One of the last vacant parcels in our area is finally being developed. Nice layout, the homes will probably be about $450K, and more than half of the site will become permanent natural open space deeded to the county. What could be wrong with that, you ask?
There is organized opposition from the locals who want to preserve all of the site undisturbed. Mind, they don't want to buy it and preserve it, they just want it all kept natural. And every one of them is living on land that was also natural until it was developed forty years ago.
Some of them object to the possibility that two-story homes could be built in the new subdivision. Their land is also zoned to allow for two-story homes, but that is entirely different, somehow. One of the loudest protestors lives in a big box of a two-story home, and he doesn't want his views disturbed.
Some oppose development because when they bought their land the realtor told them the land next door was in a flood plain and could never be developed. There is much belief that there is a conspiracy of sorts, lies were told, and that was how the FEMA maps were changed. I think it more likely the result of the levee that was built to protect the bridge, but I could be wrong.
I kid you not. Pure selfishness, mixed with dumb. It's all about me, me, me.
I used to have a cartoon print hanging in my office about surveyors & developers.
One of the scenes had 2 developers talking and one telling the other that the first 2 buyers in his new subdivision had filed suit to stop future development in the subdivision.....
I've watched the same thing happen over and over for years. People want nice, open and airy sub-urban environment...so they buy in a sub-division that is surrounded by bucolic rural vistas.
Land values rise and the farms and acreages fall to the scrapers and developers. Now everyone wants to have some kind of right to impress other property owners with their own wishes.
I remember one fella that had his half of the family quarter section (80 acres) and farmed it. His brother sold the other half to a developer. They co-existed for a few years until the HOA started raising hell over the smell of cattle. All of a sudden they were experts on the environment and decided the family farm was a detriment.
The farmer actually won a few rounds but eventually succumbed to the developers.
What I thought was ironic was the name of the residential development, "Windy Hill Farms." ....'nuff said.
I've always said if you feel that strongly about what happens to an adjoining property, buy it!
> There is organized opposition from the locals who want to preserve all of the site undisturbed. Mind, they don't want to buy it and preserve it, they just want it all kept natural. And every one of them is living on land that was also natural until it was developed forty years ago.
That is very typical here. There is a nice peninsula that goes out about 16 miles between the bays. Long ago, any part that was not woods was cherry orchards. Every person that buys a house out there thinks they should be the last one. They get all upset when a cherry farmer who is tired of the hard life wants to develop his land. Even had one lady at a township planning meeting for a subdivision I was proposing who complained to the board that she walks her dog in that orchard every day and it should not be developed. I had to bite my tongue to keep from asking her if she knew she was trespassing every day.
I know, we're preaching to the choir here. :'(
You know what an environmentalist is don't you?
Someone who bought their mountain cabin last year.
At the company I used to work for, we did a survey for a guy who was trying to stop his neighbor from building a dock, complaining it would block his view, and that Florida law prohibited dock construction in areas of "natural beauty" and "environmentally sensitive" areas. Of course, this guy already had a dock ... but that was "different" ...
It's all about me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, .....
I get to watch it here in Houston and it seems the commercial real estate sector has this evolution to it where a strip mall is planned and constructed in a prime location nailing down quality retail as anchor tenants then over time the location deteriorates, one or two of the quality anchor tenants move out, real estate agents lease out these spaces to a stranger variety of storefronts bringing the area and business down for the remaining tenants, who also later move out, and it then goes to pot, while you're stuck with that crappy strip mall in the area.
I can't tell you how many pawn shops, scuz-bag restaurants, car title and predatory lending, bars and pool halls, cell phone stores, smoke shops, and just a bunch of low-rent crap that passes for commerce, we end up with as a staple for retail outlets.
There's basically no quality...I don't know...planning? going on here.
Just flooding the market with more building is all.
I could not agree with you more.
> You know what an environmentalist is don't you?
>
>
> Someone who bought their mountain cabin last year.
Dave beat me to it.
It appears that our biggest problem is the lack of development. Someone from Houston will come up here in East Texas and buy a tract of land 6 miles down a dirt road. The first time it rains, they are at the Commissioners Court meeting complaining about the poor quality road to their land. The road is just as good as it was last year, or 40 years ago for that matter.
James
In a Township I work in when doing a minor land division, as in 5 acres from a 80 acre farm I have to add this note:
Note: The Lots(s) created in this document are adjacent to property that as of the date of this document, is being used for agricultural purposes. Some individuals believe that activities associated with the agricultural use constitute a nuisance or conflict with their quiet enjoyment of the lots(s). This note is intended to provide third parties with notice that these agricultural activities may exist on the adjacent property.
Unbelievable.
That almost exact situation occurred to me.
Out client was subdividing a large area between two already developed areas. When we were doing the initial surround survey to define the outside boundaries of the development, we were accosted by one of the owners of a small house lot that backed onto the development.
He was upset that he would not be able to walk his dog across the paddock anymore if it was subdivided. The idea that the paddock (our clients land) was private property had not even entered his tiny mind.
> It appears that our biggest problem is the lack of development. Someone from Houston will come up here in East Texas and buy a tract of land 6 miles down a dirt road. The first time it rains, they are at the Commissioners Court meeting complaining about the poor quality road to their land. The road is just as good as it was last year, or 40 years ago for that matter.
>
> James
No joke James - There have been several occasions when I have been explaining a minor problem to a client or land owner which should never even be an issue between reasonable neighbors and which they don't consider important enough to address at the time. My last argument to them is "well this may never become a problem for you, but consider that the next person who buys this tract may be a retired attorney from Houston who has no common sense, all the time and money in the world and no attorney fees to worry about. Now, how do you feel about taking care of this small problem while it is still a small problem?" I can think of several times when that prediction actually came true - for goodness sake, how many retired attorneys can one city have?
Years ago I worked part time at a small airport. Neighbor lady was CONSTANTLY calling to complain that the Nat Guard helicopters were scaring her horses. She had moved there a few years earlier, the airport had been there for decades.
NIMBY is alive and well.
Would you prefer the attorneys be retired or still practicing (trying to "get it right")? o.O
And this is EXACTLY why I despise zoning.
> Would you prefer the attorneys be retired or still practicing (trying to "get it right")? o.O
I would prefer neither attorney - I would prefer that the client take care of correcting a minor problem at the time before it gets placed into the hands of someone else later on. o.O
Personal responsibility? Huh? Please explain the concept? :-S
The other thing that happens every day
The other thing that happens every day is expectations placed on rural America with few voters by metro areas with huge numbers of voters. Somewhere people living amongst concrete, asphalt and steel realize that there aren't enough trees or enough open space or enough room for wild animals to run wild or.......... So they get their elected representatives to enact policies that won't impact them directly while stealing private property rights from those who live in sparsely populated areas where there can now be more trees, open space, wild animals,.........
Let's re-introduce a few thousand wolves, buffalo, cute little deer, etc. etc. into downtown Chicago, LA and NYC. Let's send all our extra money to special interests groups so they can buy 90 percent of the land in a certain area thus destroying the existing community. Let's send all of our extra money to make special payments to farmers so that they won't raise crops and meanwhile put all of the small businesses they supported out of business. Let's use eminent domain to take whatever seems like a good idea at the time, ignoring longterm consequences.
Don't get me started!
The other thing that happens every day
Mountain Lions, you forgot the Mountain Lions.
