“Additional requirements MAY become necessary, if a proposed
[development] creates SIGNIFICANT impacts above and beyond the NORM”...
“Such requirements SHALL HAVE NO DEFINED STANDARDS, but will be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis”
A recipe from Washington!
Again I heard that personal property rights override concerns about
taxpayers rights (footing the bill for bad planning) – yet the same
people voiced no decent about the regulations which DO exist in the
document to regulate what a person can do while he lives ON his land and
DON'T spend taxpayers money:
Minimum house size, antenna restrictions, automobile storage, bird
foundation and rescue, boarding stables, exotic animals, shooting
ranges, kennel,. mobile home, portable sawmills (See the new zoning
regulation document for a complete list)
Compare that, to the personal property rights argument being used by the
SAME people to subdivide and sell land, a “right” that not only
extinguishes one's rights to that land, but SOMEONE else then has to
subsidize its costs.
So the question is, are the authors of these regulations in the pockets
of developers, or can we TRULY believe they are looking out for our
best interests? Are we taxpayers going to subsidize special interest
groups and speculators like Washington DC did with stimulus plans, cash
for clunkers and bank bailouts -- or are we citizens going to become
more active in our county planning and spending decisions?
www.elbertnow.org to find out more.
Ken Johanson