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 03-22-2012, 09:08 AM
 
Location: Lakeside
5,266 posts, read 8,804,636 times
Reputation: 5703

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
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?
Uh...the other people didn't build on wetlands? What "stupid development taking place around it"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-22-2012, 09:58 AM
 
Location: Louisiana
9,172 posts, read 5,851,668 times
Reputation: 7762
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
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?


The picture appears to show that the lot in
question is surrounded by other houses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2012, 10:02 AM
 
Location: Lakeside
5,266 posts, read 8,804,636 times
Reputation: 5703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speleothem View Post
The picture appears to show that the lot in
question is surrounded by other houses.
Which picture? (The picture in the article from the original post is not of the Sackett's land) The Sackett's land has houses across a small road on the lake side. Those houses are right on the water. The other 3 sides have no development because of standing water in marshes.

Last edited by mistyriver; 03-22-2012 at 10:12 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2012, 10:12 AM
 
8,483 posts, read 6,961,183 times
Reputation: 1119
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistyriverranch View Post
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.
I don't know the details here, but the maps can be inaccurate. If they hired professionals who did survey checks then that could be problematic. I don't imagine it is standard to check for wetland areas if a regular survey isn't showing it.

I know FEMA has screwed up many times w/ their maps and assessments. I have been told by several professional surveyors just how bad FEMA has been on dragging their heels, stonewalling and assessing poorly and inaccurately. They have a Zone A, which is a joke. Should read the definition. The local govts, as well as individuals really are in danger of the fed govt just controlling it all.

I mean FEMA's slogan is "Everybody is in a flood zone."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2012, 10:13 AM
 
Location: Louisiana
9,172 posts, read 5,851,668 times
Reputation: 7762
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistyriverranch View Post
Which picture? (The picture in the article from the original post is not of the Sackett's land) The Sackett's land has houses across a small road on the lake side. Those houses are right on the water. The other 3 sides have no development because of standing water in marshes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2012, 10:13 AM
 
201 posts, read 471,993 times
Reputation: 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistyriverranch View Post
Uh...the other people didn't build on wetlands? What "stupid development taking place around it"?
One man's mud puddle = another man's wetlands

One man's dream home = another man's "stupid development"

There is a lot of-" I was here first all others stay out"-
I have not seen this lot but I do know that The Environment will be ok if the house ever gets built there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2012, 10:16 AM
 
Location: Lakeside
5,266 posts, read 8,804,636 times
Reputation: 5703
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr View Post
I don't know the details here, but the maps can be inaccurate. If they hired professionals who did survey checks then that could be problematic. I don't imagine it is standard to check for wetland areas if a regular survey isn't showing it.

I know FEMA has screwed up many times w/ their maps and assessments. I have been told by several professional surveys just how bad FEMA has been on dragging their heels, stonewalling and assessing poorly and inaccurately. They have a Zone A, which is a joke. Should read the definition. The local govts, as well as individuals really are in danger of the fed govt just controlling it all.

I mean FEMA's slogan is "Everybody is in a flood zone."
Yes, except that the land does have water on it around the fill piles and wetland plants. (Except of course, I could be lying as Roysoldboy pointed out and have never seen the place nor live nearby.)

Doesn't matter anyway. The Sackett's can now proceed to try and have the land declared non-wetlands and we'll see who will prevail.

If it really isn't wetlands, well good for them and I hope they build their dream home. If it is, they shouldn't be able to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2012, 10:19 AM
 
Location: Lakeside
5,266 posts, read 8,804,636 times
Reputation: 5703
That is the picture. All the houses are on the lake side. You can easily see the willows and spirea all around the built up area. They only grow in wetlands. The Sackett's lot is dry because they filled it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2012, 10:21 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,950 posts, read 19,633,440 times
Reputation: 9689
oh please...its not 'wetlandss'

wet lands is a government land steal

the fact they bought the land fair and square...they should be allowed to build what they want
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2012, 10:22 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,950 posts, read 19,633,440 times
Reputation: 9689
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistyriverranch View Post
That is the picture. All the houses are on the lake side. You can easily see the willows and spirea all around the built up area. They only grow in wetlands. The Sackett's lot is dry because they filled it.
oh please...then all of florida could be 'classified' as a 'wetland'

its their land
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.

© 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