|

04-05-2007, 08:28 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Port Hueneme, CA
283 posts, read 339,583 times
Reputation: 68
|
|
I agree; but there are ways to do both
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellie
This is a personal bias, and one that may only be shared by locals who have nothing to gain from increased development. People are doing a disservice to any beautiful undeveloped area by recommending it to others on this site. That's the quickest way to destroy it.
Now this is entirely my personal opinion, and I'd say the same thing to someone who wanted to move to Montana or Idaho. It's close to unethical to assume that you have the right, just because it's a free country, that you can come in and plop down your McMansion in an otherwise pastoral landscape at the expense of other's traditional quality of life.
Now I know some people are trying to show off their love of nature and inside knowledge of great places, but it is also highly irresponsible.
And those of you who claim "well everybody's doing it," obviously didn't listen to your mothers back in grade school.
You might as well take a gun and a bulldozer and get to work.
That's my piece for the day. Love you all.
|
Well I definately agree that developers normally take way to much from the land and it's natural beauty. I personally only reccommend well planned developments that contain no less than 33% greenspace if possible. Development just happens to be where my heart is and I feel that if people are willing, they can build and live just about anywhere taking away miminal amounts from the landscape they are intruding on. I have worked on several large developments in the past and I generally work with upscale developments or personal homes for nature lovers. Of course in order to make money especially in when just starting in the business you have to give a little in order to build a business and a reputation of quailty before you can really say exactly what you are willing to do and still have people seeking you out. I find that most people want to have either a small amount of land to care for with plenty of greenery near by or want large acreage so they have room to rome. I haven't seen the specs for the neighborhood I mentioned going into the St. Mary's, Brunwick area in many years but at the time that the development was set be at 67% green space with many protected areas, parks and 2 golf courses. I did not work on this development myself but every development I have contributed to since 1999 have had lo less than 52% green space. The investors I was working with on these communities were always very satisfied with the work and many have come back to me over and over again because even though they aren't disturbing as much of nature's habitat they are able to place just as many homes and actually profit more than they would if they had completely filled in. Many, many environmental contracts are available thru government and public funding in place to aquire 99 year leases these properties ensuring that it can never be built out, as many become protected because these groups preform the neccessary site inspections to prove what types of animal and plant are there and need to be protected. In addition to these additional monies from possible grants; many developers find that HOA dues are actually easier to put into place that maintain the land and also protect it from future build out as well. I can not remember where to find direct access to information for interested parties but I remember first learning of this when Peachtree City, GA was growing at astounding rates back in the 80's and 90's. They may still have any information concerning these grants; although, I am sure they have since been updated and change from region to region. Been out of the business for 2.5 years now and have not kept up with the ever changing rules and policies since then. My interest has never gone away but I am concentrating on the Navy and my college degree.
|
|

04-13-2007, 06:49 PM
|
|
Junior Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
7 posts, read 6,905 times
Reputation: 14
|
|
St. Mary's
Being from the "North" we relocated to GA in November. Be prepared for a different lifestyle....the work here is non-existant, you will have to travel to Brunswick or Jacksonville for decent wages. The housing is definitely different than the north, it's difficult to explain, you have to see it and walk through the houses for sale to get a feel for it. St. Mary's is very pretty, but it's a culture shock. I am speaking from my own experience and I don't want to get anyone angry at me! We have also experienced the schools and they have a standard that is above that of NH - I never thought I would get a note home because my daughter who is in first grade was "only" getting a 79 in Math...
We have run into a few people who really don't like us "Yankees" Yes, they did say that to our faces, but 99% of the people here are so very nice. Get used to "Yes m'am and Miss...(insert first name)
We are moving back north, it's just not for us, the bugs, the bugs, the bugs and I've heard they haven't even arrived yet!
Good luck
|
|

04-25-2007, 08:18 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
20 posts, read 27,984 times
Reputation: 12
|
|
|
is st. mary's that bad i am planning on moving there. st. mary's is one of the few places that people do not talk about on the forums i would like to learn more about this beautiful place. are there opportunities to start your own business there and how are the houses there ? is it more for the retired folks or the working class.
|
|

02-17-2008, 10:10 AM
|
|
Junior Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
8 posts, read 5,535 times
Reputation: 11
|
|
I just returned from St. Marys...
We're getting stationed at Kings Bay in St. Marys so I just returned from a fact finding trip. St. Marys is not for us, so we will be living 20 miles south, in Fernandina Beach, FL.
I thought the minuses of St. Marys were:
-lots of poverty (it's really still a mill town)
-no jobs
-affordable houses were not in good shape, nice houses were $400,000 for 2000 square feet--very overpriced for what the area offers
-very little shopping unless you count a dirty Wal Mart
-biting gnats almost year round make it difficult for kids to play outside
-nothing to do unless you ride around on a golf cart or want to buy a boat
-I didn't think it was "quaint"
-it's more swampy and there's no beach
Pluses were:
-close to the base (which had nice facilities)
-decent schools (low class size)
This is just my opinion, and I respect those of you who like the area. It's just not for us. Fernandina seems to have a lot more to offer for my family and is only 10 minutes from a white sand beach. I saw a ton of kids and families in Fernandina playing outside and supposedly the gnats aren't as bad. They have some beautiful neighborhoods being built up between Yulee and Amelia Island, which is just 22 miles from the base. For families getting transferred there, I suggest you compare the two IN PERSON and find out what works for your lifestyle.
|
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
|
|