You can't stop progress

[kimmer]

This is just a personal rant ... and likely won't interest anyone else ... but still ...

I was totally bummed this morning. I still am. We drove down the hill and when we got to my favorite spot I was stunned to see a FOR SALE sign tacked on one of the trees. I stopped the car and said a bad word. Totally ruins my view driving up and down ... and really angers me .. and I'm ready to put up a sign in our front yard about NO MORE HOUSES ON OUR HILL and NO LIGHT POLLUTION and other choice things.

I really, really, really, really HATE that this greedy developer has bought up some beautiful foresty type land behind us and is going to develop it into fancy-a** houses, complete with sidewalks and LIGHTS. Big fancy BRIGHT LIGHTS that will ruin -- TOTALLY RUIN -- our view and our lifestyle here. Plus the development will bring lots of traffic onto our narrow road and that's a major safety issue that hasn't been dealt with and was finally glossed over in the interest of houses and TAX DOLLARS! Greedy so-and-so's!

Yes, we went to the planning commission meetings. We were encouraged when they were ready to turn down the plan due to the traffic issue. We were discouraged when the greedy ones opted to reluctantly approve the plan -- even though they didn't like it. (Toads! Too bad I don't get to vote for the planning commission members!)

I am angry. I am upset. I am ready to rip down the for sale sign. I really am. Worse, I've been wanting to take a picture of my favorite spot and we've not done it -- and now IT'S TOO LATE!

I need to go have a cry.

[Paddy]

I sympathize, Kimmer! Our summer cottage, which my grandfather and father built starting in 1933, was originally part of a very small community of cottages along the lakefront in Newcastle, ON. In the past generation or so, there were 3 houses that were occupied year-round, then ours, another 2 cottages, another permanent residence, and two more cottages on the lake side. On the other side of the road, there were a couple of houses/cottages and a 10 acre cow-field. We got a long reprieve from the march of progress - the farmer lived into his mid-nineties, but his sons (now in their 60's and neither of them farmers) have sold off bits of the farm and you guessed it...the cow field was subdivided into 8 lots. An additional lot was severed so that a total of three lots face us - though only two will be built on as far as we know. It could have been a LOT worse, of course - we could be looking at 40-foot wide lots and whole lot more houses if they'd chosen to change the zoning. And then the town gave us a big scare this spring when some lame-brained nitwit came up with the idea of putting a 70-car parking lot RIGHT across from us (taking some of the new lots in the process). They've already bought the 3 year-round residences to the west of us, demolished them and added the property to the little park at the end of the road and now they were talking about a "water park" and wanting more parking for it and the once-a-year polar bear swim (!!) Luckily that one went down in flames at town council, so for now, we're safe. But our lovely pastoral view to the north is about to disappear and it makes me sad. The whole area has changed so much in my lifetime - there is now a HUGE housing development across the river - occupying prime farmland and the riverbanks where we used to pick wild strawberries. People commute the 60 miles to Toronto daily - something nobody would have considered even 30 years ago.

And don't get me started on the lovely fields that we so enjoyed hiking in Corvallis, where we went to stargaze on many an evening with a baby who fussed unless we put him in a front pack and walked...they're all houses now too...

The view to the north from the cottage (now)

[kimmer]

A water park?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Oh. My. Word!!!!!! Paddy, I hurt for you. I'm glad you have a picture to remember it all by. I just don't understand why everything nice has to be destroyed, when it ruins what made the place enjoyable for folks. There's plenty of open land here (and around you as well, I'm guessing) that could be built up and it wouldn't upset anyone; but NOOOO ... folks get greedy and ... well, the rest of us suffer. Too bad I don't have a few million to buy up the undeveloped lots.

Mac says that in a few weeks (when he's allowed) he'll take the sign down, we'll get pics and he'll put the irritating sign back up. That way I'll at least have a picture. I may get it blown up and put it on a poster and stick it in our yard with a "Save our way of life" or something. hehehe

Of course, I have to be cautious. The Realtor involved in all this is the gal who sold us our lot/house, and she and her hubby are the July 3rd party throwers and live just around the corner ... but still ... I am making my disappointment known. I'm not the only one who is upset, and that helps.

Okay, I'll try to be thankful it's only going to be 40 houses. It could be worse. The guys original plan: junk houses and crammed onto minimal lots for a total of 150 houses. Fortunately, the city did say that was too much traffic for our 1.5 lane road up & down the hill. *sigh*

QUOTE

And don't get me started on the lovely fields that we so enjoyed hiking in Corvallis, where we went to stargaze on many an evening with a baby who fussed unless we put him in a front pack and walked...they're all houses now too...

Yeah, we drove by some fields over there that just a year ago were fields -- and now there is the fence for the gate, and the plots are marked and the roads are in and all is being destroyed ... and the deer are frantic and running into the road and getting killed ... and it's all just senseless to me.

Oh, I could be a tree hugging liberal so easy, some days.

Oops, did I say that?

[gunug]

NIMBY isn't necessarily a bad idea!  You hate to see the changes made by "progress!"

