Flathead Beacon | Comments

By didjaknow on 04-06-08

I am very grateful that this ‘subdivision wasn’t approved on day 1.’ Just immediately west of it is a subdivision with houses that have not sold or ever been lived in. Why there is a need for 290 MORE houses is beyond me. That is outside of the issue of having those with ‘development’ experience trying to continue to buy up the little remaining open access to Flathead Lake. This subdivision just isn’t needed or warrented - if it were - potential buyers would have balanced out those speaking at the meeting.

By didjaknow on 04-06-08

The reason there is public opinion on issues that public officials make decisions is that those that are affected by private actions have a voice.

Your comments don’t make sense. If a private company wanted to open a landfill or a corrections facility and those with in sight, smell and running distance of the proposed site can’t speak up...we might as well live in a communist country.

Like I said - there are numerous numerous empty houses within 2 square miles of this proposed development. There is no need for 290 MORE.

If there was a viable need for more housing - or horse properties - it would be another story. On Saturday - there was a marathon open house in the Lower Valley Area - 14 homes were opened. They all were horse properties. That doesn’t include the half empty subdivision immediately west of this proposed site.

They can take their private actions to their own backyard. They are not North Shore residents.

By Roark on 04-07-08

didjaknow,

YOU SAID,"The reason there is public opinion on issues that public officials make decisions is that those that are affected by private actions have a voice.”
---Agreed.

YOU SAID,"If a private company wanted to open a landfill or a corrections facility and those with in sight, smell and running distance of the proposed site can’t speak up...we might as well live in a communist country.”
---I should clarify something, I favor nuisance laws, as opposed to zoning laws where the gov’t dictates a one-size-fits-all mandate, a nuisance law would deal with the scenario that you just listed above mono-e-mono. If there is demonstrable pollution or damage than one could appeal to the nuisance laws for redress, compensation, or nixing the project altogether.

YOU SAID,"Like I said - there are numerous numerous empty houses within 2 square miles of this proposed development. There is no need for 290 MORE.”
---That is simply a matter of your personal opinion. Why should anyones opinion on an ‘appropiate’ number of homes be relevant at all to a private venture? What if I said that I don’t like red houses in my neighborhood because I don’t like the color. It’s unjustifiable. Matters of taste are not objective criteria.

YOU SAID,"If there was a viable need for more housing - or horse properties - it would be another story.”
---What do you constitute as a ‘viable’ need.-and why is your judgment correct?-by what standard do you make the assumption?

By Roark on 04-08-08

didjaknow,

YOU SAID,"The facts are - the developers wanted initially over 350 new homes to be built then whittled the number down to 290. It is not my personal opinion whether or not there are new homes built that have not sold in the past 2 years - 100 yards from this new proposed development - it is a fact.”
---And your point is…

YOU SAID,” The supply already over meets the existing demand for housing in this area.”
---If the supply exceeds the demand, what matters it to you, it’s the developers property, not yours. That’s his decision to make.

YOU SAID,"It is about the developer buying up the last little bit of undeveloped lakefront on the North Shore.”
---So by your very statements you oppose a man’s right to private property use if it doesn’t fit your esthetic requirements.