Is the Wakulla Wetlands Alliance setting up taxpayers for a huge bail out of property owners? Consider this - the U.S. Constitution says private property shall not be taken for public good without compensation and courts have held previously that public good has a wide definition. This is what most of us know as eminent domain and we most recognize it when the county needs to take a slice of the front of your property to pave roads - and for which you are compensated. The Wetlands Alliance is on the record saying that the taking of areas around wetlands above what the state and federal governments regulate is necessary for overall eco-economy and for overall public good. The difference between the county paving the road and the Wetlands Alliance is the Alliance is couching the seizure your property in terms of we have a right to vote and you wont be compensated for the loss of your land. Comm. Thomas has already documented that under the wetlands ordinance the area around an isolated wetland on your property cant mowed trimmed or altered in any way. Does this sound like private property or how we manage our land? All you will be able to do is stare at what was once your property way the way stare at the road except you werent compensated for loss of your land like were when a road is built. The Wetlands Alliance will render your land around wetlands useless. Our commissioners have sounded the alarm and know full well whats coming: lawsuits such those that have already cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars. These commissioners have called the wetlands ordinance what it is - a taking of private property for a public good without compensating landowners and is a financial and legal disaster in the making for our county and taxpayers who have and will continue to pay the bills. The Wetlands Alliance doesnt see it this way. They dont even believe in the concept of private property. Consider Jack Rudloe who wrote to hell with private property and Sue Damon who posted on her Facebook page that man owns his property subject the communitys right to regulate it. All this is well documented on our and others pages. They speak of eco-tourism but the areas of our county that are visited by eco-tourists are already in state and national parks that rightfully never be developed. Approximately 70 to 80 per cent of our county is in these protected and managed areas, including most all of our wetlands. What is the real goal: the halting of all growth in our county. Many Wetlands Alliance supporters have spoken about stopping strip malls and not ruining the views around coast lines. Ironically, Comm. Thomas has documented how many of the Alliance members live in coastal property and with in some cases with homes that couldnt built had construction been proposed with the wetlands ordinance in effect. The Alliance doesnt want their view ruined, we suppose. But the Alliance instead of acknowledging these things simply attack individuals who want to use the property how members the Alliance have used theirs and accuse them of wanting to make money. From what we see the only ones benefiting from the Wetlands Alliance will be the members who stand to see their land value sky rocket with less land to build on and whos members stand to benefit from eco-tourism that they constantly speak of. Its our turn to ask who benefits from the Wetlands Alliance. It certainly isnt the landowners who lose the use of their land nor taxpayers who will continue to pay the legal bills.
Posted on: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:53:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015