political climate here will have to undergo a radical shift for one
to ever be put in place.
Ken