Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Lot clearing pemit overreaction?

  1. #1
    Cyburbian Plus
    Registered
    Jun 2003
    Location
    De Noc
    Posts
    17,714

    Lot clearing pemit overreaction?

    Rare Woodpecker Sends a Town Running for Its Chain Saws

    Headline and Article from the Sunday NY Times.

    Highlights:
    Over the past six months, landowners here have been clear-cutting thousands of trees to keep them from becoming homes for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker.

    Hoping to beat the mapmakers, landowners swarmed City Hall to apply for lot-clearing permits. Treeless land, after all, would not need to be set aside for woodpeckers. Since February, the city has issued 368 logging permits, a vast majority without accompanying building permits.

    The results can be seen all over town. Along the roadsides, scattered brown bark is all that is left of pine stands...

    “It’s ruined the beauty of our city,” Ms. Kinney said. To stop the rash of cutting, city commissioners have proposed a one-year moratorium on lot-clearing permits.
    WOW
    Where does this fit on the environment vs development spectrum ?
    Does you fair community require a clearing permit ?
    and if so, any requirement to get a building permit also ?
    Oddball
    Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves?
    Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here?
    Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
    From Kelly's Heroes (1970)


    Are you sure you're not hurt ?
    No. Just some parts wake up faster than others.
    Broke parts take a little longer, though.
    From Electric Horseman (1979)

  2. #2
    Cyburbian Random Traffic Guy's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lone Star State
    Posts
    629
    LOL. Great example of unintended consequences of gov't regulation. The bird is just taking advantage of the original human sap collection anyways It needs human development, but not too much...

  3. #3
    Cyburbian Jen's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,460
    that is a damn shame, shortsighted, and ignorant. As if now they can sell their land completely treeless and in dustbowl of sugar sand, yeah real invitin to the real estate market. They're acting is if the birds were terrorists and the government is going to take possession of their land.

    I bet those residents feel like they outsmarted unca sam on that one yup.

  4. #4
    Cyburbian Reductionist's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Swans, Fruits & Nuts
    Posts
    66
    Having lived in that part of the country it certainly sounds like yet another knee jerk reaction by the I've got mine, you get yours crowd.

    Really it reminds me of one of the Hitchhiker's books where the inhabitants of a newly found planet decide to use leaves as currency, only to discover they have a terrible inflation problem. Thus their solution is to burn all of trees and voila, no more inflation!
    "I believe in pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. I believe it is possible. I saw this guy do it once in Cirque du Soleil. It was magical!" -Stephen Colbert

  5. #5
    Cyburbian Random Traffic Guy's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lone Star State
    Posts
    629
    Although the impact of being designated protected habitat is unclear, there is a long history of takings from private property owners in the name of endangered species and wetlands. The government is trying to put all the cost of preserving these woodpeckers onto the landowners. The landowners are justifiably trying to maximize the value of their land by avoiding the designation.

    Whereas if the gov't made the woodpeckers a benefit to the landowner[1], through tax advantages or the like, landowners would be keeping their trees, planting more, and figuring out new ways of providing bird habitat.

    RTG

    [1] or if the birds were a true benefit via tourism, harvesting, etc.

  6. #6
    Cyburbian jmello's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Clayobyrne, CB
    Posts
    2,581
    I now live about 20 miles from Boiling Springs Lakes. While I do not agree with the choice many of these landowners have made, I think there are some important inssues to keep in mind:

    1) Building in southeastern North Carolina is already severly restricted by federal and state wetlands regulations (totally dry lots basically do not exist)

    2) This area of the state has few economic opportunities outside of farming, tree farming and land development (one of the fastest growing counties in the U.S.)

    3) This is a low- to middle-income community with a rather low level of education and little general understanding of the bureacratic process

    4) It does not appear as though the federal goverment made much of an effort to improve this understanding prior to this last meeting

  7. #7
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Townville
    Posts
    1,047
    They're acting is if the birds were terrorists and the government is going to take possession of their land.
    The fact is that this does happen. Seems like a reasonable reaction.

