Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Red Clay Ordinances: "Public" projects exempt?

  1. #1
    Member
    Registered
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Orange Beach, Alabama
    Posts
    5

    Red Clay Ordinances: "Public" projects exempt?

    Greetings: Wondering if you all think that a public project (on a case by case basis) should be exempt from the "staining material" ordinance, if in a less-sensitivearea and appropriate containment measures are taken...?

  2. #2
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Townville
    Posts
    1,047
    No. Play by the same rules as a private project.

  3. #3
    Cyburbian Emeritus Chet's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    South Milwaukee
    Posts
    8,935
    Agreed. Stay by the rules and set an example for others to follow.

  4. #4
    Member
    Registered
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Orange Beach, Alabama
    Posts
    5

    Rules....

    Si, Claro...however, public projects are more easily controlled, and, the sheer number of private projects that could utilize this material makes the risk of "stain" more apt to happen, especially considering the chances of "tropical" events in this region....at some point, NO amount of containment would prevent runoff from a site...just fishin', guys.

  5. #5
    Cyburbian Emeritus Chet's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    South Milwaukee
    Posts
    8,935

    Re: Rules....

    EnviroPlanner wrote:
    ...public projects are more easily controlled, and, the sheer number of private projects that could utilize this material makes the risk of "stain" more apt to happen...
    That's not my experience. I'm looking out my window at a suppossedly public project and its very poorly managed. I don't mean to bitch-slap my coworkers, but they have other demands on their time, and most local governments are running lean these days - not enough resources to self police.

    If its so easily controlled, then what's the problem following the rules? Are they too burdensome? If so, why does everyone else have to bear that burden?

    ...just takin' the bait.

  6. #6
    Member
    Registered
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Orange Beach, Alabama
    Posts
    5

    hmmm....le'see

    maybe not TOO burdensome, but they do require an alternate source of material, and that material may be a bit more expensive to use...BUT, on a "public" project, the public is the owner and receives the benefit of the project, which really isn't the case on most private projects...since its the public's money being spent/invested, I thought that maybe we could give them (on public projects) a little "break". No?

  7. #7
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Townville
    Posts
    1,047
    No. Now I am no environmentalist but doesn't the regulation, by definition, spawn a public benefit?

    Think of the bad example of the slippery slope: If we are out to give breaks based on cost, why require for example a site plan fee or building permit for a school?

    Bad example probably, but Its just better in my experience to play be the rules everyone plays buy.

+ Reply to thread

More at Cyburbia

  1. "Green lawn" ordinances
    Land Use and Zoning
    Replies: 15
    Last post: 02 Sep 2010, 6:41 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last post: 21 May 2007, 11:23 PM
  3. Wireless facilities "Plagiarized" ordinances
    Land Use and Zoning
    Replies: 22
    Last post: 15 Dec 2004, 3:23 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last post: 19 Jun 2002, 12:30 PM