6.Audette, A. 5-11_SMP Update
Long Range Planning
6.Audette, A. 5-11_SMP Update
4/21/2011 2:53:33 PM
11/1/2010 2:34:47 PM
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Page 1 of 1
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
<br />Michelle McConnell <br />From:Al Audette [firstname.lastname@example.org] <br />Sent:Tuesday, May 11, 2010 4:41 PM <br />To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY) <br />Subject:SMP Update <br />Categories:LASMP Public Comment <br />Mr. Stewart, <br />I recently returned from a extended winter vacation to find that once again the state ecology department is <br />attempting to limit the use of my property. I own freshwater waterfront and have for over 30 years. According <br />to the auditor my property is worth more and deserves to be taxed at a higher rate due to my proximity to <br />freshwater. However, with the proposed updates my property will drop in "real value" but remain taxed as a <br />"valuable piece of waterfront." <br /> <br />My property and others nearby are only 150 feet deep. With your proposals I could build on the county road in <br />front of my property, but not on my property! No one is going to want to buy a piece of waterfront they cannot <br />use. No one is going to buy a piece of property they cannot build on because the property is within the <br />proposed 150" buffer. This property is my nest egg. Your overly restrictive proposals will vertually wipe that <br />out. <br /> <br />Why not teach people to ecologically manage waterfront instead of always proposing these knee-jerk ideas that <br />affect the lives of people that have worked their entire lives to own something of value; only to see it disappear <br />in the stroke of a pen; probably the pen of someone who wishes they had waterfront! <br /> <br />Further, why not teach people how to trim the canopy, remove trees and limbs responsibly. We love the eagles, <br />squirrels, and other woodland creatures with which we share our home. We would not do intentional harm to <br />sensible guidelines <br />them. I believe others who enjoy special property feel the same way. We would abide by <br />outlined by the ecology department for responsible trimming etc., but these proposed are excessive and <br />unneccesary. They are so over the top that people are losing the right to enjoy something they have bought and <br />paid for! <br /> <br />A couple of questions: will county and state owned properties, ie. parks, have to abide by these same rules? <br />Will their shoreline/beach access be lost? Will they lose the use of their properties? Somehow I doubt it. <br />Many of the trees that we trim are done so that our lives are protected as we live in an area of dangerous foothill <br />winds. Insurance companies will not pay for damages done by trees that were not properly maintained, as some <br />of my neighbors discovered. I suppose if we call your office a person would come right out and determine if <br />the trees could be trimmed. I suppose there would be no delays or long expensive permitting processes that <br />discourage people from doing the right thing. <br /> <br />As usual, fair, sensible, and responsible minds have disappeared. The only minds left are those looking for <br />power and have no regard for property owners. <br /> <br />Thank you. <br />Al Audette <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.