Stopping Yuppie Starter Castles: Hey Greenhorn...

[JoseCuervo]

Here is one set of subdivisions in Idaho that were stopped of Yuppie Starter Castles. Perhaps those concerned with this menace might help fund these organization's fights????

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Teton Valley Subdivisions:

An Idaho state court judge has overturned Teton County's approval of two large subdivisions in the Teton Valley. Advocates for the West represented Valley Advocates for the Responsible Development "VARD", a rapidly growing organization headquartered in Driggs, Idaho.

The companion projects, named "Fox Springs" and "Fox Meadows", proposed 60 new homes spread across 200 acres adjacent to Fox Creek and a complex of wetlands and springs, near the Teton River. Separate septic systems were proposed for each home, to be installed into groundwater measured at between 6 and 11 feet below the surface.

The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality estimated the projects, at full build-out, would likely quadruple the amount of nitrate pollution in underlying groundwater, which bubbles up at the nearby springs and then flows to the Teton River. VARD members draw their drinking water from the same aquifer.

The court decided the County had violated due process requirements, as well as Idaho state law, in approving subdivisions.

The Teton Valley has been identified as a hot-spot for biodiversity in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, providing habitat for imperiled Yellowstone cutthroat trout, moose, grizzly bear, and far more.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[Hangar18]

That's great! Good post Gunner.

60 homes on 220 acres = SPRAWL, the plague of the west. Notwithstanding the environmental impacts, this trend is contageous. Glad they stopped this one.

People are starting to get it. The last local election in Boise saw all pro-growth candidates elected mayor and to the city council.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I've spent a lot of time hunting that mountainous country just above there on the Wyoming side, and actually have hunted a little right there in lower Fox Creek. There are plenty of castles in those parts. It would be a shame to see that place continue to get developed, but I doubt there will be much success in stopping it. There are a few ranches in there, some of which I'm sure are what you like to call welfare ranches. Out with the welfare ranches, in with the castles baby! The property values and school district wealth is soaring I'm sure.

 

[beardown]

Damn greenies......How am I supposed to pay for my hunting trips if I cant get no work, cuz all the greenies are shuttin down the projets?

 

[Bambistew]

The west needs more stringent environmental laws. The east is ten times worse.

Aside form this particular peice of property,
I just love hypocrites… It’s ok for them to live there but if anyone else moves in and wants to build a new house and develop property then they are outsiders and are destroying the land… How the hell do you think their houses got there? Magic? But that’s ok because they’ve lived there for the last 10-50+ years…

Isn’t it better to consolidate all those people into one small impact area than it would be to spread them out over 40 acres a piece?

I think we would be pretty hard pressed to find a single one of us that would turn down 2-40 acre lot that border the forest that we like to hunt, a river we like to fish, or even another large piece of property for that matter. I know I would love to live on a nice little spread away form all the people. Are you guys saying that you would rather live in town elbow to elbow to your neighbor listening to their dogs bark instead of having a little breathing room? Bozeman, Missoula, Jackson Hole, etc. are full of these people… But it was all ok when they moved in 10-20 years ago… Boulder, CO is a prime example of this… There is a city ordinance to limit the number of houses that can be constructed there, basically one has to be torn down before another can be erected. Again it was ok for the people that live there now cause they got nothing to worry about.

Hmmm never noticed the trend there… Bozeman, Missoula, Boulder, what do the all have in common… A high percentage of asshole granolas that moved in from god knows where in the last 10-15 years that are now trying to save to world from the rest of us...

Sure I understand that some areas need to be protected from development such as this one but… Its private land, if they want to subdivide it then go for it, if the county and state approve it then to bad for you. Money makes the world go around and unfortunately that means development. I guess I am a little biased since that’s my line of work, but most of us are hypocrites, me included…

Sorry to say this but the west is just starting to be developed… give it a couple more decades and it will be just like the eastern half of the US…

 

[Nemont]

Bambistew,
I am glad you said because that is exactly the same thoughts I had.

(I got here first and now these "newcomers" dare come in here and want to build a home. This will ruin the lifestyle I have been worked so hard to achieve.)

Sounds a lot like what they accuse ranchers of saying.

EG, if this is private land and the land owner wants to develop it why shouldn't they be allowed to. Isn't that capitalism?

Not that I am for more development or more people. Just want to hear the debate.

Nemont

P.S. You are right about Bozeman and Missoula being full of these kind of people. I guess that is why I scratch out a living out here on the eastern plains.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-15-2004 11:15: Message edited by: Nemont ]</font>

 

[Washington Hunter]

People need to stay in the cities where they belong. With all these immigrants coming in to our country, legally and illegally, there's no chance in hell the human population is ever going to stabilize, it's just going to continue increasing, forever and ever, until there is nowhere left to build a house, and no place left to hunt. The population increases, and everybody wants to live out in the country on 40 acres (me included.) So really, there is no way to stop the loss of open space and wildlife habitat. Mexico is taking over California, and Californians are desperately moving away to places like Washington and Oregon to get some breathing room. People with enough money and of the right age are retiring and moving to Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. All these people want to live out in the country. Conservation easements are one solution, but there just isn’t enough money to protect everything. I think what we need is a way to encourage more people to live in the cities where people belong. How about no property tax if you live within the city limits? If somehow the cities could be made to be more appealing to live in, and cheaper, more people may decide it’s alright to live there, as long as they are living cheap enough so they can afford to get away to the country whenever they want for recreation and relaxation. I’m also beginning to think that maybe these welfare ranchers aren’t so bad after all, sure many of them don’t take care of the public land like they would if it was their own, but if having that public land to graze their cattle on is enough to keep them there and the developers out, then maybe it’s not so bad. All I know is the government needs to somehow make living in cities more affordable to encourage people to cram into the cities, kind of like they do in China.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Nemont,

The reason these subdivisions (Teton Valley) needed to be stopped, was due to the high water table and the Septic systems.

I am not convinced that Yuppie Starter Castles are quite the scourge of the West that Welfare Ranchersare. But, if you are goiing to stop development, it will be a tough approach to tell somebody they can't develop their private land, after their neighbor already has. That is why using the ESA or a DEQ regualation would be more effective, as they are "trump" cards.