Quote:
Originally Posted by hymalaia
I could be wrong but this sounds more like an issue of local attitudes in conflict rather than the big bad federal gorge commission screwing over helpless little property owners. I'll try and read more up on this including the supreme court link as time allows.
|
Definitely read that WA state Supreme Court link. The information is very enlightening about the situation and shows specifically where the GCC erred substantially. Also, when the changes to the Beas' plans were shown to or discovered by Skamania county, the county decided they weren't a big deal and still continued to allow the building, as per their right. All these details are in the link.
The Bea family wasn't necessarily cherry-picking which laws to abide by and which ones not to. Yes, they made some slight changes to their land as necessary to build and
absolutely should have had those changes approved before continuing. But when those changes were allowed by the county, who has the final say when none of the "interested parties" objects, then that really should have been the end of it. As an "interested party" the GCC neglected their responsibility by failing to submit their objections within the legal time frame to do so, particularly since they were notified of all information giving them plenty of notice. By not filing any objections, they showed
approval of the home.
Essentially, the GCC was attempting to set a precedence that would allow them to avoid any and all time frames already established by the Columbia River Gorge Scenic Act which would enable them to retroactively object to any project and any time. Can you imagine having built a home within all of their guidelines 10 years previous and still have to tear it down because someone on the commission felt it wasn't "in line with the Columbia River Gorge Scenic Act"?