  8. #8
    Cyburbian Jen's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,460
    jmello makes some good points reggarding the lack of coordination, informatio and planning on the part of the agency in charge.

    But clearcutting lands in a panic of fear is hardly a reasonable reaction IMO.

  9. #9
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Townville
    Posts
    1,047
    jen you are right. it's reasonable only if there really is an endangered woodpecker on your land

  10. #10
    Cyburbian otterpop's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Down by Dun Ringill
    Posts
    5,895
    Blog entries
    6
    Why are the woodpeckers rare? Because people have for years been clearcutting the trees. Classic situation. People move increasingly into an animal's habitat then get their Underroos all in a bunch because their actions create a potential negative reaction, that will affect their pocketbooks.

    Screw wildlife. I gotta protect my investment.

    People p*ss me off sometimes. Okay, most of the time.
    "I am very good at reading women, but I get into trouble for using the Braille method."

    ~ Otterpop ~

  11. #11
    Cyburbian Random Traffic Guy's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lone Star State
    Posts
    629
    If you want to use my land for something else, you need to BUY IT. Otherwise it is MY LAND.


    I guess I'm naive, I was a little surprised you needed a permit to cut down trees on your own land in the first place. Perhaps that is an east of the Mississippi/yankee thing.

  12. #12
    Cyburbian Reductionist's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Swans, Fruits & Nuts
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally posted by Random Traffic Guy View post
    If you want to use my land for something else, you need to BUY IT. Otherwise it is MY LAND.


    I guess I'm naive, I was a little surprised you needed a permit to cut down trees on your own land in the first place. Perhaps that is an east of the Mississippi/yankee thing.
    Yes that's the solution. We'll just start charging the those red headed feathery bastards for access to the trees on your land. That'll teach them to check for the parcel lines at the county property appraiser before flying onto your land.
    "I believe in pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. I believe it is possible. I saw this guy do it once in Cirque du Soleil. It was magical!" -Stephen Colbert

  13. #13
    Cyburbian Random Traffic Guy's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lone Star State
    Posts
    629
    Quote Originally posted by Reductionist View post
    Yes that's the solution. We'll just start charging the those red headed feathery bastards for access to the trees on your land. That'll teach them to check for the parcel lines at the county property appraiser before flying onto your land.
    The brids and I have a deal: I don't bitch about their noise and knocking holes in my timber (much less damaging than the average bureaucrat), and they don't bitch when I cut down a tree here and there.

    Seriously though, instead of the bird protectors ponying up their own funds to protect the birds, or even convincing a majority of people to vote their tax money for it (taking only a small amount from many people), they are forcing a small group of landowners to foot the whole bill for protection. The landowners are only reacting in their best economic interests in making sure they are not designated as protected habitat. Now if the bird protectors were putting their own money into the deal as tourists, or land buyers, the current landowners would not be cutting, but would instead be providing as much bird habitat as possible. But the birds are apparently not important enough to the protectors to use their own money, only other peoples'.

  14. #14
    Cyburbian otterpop's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Down by Dun Ringill
    Posts
    5,895
    Blog entries
    6
    Perhaps the clear cutters should be sent a bill to cover the expense of the increased erosion and damage to flood control their actions have caused their neighbors and their land?

    After all, it is the neighbor's land and they have rights to protect their investment. They should be compensated.
    "I am very good at reading women, but I get into trouble for using the Braille method."

    ~ Otterpop ~

  15. #15
    Cyburbian Random Traffic Guy's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lone Star State
    Posts
    629
    Neighboring properties can sue if they have reason to. If there is damage, they will be compensated. Unlike the clearcutters, who if slapped with a habitat designation are not compensated for their economic loss.

+ Reply to thread

More at Cyburbia

  1. Clearing Snow
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 32
    Last post: 28 Dec 2007, 2:49 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last post: 03 Dec 2005, 10:54 PM