[kimmer]

I spent some time this morning getting pics off of Google earth ... shows all the beautiful trees that will be taken down. It would be nice if they were used in the park area that is proposed.

I may have to use NIMBY on my yard posters, gunug.

[Gregg]

Sorry Kim. It is a big deal when it's in your neighborhood. As an architect, I like to see buildings being built. But, so often it is more profitable to break new ground than to restore an existing structure that is sitting vacant somewhere. That goes for houses too, but in many cases those are located in areas where you'd have a hard time convincing most people to live. It's a vicious cycle.

[krissel]

When I moved to my house 35 years ago the town had only one blinking traffic light, several produce and dairy farms and was considered 'country'.  The day the roadside Egg O'Matic (a vending machine for eggs, milk) was removed I knew what was to follow.
Today, the fields a few blocks away from me that used to have cattle grazing on them are now football and soccer fields. At least one of the dairy farms was turned into preserved open space, thank goodness, but others are now home to small shopping centers.

NJ has a law that makes every town supply 'affordable housing' for a certain percentage of the population. If the town is already built up they can then pay other towns to construct housing that would cover their requirements. Our town was wealthy enough to pay out for a while but in the early 90's that all changed and we were mandated to build our own housing. Due to the high cost of land here only town houses could fit the 'affordable' tag. So build them they did. Then what followed of course was a need to build more schools or additions, thus adding to our real estate taxes.

My own neighborhood added two houses but minimum lot sizes at least keeps it somewhat under control. I did have to go door to door with a petition to stop someone from subdividing his property. Fortunately it worked. Other areas of town on steep slopes have 3-5 acre minimums but most of the town is between 1/2 - 1 1/2 acre lots.  We have more than doubled the population now and I couldn't begin to count the number of traffic lights in the town.  

[kimmer]

Gregg, it is a vicious cycle. What stinks is that we have land cleared at the end of our street that hasn't sold in 12 years (3 lots), and then just beyond the end of our street (it dead ends at the creek) there are 86 weed farms. Just 2 years ago there were beautiful trees there, and birds nests and deer lived there ... and someone bought them up for speculation and cleared everything down to the dirt (didn't leave ANY of the trees). Then the streets, sidewalks and light poles went in. Sales office set up, advertising blitz -- prices were actually great -- and only 1 lot has sold in 2 years. Those folks haven't landscaped and so all the lots look like cr*p, and the dirt blows everywhere.

There is a subdivision already approved just a few blocks beyond the weed farm. It was originally going to hold almost 1,000 houses and would have doubled the size of this town. It was all approved on the hush-hush with both planning commission and city council. By the time the news hit the paper, trees had already been ripped out, neighbors angered, workers unpaid -- and the developer went belly up. New developer, but this time the city said bigger lots and less houses (mainly because all of us SCREAMED about the whole project). Still all that is there are weed farms where once beautiful trees stood and sheltered the wild life.

Now we have this greedy so-and-so buying up different parcels of land and starting another going no where project. Based on the prices he wants, these lots won't sell for at least 5 years or better; but in the meantime he'll rip out the trees, put in streets, bright lights and weed farms will sprout.

There are loads of other areas where homes can be built -- places where trees and lives wouldn't be destroyed -- but NOOOOOO he's got a bee in his pocketbook and our neighbor the Realtor is helping it all along because she'll get the commission, and her husband will likely get to build some of the fancy homes ... and now I'm all upset again.

Kris, what you are describing is so very much like what we moved away from. I feel for you.

[krissel]

Well, Kim, the one thing I can say that is encouraging is that the wildlife will adapt.  In fact I have more wildlife in my yard now than when I first moved in.  Just this aft while going out to get the mail I had to wait several minutes behind a bush because I didn't want to disturb a family of deer. They travel every day through the backyard and return via the front, Dad, Mom and little one. It's really heartwarming to see the family always together. Most of the deer either are alone or in herds of mostly females and fawns and the bucks are separate... but these three are always together.

Then, too the foxes, coyotes, hawks, bears, etc. are all competing with the usual smaller animals that you would expect to find in NJ. It may take a generation or two but they will adapt. In fact I think they have adapted better than I have.

[kimmer]

QUOTE(krissel @ Aug 31 2008, 02:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, Kim, the one thing I can say that is encouraging is that the wildlife will adapt.
.....
In fact I think they have adapted better than I have.

I agree with you, they adapt better than we do.

[Gregg]

After the sun goes down, go to those weed farms and plant switchgrass. When the developer figures out how much he/she can sell it for, maybe those houses won't germinate.

[Xairbusdriver]

Only thing I can suggest is to be active in the processes of the County and City government. We had a City Council actually vote against it's own lawyer in a dispute over subdividing a lot in our single street, dead-end, no outlet subdivision. The 'developer' had threatened to sue and the lawyer said it would be cheaper to just give in to him. Amazingly, the elected representatives had more respect for the citizens than that lawyer! Ours and a couple of other subdivisions were all against the subdividing which helped tremendously. One problem is that these type problems are only revealed to people within 500 feet of the property in dispute. With only 5 or 6 houses affected, and many of those no even in our subdivision, it could easily have been overlooked by the 40+ people who would have been directly affected!

