Notifications
Clear all

Bureaucratic BS is too close to home

9 Posts
6 Users
0 Reactions
5 Views
(@holy-cow)
Posts: 25292
Topic starter
 

It appears a nearby county has gone stark raving nuts and decided they needed to behave like they were in an urban area on one of the coasts.

To top it off they have taken roughly half of the county and decided to institute all sorts of bureaucratic mishmash while leaving the other half of the county to operate like sane people do.

Fellow calls me this morning to ask about helping to get a small tract platted. I do maybe two or three surveys per year in that county but haven't done one in over a year. He proceeds to tell me about the new dictates that were established in March. After listening to his problems for about 20 minutes I recommended that he move somewhere else to hang out with sane people. It appears that the primary goal is to find new funding sources to support county expenses by gouging the local citizenry with fees on top of fees on top of more fees. He had contacted four other survey firms and three wouldn't even talk to him about working in that county since the BS was adopted. The fourth is the company that had surveyed the 7+ acre tract about a year ago. The current goal is to cut that into a 3 acre tract and a 4+ acre remainder tract. They told him a number to do what is needed per the BS which was seven times more than what they charged a year ago to create the parent tract before the BS came along.

We left it hanging. Maybe I will do something. Maybe they will cancel their plans and build the new house in a different county. They are that upset.

 
Posted : 17/11/2016 5:57 pm
 seb
(@seb)
Posts: 376
Registered
 

One of the issues in situations like this is that most people do not like to make a fuss so they will just go elsewhere quietly rather than raising a ruckus and highlighting the stupidity.

The idiots in charge then think that because they have heard no complaints, everyone is happy.

 
Posted : 17/11/2016 6:42 pm
(@deleted-user)
Posts: 8349
Registered
 

Since where I am has been a rapid growth area for the past 40 years, there have been very restrictive procedures on subdividing through the years.
Some are needed because the developers will weasel out of improvements to the infrastructure such as roads, public services (police/fire) and utilities, eventually problems arise.
BUT in the scenario that you posted, these have become what is known as minor subdivisions and the process is fairly straight forward with minimal
fees. It was amended when the situation that you have posted became common.
So business and industrial developments receive tax incentives along with the developers that leaves Joe Schmo holding the bag to pay.

 
Posted : 17/11/2016 7:38 pm
(@mike-mac)
Posts: 158
Registered
 

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1385452-couple-planning-dream-home-on-eastern-shore-acreage-blocked-by-bylaw

Here is one where you cant build on a lot thats too big????

 
Posted : 17/11/2016 7:59 pm
(@holy-cow)
Posts: 25292
Topic starter
 

There should be a law outlawing the gathering of idiots who wish to write such rubbish into regulations.

 
Posted : 17/11/2016 8:06 pm
(@deleted-user)
Posts: 8349
Registered
 

Holy Cow, post: 400148, member: 50 wrote: There should be a law outlawing the gathering of idiots who wish to write such rubbish into regulations.

Can you be specific instead of rhetorical

 
Posted : 17/11/2016 8:59 pm
(@a-harris)
Posts: 8761
 

One would think that the State would step in and tell some idiots that it is beyond their powers to actually burden the public with laws that step on individuals rights.
I am pretty sure that there is an attorney out there that specializes in that sort of warfare and could blow up that planning boards squeeze play.

 
Posted : 17/11/2016 10:14 pm
(@daniel-ralph)
Posts: 913
Registered
 

Around here municipal rule making is a public process. So, when one comes across a rule that they didn't like it is likely that they didn't take the time to become part of the process. Its the same in sports, politics and life in general. I find that land use rules are generally the result of public health and safety or a lawsuit or threat of one.
If Brand X was on the property one year ago, I am not going to compete with them or even discuss it with the client. Seven times a fee may not be that much to pay in order to compensate Brand X for the owners short sightedness. I don't want a client that thinks that they know how much my fee should be, how onerous the rules by which they are required to play by, or when I should get it done. Better to part company early in this episode.
Happy Friday everyone.

 
Posted : 18/11/2016 9:18 am
(@holy-cow)
Posts: 25292
Topic starter
 

I strongly recommended that he use Brand X from the start of the conversation, long before I knew "the rest of the story".

The bad part is that I may very likely refuse to take jobs in the affected portion of the county as I strongly oppose their use of a sledge hammer to kill a mosquito.

 
Posted : 18/11/2016 2:59 pm