Planning Commission

Zoning!! I knew it!

Remember, you heard it first on etater.com! We warned that this was going to happen?

Or, maybe a mosque? What then?

Bill

when the state purchased the railroad their plan was to use it if needed. waco bought the quarry with the plan to open it when they had a market for their product.they had a plan. the quarry and the railroad was there long before the houses were built.the people who built the houses knew or should have known that the quarry or railroad could be put back into operation.the snowshoe area benefited from a local supply of gravel when it was being built.i didn't hear a lot of complains back then. the value of property has nothing to do with what is right or wrong ,doing so would mean the rich would always be right and the poorer would always be wrong.what you like or don't like has nothing to do with what is right or wrong.people used to use the value of property to discriminate against minorities they didn't like by saying it would devalue their property if minorities bought property in their area.laws were latter passed against this practice . from some of the comments above some people would like to use planning as a way of discriminating against groups of people or ideas and industries they don't like.i believe this is wrong and may be illegal .

Zoning Religion Out of Ann Arbor?
City forced to pay $175,000 in fees to Catholic group that successfully sued for discrimination

By Julianne Nowicki

Published: Monday, March 3, 2008

Updated: Saturday, October 10, 2009

Ann Arbor Township recently paid over $175,000 in legal fees over a lawsuit regarding the use of private property for religious reasons after the United States Supreme Court rejected an appeal to reduce those fees.

The case stems back eight years, when DF Land Development, which manages property for Domino's Farms was denied a permit to use a house for religious purposes. The property is on Dixboro Road, which is northeast of campus, and a short distance from the headquarters of the namesake Domino's Corporation.

Timothy DiLaura, Director of the Apostolate for the Eucharistic Life and DF Land Development, sent a letter to the Ann Arbor Township zoning official asking whether or not the proposed property use under the donation was prohibited by Ann Arbor zoning laws. The zoning official at that time, Michael Moran, responded with a letter that prohibited the proposed land's use.

DiLaura filed an application for a variance in the zoning law, but was denied, leading to a lawsuit against the Township of Ann Arbor and Moran. However, the lawsuit was initially dismissed by the District Court, which said the plaintiffs lacked standing, and that their claims "were not ripe." The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which oversees Michigan, reversed, ruling DF did have standing and "ripe" claims.

As the matter returned to Ann Arbor, the Township's Board of Trustees gave DF Land Development a conditional permit to operate as a "bed and breakfast," which would require that guests be charged a fee for their stay, and would forbid serving alcohol or meals other than breakfast or light snacks.

The Apostolate for the Eucharistic Life, as a Roman Catholic group, invites guests to participate in the Catholic sacrament of Holy Communion. In the Catholic tradition, wine is consumed and theologically seen as Jesus's actual blood.

On November 14, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. In this complaint, they claimed violation under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), arguing Ann Arbor Township's suggestion to change this Apostolate to a bed and breakfast was completely lacking in respect for religious tolerance and diversity.

After another hearing, the District Court concluded that the defendants' bed and breakfast proposal violated RLUIPA. It stated that the defendants could not enforce the bed and breakfast provisions upon the plaintiffs. Ann Arbor Township appealed this judgment, but the District Court affirmed its stance.

After all the quarreling, the plaintiffs requested compensation for attorneys' and court fees. The magistrate judge found the fees to amount to $178,535.61, which the City appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, the Township paid the full amount to the Apostolate.

Thank you very much!

Linda, try this one

Corrupt Officials in Chicago Allowed to Trump Zoning and Planning

Posted by: Tim Halbur

2 January 2009 - 6:00am

In a continuing investigation, the Chicago Tribune reports on the bribes and corruption that have resulted from the Chicago policy of allowing local aldermen final say -- over local zoning and planning -- on what gets built.

"Like so many Chicagoans, Walter and Alice Sopala didn't like how their alderman let a real estate developer build a new condo building that placed their home in its shadows.

And they really don't like it now that the developer—a donor to the alderman's political fund—has abandoned his three-unit project.

"They've boarded up the windows and the doors," said Alice Sopala of the building in the 2900 block of North Sacramento Avenue. "Someone even broke in and stole something, like a jacuzzi. It looks pathetic."

