Delaware Landowners going too far!
05-12-2006, 10:42 AM
#11
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wilmington Delaware USA
Posts: 699
RE: Delaware Landowners going too far!
I was wondering when the hate mail would start! 
I'll respond to all the capitalism purest tonight.
How about this, eminant domain to SAVE land from development, not take it away too develop it. Now thats something for the good of all society!
Go ahead boys, let her rip!
I'll respond to all the capitalism purest tonight.How about this, eminant domain to SAVE land from development, not take it away too develop it. Now thats something for the good of all society!
Go ahead boys, let her rip!
05-12-2006, 01:12 PM
#13
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Allston MA USA
Posts: 533
RE: Delaware Landowners going too far!
I agree that its her land and she should be able to do whats she sees fit. In this case, I do think she is selfish to not think of the envoronment, but it is her land.
However, On the flip side. Compete "hands off" attitude dosn'talways work when the general welfare of the environment and public are at stake. If I own300 acres of land, and decide to lease it to a chemical company to dump toxins. Is that OK?? After all, it is my land right?? Off course not. Landowners still should be held accountable when their actions effect others.
However, On the flip side. Compete "hands off" attitude dosn'talways work when the general welfare of the environment and public are at stake. If I own300 acres of land, and decide to lease it to a chemical company to dump toxins. Is that OK?? After all, it is my land right?? Off course not. Landowners still should be held accountable when their actions effect others.
05-12-2006, 02:14 PM
#15
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 8,167
RE: Delaware Landowners going too far!
ORIGINAL: jf5
I agree that its her land and she should be able to do whats she sees fit. In this case, I do think she is selfish to not think of the envoronment, but it is her land.
However, On the flip side. Compete "hands off" attitude dosn'talways work when the general welfare of the environment and public are at stake. If I own300 acres of land, and decide to lease it to a chemical company to dump toxins. Is that OK?? After all, it is my land right?? Off course not. Landowners still should be held accountable when their actions effect others.
I agree that its her land and she should be able to do whats she sees fit. In this case, I do think she is selfish to not think of the envoronment, but it is her land.
However, On the flip side. Compete "hands off" attitude dosn'talways work when the general welfare of the environment and public are at stake. If I own300 acres of land, and decide to lease it to a chemical company to dump toxins. Is that OK?? After all, it is my land right?? Off course not. Landowners still should be held accountable when their actions effect others.
Maybe she just doesn't like trees!
05-12-2006, 05:40 PM
#16
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wilmington Delaware USA
Posts: 699
RE: Delaware Landowners going too far!
Let me first addressbawanajim and Sylvan. I love listening to everyone's opinions, pro and con. But since you all decided to go with the smart ass approach, allow me to retort. Let's see genius, I have Bachelors Degree in Business, within a month I'm hoping I'll be a CPA and have worked 13 years in the Financial Services industry. I think i have a little bit of knowledge about Capitalism, Free Markets, Property Rights and so on. And as to your Rights comment, if your talking about this part of the 5th Amendment "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation" , I don't believe Isaid they should take her property. I did a second post that mentioned Eminent Domain for land conservation. I did this just to get everyone all fired up. I don't believe in it. Never have. Just wanted to throw it out there and see what others thought. So, I suggest you do a little more thinking before you attack someone on a subject. There are plenty of people here who disagree with the original post and didn't approach it with "when you graduate high school, you'll understand things". So to you two I say, start threads on business concepts, the Bill of Rights etc., in another forum and I'll debate with you until your fingers fall off. Until then, bite me.
As for Pro-Line and your comment:
No, I wont be voting for Hillary in the 08 election, but roll out any other
democrat and they will get my vote. I've always voted Republican, but not this time. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, 'I was a Republican, I didn't
abandon the Republican Party, the Republican Party abandoned me' But
again, if you would like to discuss the 2008 election, please start a
thread and we can debate it there. I can go on and on and on,,,,,
Now, back to the real topic at hand, destroying the environment on your
land, like woman in the article, just because its been designated for
possible preservation. In a previous article, the DNREC spokesman made it clear that just because its green on the map, doesnt mean it cant be developed. These were just lands that were considered enviornmentally important and it should be taken into consideration before development rights are granted. Hell they already trimmed the areas they want to designate by 200K acres! The arguement that just designating land for possible preservation wipes out the property value is just wrong and I dont buy the womans statement that she didnt do it for spite. She did it for spite and also to manipulate the land designation for her own selfish wishes. To hell with the trees, wildlife, etc, as long as I can get my millions on demand with no hassles. Its greedy, its wrong, plain and simple!
