Are you nuts?
oftwominds
Here in King County they passed a 'growth ordinance' back in 1993. People who had owned 5 acre tracts of land to the east of the Seattle suburbs suddenly found that all they could do was build ONE house on those five acre tracts. No more subdividing the land. The tree-huggers in Seattle were all full of glee about it -- though they will never even visit these areas in their lifetime. The idea was to 'protect' this area from too much growth and 'save' it. The end result was to significantly drive up home prices in the County, drive gowth MUCH further out, and either make housing less affordable or commutes longer and more expensive.
But it gets worse. I have friends who own some of these now minimum 5 acre tracts. Want to cut a tree down? Good luck. The county takes aerial photos (in detail) and compares them periodically. Cut a few trees and find yourself facing stiff fines. Fill in a puddle larger than 5 feet across and you may be cited for wetland destruction.
And forget about cutting invasive weeds like blackberry, since that is now considered 'natural habitat'. Of your five acres, you really get to use no more than 1/3 of it, and the rest has to stay they way it is/was. What sense does all this make? One of them has tried to get a permit to do a little work on their property. The county has neither denied it nor approved it -- a common occurance.
The county follows a path of passive-aggresive response to growth. Do nothing. In the meantime my friends have spent many thousands of doallars in submission fees seeking approval that may never come as there is no downside to doing nothing. I told them to start showing up in person EVERY DAY at the permit offices demanding either approval or denail. This way they can either get going, or sue for lack of approval on no real basis.
No comments:
Post a Comment