Quirky things our government officials try to pass on to us

[dickiebird]

Quote:
"There are all kinds of STINGS attached.!!! This makes the most sense of all you have posted so far!!!

 

[greyfields]

We figure that unless you are getting in excess of $750,000 from the Feds, it's best to decline the grant. You spend that much in audits, documentation, record keeping, post construction audits, tigher/restrictive specifications, federal peons peering over your shoulder, etc. It's a royal complication to put it delicately.

 

[Mac in Wisco]

Quote:
We have hundreds of miles of bike trails in Wisconsin, most built on old rail beds. They are used year round. In the summer they are bicycle and walking trails, in the winter they become part of the even larger snowmobile trail system.

These are not isolated little trails that see little use. They are interconnected into a huge trail system and are well used and draw people from all over.

 

[debilorrah]

Amen. I work in transit.

 

[greyfields]

Quote:
This bothers everyone, everwhere. A few states have already passed lows disallowing this kind of use of condemnation. But even those have already found themselves having to grant deviatons and variances to themselves so they can get certain things done.

The issue of "economic development" means so much to so many people; and of course you have people at many levels of elected government who are just into politics to line their own pockets. Just imagine the nightmare scenario of the rock quarry owner being one (which is what I live in). How many developments do you think have been declined by this individual, who'll sell all the rock for the earthwork?

I would add to your list:

roads
schools
hospitals
community centers
health clinics
eldery care centers
trails, recreation facilities
parks, regional parks
libraries
police stations
fire stations

and the more and more you think about a City and it's needs, the list tends to grow. It's why over-simplifications of what government should do and should not do tend to fall apart in the extremes.

So, to play devil's advocate, there are programs called "Transportation Parternship" where private developments, through part of the mitigation for building their homes or shopping centers, have to commit to also widening streets, adding traffic signals, adding turn lanes, adding bus service, funding schools, etc. So then the local agency throws in some money to do a little more, and then based on this "partnership", the Federal government (via your state highway department) will toss in even more to ensure the projects are adequate, environmentally compliant, functional, etc.

Imagine in the extreme someone putting 1,000 homes into a development. The mitigation required is enormous, since these 4,000 more vehicle trips per day have a serious impact to the economy, standard of living, school system, congestion, etc.

So, basically, the program is then that a private developer is funding the government to add infrastructure improvements... but you have the 90 year old lady with her record shop which is in unavoidable conflict with the new widened roadway? The scenario is your local agency will end up condemning the property, since they are getting free money to do improvemtns, plus through the Parternship scheme getting all kinds of free grant money to augment the improvements with more bus stops, bike connections to regional trails, etc.

In one person's eyes, this is government condemning someone for the profit of other (in this case the housing developer). In other's eyes, including the US Supreme Court, the local agency is legally acting to promote the greater good (which can include economic) at the expense of a private property owner. Ultimately, the money is yours from your taxation; but at the same time, if such partnership and mitigation isn't required, then you are overtly subsidizing developments without any compensation from the people causing the hardship.

ALL these scenarios fall into the grey area, and very quickly.

 

[Rosalind]

Well, here's the thing: Take one recent instance in my neighborhood, where a developer wanted to put 16 condos (4 low income) on a 4 acre wetland that had minimal road frontage (think, too narrow to get a fire truck down). The land hadn't been perced in 15+ years and there's no town sewer. Was originally designated as a private nature reserve, but then the owner died and his kids did something legally funky with it. Developer proposed to build this low income thing, figuring that designation would somehow over-rule all the other objections to his proposal. At the time of his proposal, there were several large 5-8 bedroom 5 bath McMansions going for 1/3-1/2 the cost of building on this bit of nature preserve-ish thing. Wouldn't it be more feasible, if he wants to get his $$ worth, to convert one of the big McMansions into condos and put another apartment over the 3-car garage? The land is already buildable, it's just a modification of the septic system, which is certainly cheaper than starting from scratch. The infrastructure for the building already exists. The construction isn't going to bother the neighbors or the town nearly as much, as they already are used to the idea of a house in that location. Yet for some reason developers never want to take advantage of a down real estate market to buy up and modify existing houses. They'd still make money on the deal. Is it that hard for them to change their business model? I mean, a business model is just an idea, you can change it any time.

*sigh* I would love to see some nice biotech put in an earth-sheltered passive solar/geothermal lab facility near me. It'll never happen though.

 

[I have WHAT in my yard?]

Greyfields you're doing a good job explaining the exigencies of land use and government.

We had our own nightmare when we built our house. The property is uphill and to prevent water run-off from our property to the one downhill of us (separate but also owned by us) we had to cut down 13 trees and install thousands of dollars worth of water mitigation systems.

I was furious at how stupid it is to cut down trees to mitigate run off, but the law exists to force developers to make sure water stays on their land......

But, I don't know what they are going to do here now. We have two sizable developments that are half done and now sit empty and idle and another project - huge shopping center that cleared all of the land 20 acres down to the dirt and then ran out of capital and walked away. I suspect they'll find financing as the market's settle some, but for now it is causing mudslides down hill into another development. (The silt fences are just simply overwhelmed. It has been raining ha d here for three days.)

 

[birdnutz]

All of these were on the ballot this year. 28 million for a new detention center. Thats 5M cheaper 2 hours away. They stated that it's the difference in labor and materials. 12 million for a seperate lunch room in a school that the state is paying for and 1.9 million for a new animal shelter. They never even looked into any grants for these projects. None passed.
I do not believe in eminent domain. DM&E railroad has been trying for years to do that in South Dakota,northern Wyoming to get into the coal line. There's already 2 RR there. They want to force people to give up their land to allow a totally unnecessary 3rd RR in. If I own something and don't want to sell I should be allowed to ask what ever I want for it. Not be forced to sell at an extremely lowered price.
We have a really nice bike trail that was paid for totally with grants.

 

[Leah-yes I know I'm crazy]

To really grasp the scope of why this is such a bad idea one must live in Michigan and see the incredible, constant tradition of misuse of government money in the broad spectrum for projects unwanted by the people that ultimately pay for it and influence of regulation to stiffle positive growth. The state supports (through incentives, and use of emminent domain, and tax breaks, free utility infastructure costs) the growth of businesses that pay minnimum wage with no bennefits and taxes the heck out of any corporation that is established and successful or happens to be owned and opperated by someone who actually lives here.
If this same amount of money were being paid to put low income people in training programs such as truck driving school, transportation management, etc...it would be a better long term service to the community. Let us all have jobs and free us from costly unfair government regulation first then we can build our own bike paths based on safety decisions, not the random uneducated opinions of people who live in DC.