Now I agree that its NOT right for the state to simply take a persons property or even prevent them from selling it if they desire. But I dont think its unreasonable to make landownerstake a few extra steps in the process or even make them listen to alternative selling options if they own enviornmentally important properties. In the end, if the state cant either a) come up with enough fair compensation for the property, or b) cant convince they landowner to take a little less than a developer is offering for the sake of the enviornment then you have to let them do what they want to do.
The point im trying to make is, the state needs to come up with a plan to persuade landowners to preserve land and slow down sprawl until such plan can be developed. Landowners need to look inside themselves a little deeper before they just sell to the highest bidder. And people like the woman in the article, well, I think I made myself clear about what I think about people like that and what should be done to them. They should be ashamed of themselves.
As for Pro-Line and your comment:
Me thinksYOU will be voting Clinton 2008....
democrat and they will get my vote. I've always voted Republican, but not this time. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, 'I was a Republican, I didn't
abandon the Republican Party, the Republican Party abandoned me' But
again, if you would like to discuss the 2008 election, please start a
thread and we can debate it there. I can go on and on and on,,,,,
Now, back to the real topic at hand, destroying the environment on your
land, like woman in the article, just because its been designated for
possible preservation. In a previous article, the DNREC spokesman made it clear that just because its green on the map, doesnt mean it cant be developed. These were just lands that were considered enviornmentally important and it should be taken into consideration before development rights are granted. Hell they already trimmed the areas they want to designate by 200K acres! The arguement that just designating land for possible preservation wipes out the property value is just wrong and I dont buy the womans statement that she didnt do it for spite. She did it for spite and also to manipulate the land designation for her own selfish wishes. To hell with the trees, wildlife, etc, as long as I can get my millions on demand with no hassles. Its greedy, its wrong, plain and simple!
Now I agree that its NOT right for the state to simply take a persons property or even prevent them from selling it if they desire. But I dont think its unreasonable to make landownerstake a few extra steps in the process or even make them listen to alternative selling options if they own enviornmentally important properties. In the end, if the state cant either a) come up with enough fair compensation for the property, or b) cant convince they landowner to take a little less than a developer is offering for the sake of the enviornment then you have to let them do what they want to do.
The point im trying to make is, the state needs to come up with a plan to persuade landowners to preserve land and slow down sprawl until such plan can be developed. Landowners need to look inside themselves a little deeper before they just sell to the highest bidder. And people like the woman in the article, well, I think I made myself clear about what I think about people like that and what should be done to them. They should be ashamed of themselves.
05-12-2006, 06:46 PM
#17
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 102
RE: Delaware Landowners going too far!
I most of missed the part of the article that was so bad. The Logging? What's wrong with that, it's probably the best thing that can happen for most land if it's done right and they didn't say it wasn't.
05-12-2006, 06:48 PM
#18
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Townsend, DE US
Posts: 6,429
RE: Delaware Landowners going too far!
Duck the property you had me check on at Rt 6 & 9 , Someone just bought 25 acres for 250 g's and kept 2 acres for a homesite and sold the develpoment rights to the state on the rest of it for
$9,000 per acre. So he will end up with about 70 G in it . The corner has not been sold, the part was sold is from the farmhouse West 25 acres.. You need to get on this it is across the street from your lease.l...
$9,000 per acre. So he will end up with about 70 G in it . The corner has not been sold, the part was sold is from the farmhouse West 25 acres.. You need to get on this it is across the street from your lease.l...
05-12-2006, 07:28 PM
#19
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 8,167
RE: Delaware Landowners going too far!
So you just thru this out there to see what ya got back at yadoes it suprise u that when you rite like a child u get responded too like a child.
For some one that says that they ben to schole your cents of rite an wronge don't fill your smart shoes.
Save a tree eat a beaver!!!!!!!
And get a real job!
05-12-2006, 07:50 PM
#20
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wilmington Delaware USA
Posts: 699
RE: Delaware Landowners going too far!
So you just thru this out there to see what ya got back at yadoes it suprise u that when you rite like a child u get responded too like a child.
For some one that says that they ben to schole your cents of rite an wronge don't fill your smart shoes.
Save a tree eat a beaver!!!!!!!
And get a real job!
For some one that says that they ben to schole your cents of rite an wronge don't fill your smart shoes.
Save a tree eat a beaver!!!!!!!
And get a real job!