Even with participation, it galls me that the developers are given practically as much time as they want to "sell" the committee/council on their proposition. Citizens, on the other hand, are allowed 3 minutes per person to counter the previous statements and bring other questions into play. It takes a good amount of time, cooperation and not a little expertise to successfully counter some developers.

Of course, the battle really starts at the ballet box. Please exercise your right to vote at every opportunity and try to get your questions answered by everyone running. That takes more time. The point is, the only 'control' you have on other peoples property and what is done with it is strongly supported zoning laws and a government willing to listen and support the wishes of the majority. The 'majority' can (and sometimes is) wrong, but the minority has no excuse if they weren't even interested in joining the battle!

It also helps to get to know as many of the elected Council members as possible. Many are actually doing what most of the people who talk to them want! And don't be too hard on those 'committees' until you've walked a few 'meetings' in their shoes! The ones here get paid absolutely nothing but they get to listen to irate and unappreciative citizens who are too lazy to even vote half he time!

Nevertheless, the numbers of people seems to be continually increasing and they all need some place to live. And, especially along the Coasts, there is very little land being created! The only way to semi-permanently maintain a 'view-like-it-was' is to buy as much of it as you can while being able to support your family and pay the taxes at the same time! The only time the price of land decreases is when nobody can afford to buy it!

Our street is about a quarter of a mile long. The west end stops at the city line of a very affluent town at the edge of a nice city park they built (without a fence!). The East connects to what is one of the only East/West streets in the city that goes as far West as our we live. But 99.998% turns either North or South at that intersection. North of us (on the other side of my back yard) is a plot of over 140+ acres. We can't see any houses that way, even in Winter when the leaves are gone. Behind the people on the other side of our street is a private golf course almost as big as the undeveloped land behind our house! There have already been nibble at developing that 140+ acres. The current housing slump will extend that development delay for a while longer. Eventually, it will get built on. Hopefully as it is currently zoned, "Estate sized" lots (2 or more acres). But some of those people will have to deal with our houses abutting their backyard with only 1/2 to 3/4 acres lots! We won't have as much 'wild life' as most of those type people are somewhat less 'roudy!' But we'll still have our little fish and what seems to be a dozen moles!

[kimmer]

QUOTE(Gregg @ Aug 31 2008, 11:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

After the sun goes down, go to those weed farms and plant switchgrass.

Had to go look this stuff up. According to Oregon State University, switchgrass doesn't grow well in Oregon, so I guess I'll pass on midnight plantings.    

QUOTE(Xairbusdriver @ Aug 31 2008, 01:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One problem is that these type problems are only revealed to people within 500 feet of the property in dispute.

Here it's only within 250 feet - so 3 households were notified. The rest of us learned about all of this because one of those 3 put up signs announcing the meetings.

QUOTE

Of course, the battle really starts at the ballet box.

Yup. I went to the candidates forums and made my choices. What irks me is that some of these folks are doing 180 degree turns.

QUOTE

It also helps to get to know as many of the elected Council members as possible.

We are doing just that. Helps that one of them lives up here and she's the only one opposed to this project. The head of the planning commission is our snooty neighbor and he reluctantly (HAH!) voted for the project. The guy who held the key vote though, caved at the last minute. Toads. Mac had the opportunity to be on the budget committee for our town, but with his health concerns at the time, he had to say no.

QUOTE

The only way to semi-permanently maintain a 'view-like-it-was' is to buy as much of it as you can...

If we could use our money to buy land, we'd buy the house next door and the lot across the street. Don't know what we'd do with the house (tear it down?), but the empty lot would be a fantastic park for this area.

QUOTE

Our street is about a quarter of a mile long. The west end stops at the city line of a very affluent town at the edge of a nice city park they built (without a fence!).

Do you get to use the park? That would be cool.

QUOTE

Eventually, it will get built on.

*SIGH*  So we're all in the same mess. Life just ain't fair!

QUOTE

We won't have as much 'wild life' as most of those type people are somewhat less 'roudy!' But we'll still have our little fish and what seems to be a dozen moles!

Oh, so that's where our mole went -- to your house. Treat him well.

[Xairbusdriver]

QUOTE

Do you get to use the park?

Of course! And if they get too 'uppity' we just show them some of our mail. It has the city and zip code on it, even though we live in the other town with its own name and code! We even have to drive to one of the affluent towns fire stations to vote on something on our towns ballet! The Election Commission drew the boundaries down the middle of our street. A street with only one entrance/exit, only one very slight left and right turn in it! No other houses within 300 feet of it! So, our neighbors across the street drive 2 minutes to the church we go to and vote while we drive 5 miles to the fire station!! Why would I expect them to use a map? Or draw the lines on backyard boundaries?! Governments! I don't think they could even spel eefishinsee!

After bashing some of our government, I need to mention something that I do like. Even though many 'developers' like to clear property of those nuisances called trees, if the project is over a certain size, they are required to provide at least 20% green space and replace every two trees cut down with a new planting. This requirement causes more requests for waivers than just about every other one!