Had the Wetlands Engineer out to the place

[daTeacha]

It would help a lot if those migrating from the urban/suburban areas would be willing to adapt a country life style and give up things like easy access to shopping, cable TV/internet, roads well maintained all year, good to excellent fire protection, etc. The problems for the rural areas come when the escapees want to bring their citified ways with them.

Our 5 acre plus without devising a subdivision plan rule results in a lot of "flag" lots -- a 50 foot wide by 1/4 mile or more long access drive leading to a squarish plot removed from the road but surrounded by others of it's kind. You might be driving along a road and in a small stretch find 6 or 8 driveways next to each other. The houses are back in the middle of what used to be a corn field. Recent efforts to increase the minimum size to 20 acres were not successful.

If you guys are seriously interested in this whole scenario, contact American Farmland Trust to see what things are being done to try to contain sprawl and preserve open spaces.

 

[3RRL]

It would help a lot if those migrating from the urban/suburban areas would be willing to adapt a country life style and give up things like easy access to shopping, cable TV/internet, roads well maintained all year, good to excellent fire protection, etc. The problems for the rural areas come when the escapees want to bring their citified ways with them.

Teach,
This is exactly opposite of what is happening in my rural community. The ones moving in WANT to adapt and live a rural lifestyle while the locals want to add business, subdivisions, supermarkets etc.....Go figure??

 

[bloody_peasant]

The "antis" accuse the "pros" of being communists and the "pros" accuse the "antis" of being self centered hyprocrites intent on getting everything they can from the land and destroying the "country" in the process. Yet both claim to love the county and both claim their way is the only way to protect what we have and cherish here.

daTeacha gets the golden award for best post on this long "political" thread.

Property rights, while important, was not the defining bedrock of our nation nor were they considered absolute. Heck the Constitution itself has clauses in it allowing the government to acquire private property for public use. Amendment V lays out the terms pretty clearly, that anybody's land can be taken for public use, but just compensation must be provided, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

In the end, it requires a careful balance between private property rights and community concerns. Nobody's a communists or a "Leftists" or needs to move to China because they have community concerns. And nobody is a selfish, greedy, destroyer of the community for having private property concerns. The name calling in this country has grown to rediculous levels and has replaced any form of substantive debate or intelligent discussion. I think poor education combined with the TV generation and TV ads are contributing factors to this decline.

LOL, I won't even touch the whole Judeo/Christian ethics claim, way off topic.

 

[bloody_peasant]

Teach,
This is exactly opposite of what is happening in my rural community. The ones moving in WANT to adapt and live a rural lifestyle while the locals want to add business, subdivisions, supermarkets etc.....Go figure??

Yep, that's what is going on in my area as well. A lof of growth/anti-growth debates going on right now. With the old timers wanting more growth and the new comers wanting the rural flare.

 

[HomeBrew2]

... without just compensation ...

I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make. My impression of the underlying theme of this thread is that citizens are being deprived of use of certain parts of the properties based on "environmental reasons" WITHOUT being compensated. And in most cases charged an extra fee too boot if they want to do anything on the property.

 

[mike69440]

Our 5 acre plus without devising a subdivision plan rule results in a lot of "flag" lots -- a 50 foot wide by 1/4 mile or more long access drive leading to a squarish plot removed from the road but surrounded by others of it's kind. You might be driving along a road and in a small stretch find 6 or 8 driveways next to each other. The houses are back in the middle of what used to be a corn field. Recent efforts to increase the minimum size to 20 acres were not successful."

"If you guys are seriously interested in this whole scenario, contact American Farmland Trust to see what things are being done to try to contain sprawl and preserve open spaces.

"

DaTeacha,
Like have you been spying on me? We bought a "Flag Lot" I do not think we could have afforded a piece of property like we bought without that shortcoming. My $30K access road will be nicer than the town road. In the end I hope I'll look at it as a fun project!?? Done about 600' of 1400' so far. The "Flagpole part is about 650'. We got the permits to do this portion.

 

[bloody_peasant]

I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make. My impression of the underlying theme of this thread is that citizens are being deprived of use of certain parts of the properties based on "environmental reasons" WITHOUT being compensated. And in most cases charged an extra fee too boot if they want to do anything on the property.

The points I am making are these:
1. Private property rights were not intended to be absolute.
2. The government was given authority to take your property with compensation for public use if needed.
3. The government was given authority to regulate the use of your property for the common good.

These things are written into the Constitution, I'm not just throwing out my opinions on the matter. Either that or the Constitution is a Leftist document.

I know there is a large "black helicopter" crowd out there that thinks the government is going to arrive and sieze their property tomorrow, but our founders put in some really nifty safe guards against such abuses, if we as citizens take our duties seriously.
1. Every 2 years we get to vote on the people who write the operational plans and fund the black helipcopter fleet.
2. Every 4 years we get to vote on the head honcho who commands the black helicopters.
3. If we want, we can run for, and maybe get elected to be one of those who draft the operational plans or even the head honcho himself.
4. Finally, thanks to an independent and co-equally powerful judicial branch, if we feel that a black helicopter has violated our rights, we can sue.

In other words, the government has the authority to regulate private property use and to seize it (with just compensation) for public use. We, the people, are the checks and balances to make sure the government doesn't go hog wild and make owning private property unbearable.

 

[Doc_Bob]

Property rights, while important, was not the defining bedrock of our nation nor were they considered absolute. Heck the Constitution itself has clauses in it allowing the government to acquire private property for public use. Amendment V lays out the terms pretty clearly, that anybody's land can be taken for public use, but just compensation must be provided, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

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

 

[HomeBrew2]

The points I am making are these .... .........

So may I assume that you are not going to address the fact that land owners are NOT being compensated for the lack use of wetlands and other envirnmental areas on their private property?

It doesn't matter how many times you recite the constitution, I still agree with you, it reads just the same as when I read it

 

[JimR]

After 8 months and $12 K spent on doing it Legal and getting all the designs and permits, I can say that in the end the only ones who will benefit will be the State of NH and the Wallets of all the people I retained to get the permits. In the end, no more or less wetland will be harmed if I would have done what frankly most people do. i.e. "Just do it."

Be glad you did it the right way. My neighbors spent over $25K to illegally drain their property onto mine without permits. They also still owe three contactors a total of $23.5K. By the time that the DCR/DEP and I am through with them, they will have spent another $50K to fix it and fines to boot.

Timber, You are really lucky that the old neighbors got out when they did and got away with what they have done. The DEP could still go after them and fine them severly for it.