Posted on 12/07/2002 5:39:00 AM PST by sauropod
Thank you. My questions have finally elicited the information I wanted. Your judicial/govermental philosophy is incompatible with mine (and America's limited constitutional republic government, in fact), and we will never be able to reach common ground on this issue. For you, all law is derived from man, and therefore all law is maleable, changable, open to "reinterpretation"...
Call your ideology pragmatism, "realism," or whatever other term you wish, but it is diametrically opposed to the system of government that the Founders envisioned and attempted to establish. The unreachableness of a vision does not preclude its desirability, especially when the attempts to reach it result in human improvement. The Pole Star is unreachable by man, yet it still serves as a worthy guide.
Without the guide of principle, all decisions become historical, situational, subjective. And that means that the law becomes what a man or men will make it, and we will live in a government of men (and not Laws). So I reject your evaluation of universal principle and of original intent (which does not apply here, as electric wires buried underground flows from public roads and sanitation much as T.V. flows from speech. You must distort the meaning of "original intent" in order to make your straw man argument...), for that way lies tyranny...
And it lasted all of what, a few years?
I agree 100% with everything you've said. But I don't live in a cave 50 miles from my nearest neighbor, either.
Ironically, history tells us that these concepts of justice, liberty, and "God-given" rights are not likely to be found in any kind of democratic government -- if anything, these things were probably more common in a Christian monarchy than anything else.
That statement is incorrect. My point is that trying to make a stand regarding "original intent" when that original intent has been reinterpreted, changed, etc. for more than 200 years is kind of like trying to put toothpaste back into the tube.
I say let's go for it. But first we have to tear up the rails, tear up the pavement, send everyone back to the countries that their forefathers came from, and start all over again. Until then, I these noble principles of ours are not much more than interesting academic subjects.
I wonder if the owners are getting good advice.
It is entirely possible that a judge, after looking at the apraisals, could find that the value is less than what the city offered.
As for rejecting the enviro easement, there are numerous organizations in that business and many of them are willing to negotiate issues besides price. Issues such as how many and how large the dwellings and other buildings could be. Or, the possibility of retaining a 100' strip of frontage for future commercial developement.
Stop, please... You're making me blush!!! (grin)
I thought I'd never find anyone that used more exclaimation marks that me as an emoticon!!!
Elected, or appointed? Coastal, Inland Empire, Big Valley, Superior, or Sierran, CA?
I, for one, value your experience and input!!!
Precisely! And Democracy... The tyranny of the majority!!!
This city is very tightly controlled in terms of development plans. Each newly-developed area of the city is subject to a master plan that dictates how much commerical space, retail space, housing units, etc. can be built. Property owners have very few options except to do exactly what the master plan says.
What is interesting, though, is that property owners rarely complain because the system is based on a very reasonable principle. A farmer has the right to do pretty much whatever he wants with his land. He can farm it, build on it (subject to certain codes and water discharge restrictions), and sell it off to anyone who wants to buy it. He can pretty much ignore the master plan for as long as he pleases. Future owners of the land can ignore the master plan for as long as they please.
But the moment anyone wants to connect to the city's water and sanitary sewer system, the city tells them that they will only get their approval if their development proposal conforms with the master plan for that area.
Ironically, the worst players in this system are some landowners who live in rural areas just outside the city. Not farmers, but homeowners who live on large spreads of land that used to be farms. These homeowners knew that they were buying homes with wells and septic systems, but many of them are suddenly faced with an economic reality: An 1,800 square foot home on a small lot just inside the city limits sells for just as much as a 2,500 dquare foot home on a two-acre parcel less than 100 yards away.
"We demand to be connected to city water!" the property owners now say.
"F#ck off!" the city responds, "We warned you 25 years ago that this city would never extend water and sewer mains out to that residential area unless it had a minimum density of five units per acre!"
And "f#ck off" those people did. Until they start tearing down those homes and subdividing those parcels even further, they're going to have well water and septic tanks.
The little pickup truck sitting in front of the guard shack has "SECURITY/COMPLIANCE" painted on it's doors. The crime rate is higher inside these gates than in most other areas of the county.
But by-gum, their equities sure keep them in servitude to an insolent clique of dictators that they elect to the board of their association!!! Of course it seems to me that Ben Ficklin and Alberta's Child would feel right at home in a place like this.
It is very difficult to get buyers for property with no possible changes--ever. Then there is the issue of getting a loan on the property--banks do not like to loan on property with no future increase in value.
The other thing to consider as a possible reason why the owners are not interested in the sale of the development rights is that the purchase can entail what the owner can do with the property, i.e., add a barn, remodel a house, remove a building, add or remove a fence and so on.
Another reason, what if adjacent properties make it impossible to farm this property. Then what do you do?
The biggest issue is why should these non-vested interests be taking private property from the owners?
They start groups with catchy names like "No Way LA" and hook up with the Nature Nazis to litigate and agitate for suffocation as their only solution. These are Earth's most negative and intolerant souls. The areas around them look more like Appilachia, than LA!!!
I haven't missed the point at all. You seem to be missing mine. From what I can gather, this farm is one of the last remaining tracts of land not sold to developers in this area. By holding on for so long after the development of surrounding land had begun, the owners made themselves a target for local authorities who don't want it developed at all. The owners would have been better off, and made much more money on the open market, if they had seen the writing on the wall and sold when they had the chance.
The lesson for large land owners in quickly developing areas is this: consider all offers from private entities seriously, as some public entity might come along and buy your land for a whole less, whether you want to sell or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.