Quote:
Originally Posted by codeman671
I may be wrong, but had heard that they cannot deem a property that WAS buildable under the previous laws to be non-buildable now.
|
Just because they can't legally stop you from building doesn't mean that they can't throw so many roadblocks in the way that, for most people, it has the same effect.
Just from the discussion on this forum is far from clear to me exactly what the effect of these changes will be. Shore Things seems to be stating that the commission is looking for guidance. I accept that the willingness to discuss with the public is a wonderful thing but the fact that this is now the required "Law of the land" without anyone really understanding what it means is a disaster in the making.
A example to consider might be the EPA laws and regulations. Now every time a project is started there must be a massive review of the habitat. If one blue-green frog lives in the area instead of just plain green frogs, everything comes to a halt. Developers with deep pockets develop exotic and expensive plans to mitigate the "threat" to the blue-green frog. They build a blue-green frog condo and import a harem of blue-green frogs to keep it happy. Developers with less assets simply give up. What's the take away lesson? Those with big bucks pretty much get what they want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrc
OK maybe I got carried away. Time will tell, but given enough money and time with permits, exisiting 100' x 100' lots are probably buildable.
Many on this board have complained up and down about the change in the lake from working people in camps to rich people in mansions. This law can only accelerate that process. Maybe that's a good thing, it probably means less people overall and less houses per foot of shoreline. Less boats but probably bigger boats.
|
I think you are right on target jrc. The big money people will be the only ones who have the ability to deal with the confusing and shifting regulations. They will pay a lawyer lots of money to steer it through. Since the law doesn't specifically prevent them from developing but instead puts a regulatory minefield in their way, they will eventually prevail. Joe average will just throw up his hands and give up or do it on the sly. He will get caught and fined, not because he wasn't legally entitled to build what he wanted but because he couldn't afford to do the paperwork.
When a person is prevented from using their property by the state and the value of the property is diminished because of the state rules the property has effectively been seized and compensation should be paid. If the public wants the control of the land for their "protection" then they should pay for that control. How about if a lakefront property owner wants to make changes it is the state that must pay for all the regulatory work. i.e if it costs me $200,000 in legal and other fees to validate that I can modify my property as I wish to, the state pays me $200,000. If the public wants the benefit of protection, they pay the bills for it.