Had the Wetlands Engineer out to the place

[jimmysisson]

I think the problem is simple. When the "Government" tells you "you can't do this and you can't do that" with your own property, they are indirectly taking the property for their use. The problem is they do not compensate you. The GOV is taking your property indirectly, just as if they owned the property. No reduction in taxes (for keeping it 100% wetlands for example). Nothing. This what bothers me. I pay the taxes, I pay the upkeep, I manage the property and they tell me what I can and cannot do with it. Sounds like they own it and I pay for it.
Bob

Bob I go along with that to a point. Your wetland, which you manage well, drains from a swamp your neighbor pushes his old junkyard cars into. You get oil in your wetland, not your fault, but it kills the trout you stocked. You're riled up, but the junkyard guy's got three big sons and all mean. What do you do next?
Do you want a regulation to enforce the "common sense" that a guy shouldn't dump oil into the brook? Or work it out yourself? If common sense were common, wouldn't need regulations.
My state (MA) DEP officers say the big guys just flout the regulations, and pay the fines, and go about their (illegal) business, 'cause it's more economical for them to operate that way. Sure makes a regular guy mad to see that.
This is obviously a tough call, lots of strong feelings. The folks in New Britain, CT (?) who got their houses taken by eminent domain for a hotel (which provided jobs) LOST their case in this (not real liberal) Supreme Court. So, Doc, the era when gov't takes what you call the value out of your property without compensation may be ending. Hold onto your wallets!
Jim

 

[williekioti]

This is a good thread. This country is and was most definitely built upon the fundamental principle of private ownership of property. Please read that section of the Constitution for it's intended meaning, which is quite plain even today as I read it: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

This is clearly an exception to the rule for it starts out with the phrase "nor shall", this is prohibitive speak in law. Our founding fathers surely did not intend for an over-reaching, all powerful Central Government that would grab land on a whim, even if just occupying certain encumberances on said land if not in fee. The clause was certainly intended for the good of the public at large i.e. government structure, public highways, national defense, municiple infrastructure, etc... IMO the Supremes over-stepped hugely with the CT ruling and must be over-turned in the future. Imagine a large developer covets your nice, picturesque gentlemen's farm for his next strip mall. He merely needs to "seed" some monies to the right campaigns/back pockets and some government official deems your land is better suited to be re-zoned/redeveloped for the "greater good". Now greater tax base is considered betterment of the public good and subject to eminent domain. Wasn't over-taxation one of (many)the reasons that our ancestors revolted to acquire/create that wonderful document? Uh oh, gonna git 'cused of be in the black helicopter crowd over these comments me thinks.

On State(s) DEP/DEC/DNR's environmental regulations to protect wetlands it is always easier to squash the little guy than it is to wade through a Corporate/LLC/Foriegn company(s)' high priced army of lawyers, engineers and lobbyists. I have a pretty good working experience in these matters and it is far from a perfect system. The delineation of wetlands is a contentious issue to be sure and NOT an exact science by any stretch of the imagination. What you think of as a wetland and what is "officially" delineated may be as similar as Paris Hilton and Rosie O'Donnell. My advise is to care for your property in a manner that you would wish your grandsons & daughters to inherit and that is beneficial to your goals. Proper management, stewardship and land conservation(not absolute preservation) is the key. The Conservation vs. Preservation arguement is a hotly contested one for sure. Personally I believe I should be able to utilize(read use) my private property for my own legal, pursuit of happiness and conserve my resources for sustained utilization. If you want to preserve your private property in a wild, undisturbed manner that's your right. The Government should only oversee to ensure natural resources are conserved for sustainability, to limit/eliminate pollution and protect the public's health and welfare.
Sorry for the long post, good thread though, CNR.

 

[BobRip]

I just wonder if there are maybe too many people on the planet. We can control population land use lots of ways.

Limit space for people - Laws to keep land untouched and crowd everybody into smaller and smaller areas. This seems to be the American and European way.

Let mother nature deal with it (You know, disease, famines, wars, that kind of stuff)

Limit births

These all work, but some are more painful than others.

 

[mike69440]

I would like someone to splain to me (Lucy) why I still pay taxes on wetland acreage the state now has total juristiction?

Also would somebody who is not currently dealing with with WetLand issues please forward this thread to the DES of their States along with a short cover letter.

There is a lot of good thought, observations and judgment in these posts. Maybe civil servants will get a little of this and strive to make minimum regulations which are enforced for the common good.

 

[JimR]

Mike69440, We had our taxes reduced because of the wetland areas on our land. Have you tried that yet?

The problem with minimal restictions is that people will not adhere to them. Kinda like my neighbors that put in 700 feet of french drains to drain their wetlands onto my property. In their Variance letter to the DCR they made no mention of the 700 feet of pipe. They also mentioned that they only took down 12 trees in the protected zone. Too bad for them that the contractor that took all the trees down had already testified at a Con Com meeting that he took down 62 trees from the protected area. The owners told him that they had Con Com permission to do all the work on their property.