Neighborhoods that recently bustled with teardowns and new construction are now filled with many such unsold homes, testament to a collapsed housing boom with a unique Chicago flavor: Much of the development was fueled by campaign donations to aldermen whose power trumped citywide planning."

Marty, does DAvid Fleming not have an opinion on this?

This was posted over on the Beautiful Pocahontas site.
I agree with it's basis.
It appears to me that Marty is discussing education and economics.
And Norman is locked in on land eminent domain taking the focus off what Marty is talking about.

Staff
Planning Commission vs. Zoning
There is a huge debate over
Planning Commission vs. Zoning
on two other sites here in Pocahontas Co.
One side argues a planning of social-economics while the other side argues land planning.
While there may and probably are overlaps to both sides of this issue by and large the planning commission appears to be more concerned with the social-economics side. And to that effect Martin Saffer who is the major proponet ran on a platform of no eminent domain in the Salty Fork issue. It makes no sense then that his proposed planning commission is mainly targeted to land zoning.
Now if that is wrong Martin you can correct me.
Pocahontas Co needs a plan to grow their economy and social benefits for the people and especially Marlinton.
Several years ago Marlinton was head and shoulders above a little place called Moorefield. Look at the situation now. Marlinton is deterorating and Moorefield is excelling. Why?, because Moorefield had a plan and carried that plan out.
One of the biggest problems I see with the growth is getting business out of the flood plain but keeping it close.
There is an area of land that looks extremely developable out around the water tower. It doesn't have to involve eminent domain. But it would benefit both the land owner(s) and the CC to talk aboout developing that land.
The owners may not want to sell but they could do something like the original land owners of the area where Dallas Texas sits. They leased the land for development.
This would fall within the overlap of both sides of this issue. Anyhow it is a thought.

If you will read again my two posts on this page you will see that the statement "his proposed planning commission is mainly targeted to land zoning" is not at all accurate. Planning is a vastly complicated weave of infrastructure, education, job and opportunity creation, community health initiatives, environment, compatibility of land uses, and community values. I hope that this needed discussion about community planning will not be high-jacked to the rusty and worn side rails of the same old boring talk and "bug-a-boos" about "zoning".

It is far easier to cut down than to build up. Regardless of our personal beliefs, the County must eventually come up with a some sort of a plan. It is an unproductive distraction to discuss the pros and cons of planning. What we need to do is to make the planning process work for us.
The first step is to put down, in writing, who we are and what we want Pocahontas County to become. That may be easier to do than it might appear. Most of us can agree that job opportunities are good and discouraging economic development is bad. And that preserving our wildness is good and high-rises on every ridge line are bad. And that a handful of wealthy people and corporations should not be allowed to control our future.
It is easy to disagree. It is much more productive to strive for agreement.
The give-and-take on this blog is a useful part of the process. But many are excluded from Internet-based debates.
What is needed is a way for anyone who is interested to participate. Get involved. Work to express our common interests. Focus on what brings us together, not on what pulls us apart.
It can start with a call for a series of meetings in each Pocahontas County region. Meetings where everyone is welcome to share their views and listen to their neighbors.
Developing a plan for the County's future is too important to be left to a few loud voices. To produce a plan that will serve us well, we need to encourage and involve everyone who is interested in our future.
Rich Laska

People have opinions on a range of issues. It is good to have an opinion.
Every now and then, people who can think would do well to check their opinions and beliefs against other conditions, places, times and events. Just to see what works. And what does not work.
This is especially true about the issue of planning and government regulation. In the past few weeks, the God of nature has presented us with two clear alternative visions. Visions of the effects of planning and government regulations. God wants us to observe and to learn.
One example is Haiti. In Haiti, where there is little planning and no effective government regulation, an earthquake shook the capitol and killed more than 200,000 people. Haiti is a political, social and economic basket case and one of the poorest nations on the planet.
The other example is Chile. In Chile, where there is careful planning and strict government regulation, an earthquake and tsunami many times the size of the one that hit Haiti shook a huge area and killed, at most, a few hundred people. Chile is a thriving democracy with a dynamic and growing economy.
Folks who oppose planning and government regulation apparently think that Pocahontas County in particular, and America in general, should model our future on the example of Haiti.
I disagree.

Rich Laska