Tera's Blog

First - The Day Care... we had this conversation before, but I'll say it again -- to me, fundamentally, no other person or group of people should have the right to tell a property owner what they can or can't do with their own property. I know that this flies in the face of zoning laws all over the country, but to me, personally, those laws are completely unethical and fly in the face of what our forefathers intended. End rant on that topic.

Second - They blame the county because, in all likelihood, the "main drag" road you're referring to is a county road. Thus, the maintenance, lane configuration, traffic layout, etc., are all the county's reponsibility to manage.

Third - Dunkin Donuts is as much a locally owned business as the other two stores are. Dunkin Donuts is a franchise-based business model. Yes, the "name" is national, but that store is owned and operated by a local businessman who has decided to invest in his community, he's simply taking advantage of an existing product and marketing line to make his job a little easier.

Lastly... As to the politicians - I wasn't there, so I don't know the details, but my guess is that there were other patrons there as well, and it would be unfair for one patron to monopolize all three of the "dignitaries". Also, this sort of thing happens all the time. People can't easily walk away when you keep eye contact with them. If you lost eye contact with them long enough that they felt comfortable walking away, it probably means you were making enough eye contact with the supervisor (and he with you) that the other two got the impression it had actually become a one-on-one conversation. This happens all the time in informal meetings (hell, I see it here at work several times a day), especially in informal group gatherings where there are lots of people to mingle with. I think you may be reading way more "insult and offense" into this action than is necessarily warranted.

Derek, Yes - we've had the zoning conversation before. I can't think of one person who agrees with you. Lucky me. :P

Blaming the county for the traffic problem is a cop out. The town is the one that approves/rejects the additional load (more businesses, more development, etc) on the infrastructure. So, if they were THAT concerned about it - they'd reject any future development and blame THAT on the county. ("Sorry, until the county does something with the road to make it safe for everyone, we just can't allow any more development.") Never gonna happen - but that's a solution instead of passing the buck.

Since you weren't there, I'll let you know exactly what happened. They were participating in a conversation and walked away to GRAB A FREAKING DONUT and talk to each other, not to go talk to someone else. And like I said, I wasn't there five minutes. If they can't be bothered to spare that minimal amount of time on one of their constituents, then they shouldn't be politicians.

Re: Zoning ... Some day, when I rule the world, things will be different... until then, though, I simply exercise my right to refuse to buy property where the deed is covered by any neighborhood-association covenant bullshit, and stuff like that. And to stand up for people who want to use their property in their own fashion. A guy's got to at least fight the fight or he has no right to complain about it.

Re: The County/Town thing... Here's the trick: the county won't change a road configuration UNTIL THERE'S A PROBLEM. "lack of development" isn't a problem to the county. Traffic jams, etc., are problems.

On the politician side... I dunno... I've been one of those people who decides "this conversation doesn't involve me any more" and just walked away and gone back to my office. I think it was probably abundantly clear to all three of them that they weren't going to "convince" you, nor that they were ever actually going to get your vote, so your "value" to them was extremely low. Why invest in the hassle of listening to someone complain, if you know any response you give is going to be unsatisfying to the person, *especially* if the opportunity presents itself to get out of the way?

Derek - we're talking about zoning, not HOA's. Big difference. I really don't care what color your mailbox is. I'd just like to be able get out of my driveway and not get creamed. Thanks to poor past planning (say that ten times past) - my road is the only road OUT of my town to the highway. Seems stupid to spend more money to fix a problem that could have been avoiding by planning for viable future development.

Lack of development = less taxes = problem for town AND COUNTY = FIX THE ROAD ALREADY! If someone got hurt/killed at one of these dangerous intersections - could they sue the county? I'm not being snarky, I'm curious.

And do politicians only represent the people that voted for them?? That right there is what's wrong with this country today. I may not have voted for them (or I may have if they ran unopposed - it's a small town), but they still represent me.

oh, btw, the day you rule the planet is the day I start looking for one way flights to Mars.

;)

Zoning/HOA's: the end result is the same though, "you" get to say what "I" do with my property. It's just not right on a moral level. Until you pay me for the ability to control my property, it's mine to do with as I please.

Re: county... you might think like that, but that's not at all how County DOTs think. They have a limited budget. There are a gajillion things they'd like to improve, but can't. They have to attack "problems". Places that are "underdeveloped" aren't "problems" (in fact, they're ideal to the County DOT, because they're underutilized, etc., etc.)... in order for the County DOT to be able to justify spending money on improvements, it's got to reach "problem" status. Otherwise, it's a "pre-emptive improvement" of sorts, and that usually means they demand it be a bond issue, paid for by tax increases, etc., etc.

And no, it requires a LOT of legal wrangling to get a gov't entity on the hook for a dangerous intersection.

Politicians in theory represent all of their constituents, but there's also -- by the very nature of the job -- going to be a minority percentage who disagree with you. Now, if you disagree with them, there's two options for them:

(1) convince you to "see reason" and come to their viewpoint, which is a worthwhile investment, because it'll improve the town's happiness with them, as well as improve their odds of re-election

(2) be convinced by you

Now... clearly #1 wasn't going to happen. Knowing you as I do, I'm suspecting your choice of words, etc., etc., made it abundantly clear (albeit in an extremely polite manner) that these guys were fuckwits who screwed things up. This is not a constituent who can be "brought around". Also, on the same token, they can easily have reached the conclusion in their own minds that they were not going to be swayed by YOU.

In other words, neither side was going to convince the other of the "wrongness" of the other's position. What real "gain" is there in debating the topic with you? If there were other patrons, at the very least, you could argue that a spirited discussion of opposing viewpoints would allow observers to think about the topic themselves, but you said there were none. So there's absolutely no benefit to either party, really, to the debate.

Last comment and then I gotta run for a bit.

Zoning allows for planning for viable, supportable development. Sticking high traffic-drawing developments/businesses haphazzardly will require MORE roads and more infrastructure - which requires more money (taxes) than something that had some forethought.

And I didn't go charging up to them and go into a litany of problems with the way they were running the government. All I said was "Hi, how are you?" before they came back with "So, how are things with the daycare?". They asked, I responded. The supervisor said I gave him something to think about. Unfortunately the only thing the other two were thinking was "Mmmm....glazed donuts....larrrrghhhh."

You buy a piece of property among other reasons for it's location, which includes what you and your neighbors are allowed to do on it. Out in the country, pretty much any thing goes. if you wanted to put in a business, you would buy a property that allows you to. If you didn't mind being next to a high traffic business, you would buy property next to a high traffic business, and probably get it cheaper because of it. but if someone comes in after you own the house and changes the rules, now your house is worth less.