 

[Jstpssng]

This is a good thread. This country is and was most definitely built upon the fundamental principle of private ownership of property. Please read that section of the Constitution for it's intended meaning, which is quite plain even today as I read it: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

This is clearly an exception to the rule for it starts out with the phrase "nor shall", this is prohibitive speak in law. Our founding fathers surely did not intend for an over-reaching, all powerful Central Government that would grab land on a whim, even if just occupying certain encumberances on said land if not in fee. The clause was certainly intended for the good of the public at large i.e. government structure, public highways, national defense, municiple infrastructure, etc... IMO the Supremes over-stepped hugely with the CT ruling and must be over-turned in the future. Imagine a large developer covets your nice, picturesque gentlemen's farm for his next strip mall. He merely needs to "seed" some monies to the right campaigns/back pockets and some government official deems your land is better suited to be re-zoned/redeveloped for the "greater good". Now greater tax base is considered betterment of the public good and subject to eminent domain. Wasn't over-taxation one of (many)the reasons that our ancestors revolted to acquire/create that wonderful document? Uh oh, gonna git 'cused of be in the black helicopter crowd over these comments me thinks.

On State(s) DEP/DEC/DNR's environmental regulations to protect wetlands it is always easier to squash the little guy than it is to wade through a Corporate/LLC/Foriegn company(s)' high priced army of lawyers, engineers and lobbyists. I have a pretty good working experience in these matters and it is far from a perfect system. The delineation of wetlands is a contentious issue to be sure and NOT an exact science by any stretch of the imagination. What you think of as a wetland and what is "officially" delineated may be as similar as Paris Hilton and Rosie O'Donnell. My advise is to care for your property in a manner that you would wish your grandsons & daughters to inherit and that is beneficial to your goals. Proper management, stewardship and land conservation(not absolute preservation) is the key. The Conservation vs. Preservation arguement is a hotly contested one for sure. Personally I believe I should be able to utilize(read use) my private property for my own legal, pursuit of happiness and conserve my resources for sustained utilization. If you want to preserve your private property in a wild, undisturbed manner that's your right. The Government should only oversee to ensure natural resources are conserved for sustainability, to limit/eliminate pollution and protect the public's health and welfare.
Sorry for the long post, good thread though, CNR.

hey WillieK, living in the Adirondacks you have a great handle on government interference-


ER, intervention. Great area, i spent a lot of time working there a few years back. I'd move there in a heartbeat if there were any secure jobs-

OOPS, maybe that's why you have those laws.

Eminent domain is a much-abused privelege; the Appalation Trail Corridor
is a fine example.
First they obtained permission from private landowners to put a trail across their land; then they started buying land from "willing buyers." Because of some of their tactics though, those same landowners are now hesitant to grant permission for any new trails.

I do have one request though... please don't use the names "Paris Hilton" and "Rosie O'Donnell" in the same sentence. :<)
RHW

 

[williekioti]

This is a great place to live and raise a family which is why I left the Southern Tier of NY. That area is still nice, but it was difficult observing all the old dairy farms sprouting $300K houses. Development in the Adk Park is severely limited and managed to the max. JOBS?? Where I live you either work for the County, State or in the woods and those jobs are dissappearing. A few contractors get by, some quite well building for the second home/camp crowd but try to obtain a bid for work on your property, good luck. Besides, everything shuts down this time of year for like the next two and half months (deer season).

RHW, I will never mention P.H. & R. O. in the same sentance again, promise .
WK

 

[BXRICK]

This is an interesting issue, and there's no easy answers.

As several have mentioned, the issue revolves around my personal freedoms vs. the "greater good".

I currently do not have any children in the school. Yet, my taxes fund my portion of our local schools just the same as if I had 8 children in school. The idea (though I'm not totally sold on it) is that by funding the local schools, I am bettering my community over the long haul.

When I do have children in school, I of course will be grateful that those retirees with no school-age children are paying some of the school bill for my kids.

I do not like the idea that the gov't can tell me what I can't do (they seldom say what you can do) on my property. But, in some cases, I do like the fact that they can tell my neighbor what he can't do - such as drain his property onto my property. Turn that around, and it has to work the same way for me. I'm not any more special than my neighbor.

I do think the whole problem is population. If we all had hundreds of acres to live on, it wouldn't matter what the neighbor is doing.

 

[JimR]

I'll agree with the TOO many people. My street used to have very little traffic on it back in 1976 when we built our house. Now it is like a major highway during the morning and evenings.

 

[ccsial]

I would like someone to splain to me (Lucy) why I still pay taxes on wetland acreage the state now has total juristiction?

Also would somebody who is not currently dealing with with WetLand issues please forward this thread to the DES of their States along with a short cover letter.

There is a lot of good thought, observations and judgment in these posts. Maybe civil servants will get a little of this and strive to make minimum regulations which are enforced for the common good.

You need to become a state representative. Our Rep here in Northern IL had 400 acres of floodland along the river that could be farmed in dry years. He got about a million dollars from the state by putting into some deal where it can never be developed. He is now making a private hunting reserve out of it. There was an old barn on the property he is making a lodge out of. He is now working on legislation for funds to retsore old farm buildings. You got it, we'll pay for the lodge too. He still owns all of this.

There is no end to this self serving corrupt government that loves to tell us what to do.