Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-21-2012, 06:01 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,094 posts, read 26,102,114 times
Reputation: 6130

Advertisements

So do we blame anything on President Nixon - the EPA began under his administration?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-21-2012, 06:04 PM
 
45,374 posts, read 26,646,944 times
Reputation: 25132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
So do we blame anything on President Nixon - the EPA began under his administration?
Sure, I'm in.
See any efforts since to get rid of it?
All I see is it growing like a cancer like the rest of the useless fed gov.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2012, 06:19 PM
 
79,910 posts, read 44,427,722 times
Reputation: 17214
Quote:
Originally Posted by carterstamp View Post
People should have legal recourse..So, yes, good decision.
Just noting that I agree here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2012, 07:41 PM
 
8,483 posts, read 6,957,931 times
Reputation: 1119
I thought there was a court ruling for these people prior to this? FEMA is also a disaster.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2012, 08:17 PM
 
Location: Point Hope Alaska
4,320 posts, read 4,818,753 times
Reputation: 1146
The whole federal government is a (spending) & regulation disaster gone amok!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2012, 08:38 PM
 
Location: Del Rio, TN
39,950 posts, read 26,685,942 times
Reputation: 25885
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistyriverranch View Post
Have you seen the property, Toyman. There is no doubt that it is a wetland.
I have seen videos on the news coverage, it didn't look wet to me. Which is beside the point. The court case doesn't grant them the right to build on property.

It simply gives the landowners an appeals process to often capracious EPA decisions. In this case the owners had a legal building permit. The did some work on the property. The EPA decides that this is a wetlands, demands that they stop work and pay a fine of $75,000 per day. In order to even get a hearing or appeal, they have to pay $200,000 just to apply for the appropriate federal permit. They have no appeals path until they did so.

Until this case. The EPA is all too often an agent for de-facto seizure of private property. This case simply says that private land owners get a fair day in court to contest their case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2012, 09:12 PM
 
Location: Lakeside
5,266 posts, read 8,796,926 times
Reputation: 5703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake View Post
I have seen videos on the news coverage, it didn't look wet to me. Which is beside the point. The court case doesn't grant them the right to build on property.

It simply gives the landowners an appeals process to often capracious EPA decisions. In this case the owners had a legal building permit. The did some work on the property. The EPA decides that this is a wetlands, demands that they stop work and pay a fine of $75,000 per day. In order to even get a hearing or appeal, they have to pay $200,000 just to apply for the appropriate federal permit. They have no appeals path until they did so.

Until this case. The EPA is all too often an agent for de-facto seizure of private property. This case simply says that private land owners get a fair day in court to contest their case.
The Sackett's had a building location permit, but the county does require landowners to check the possibility of wetlands with the maps they supply online. The county has nothing to do with wetlands in thier location permitting. This is how we knew to have our property checked for wetlands.
Had they done the necessary due diligence that they were supposed to have done, they could have avoided the whole mess.

The Sacketts’ Wetland Mapped | Kootenai Environmental Alliance


You'd have thought the Sackett's also might have known something was up when they paid only $23,000 for land within a few hundred feet of the lake.

Again, I am glad about the SCOTUS ruling, but these people were not exactly lambs to the slaughter. But at least they got the backing to get it to the supreme court.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2012, 06:39 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,311,130 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucidkitty View Post
I see you have been drinking the kool aide again. Since lower courts have repedeatly sided with the EPA on this issue they won't win.
Um.. they DID win, EPA lost
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2012, 06:44 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,311,130 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistyriverranch View Post
I do agree with you. But I have to say...the Sackett's just really tick me off. And a lot of other local people. This lake is a pristine gem and no one really wants to see it ruined by stupid development.
Um, the lake is a pristine gem, despite all of the stupid development taking place around it

Tell me why the Sackett's are any different than eveyone else who built and developed around the lake?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2012, 09:03 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,998,922 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Um.. they DID win, EPA lost
They won the right to sue the EPA.

The EPA said they couldn't sue until they'd exhausted all other avenues to resolve the issue. The Sacketts said that as long as the EPA was identifying other avenues, the Sacketts were in an indefinite limbo, which was unfair to the landowners. The court agreed that the EPA's ability to posit various ways to resolve the conflict allowed the EPA to stonewall landowners rather than actually arriving at a resolution, and that the court route was as valid a route to resolution as any other path. So now the Sacketts can sue the EPA. And while that may be a setback for the EPA, in terms of the real issue of whether this land is wetlands (the Sacketts are going to have a hard time proving otherwise), and whether the Sacketts can develop this land, or if they can be compensated for their losses, nothing has been decided.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:29 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top