"The Natural Resources of our County are in danger of exhaustion..." Teddy Roosevelt
I agree.
I think the Natural Resources are in much better hands with individual private property owners than the county or large developers.
This lawsuit is about taking property rights without compensation on property that has been private for generations. The county is going to make a free for all for the economic benefit of some businessmen and developers (AKA power brokers). That would dramatically increase the rate of exhaustion of our natural resources.
The county's lawsuit states that is it ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute, but did not provide any evidence . Some affidavit saying someone stayed on some beach, somewhere along a 26 miles stretch, that may have been public or private property, or saw someone else on the beach that may have had or may not have had permission from the owner to be there, doesn't count. Although there may be differences of opinion if it is reasonable (some may think is not reasonable for people to own property next to the GOM), however both Dave and Sydney have stated that CU has been interrupted and the lawsuit defense proves this is under great dispute. Certainly Dan's Public Radio interview, YouTube videos, and Mother Jones interviews prove the dispute. And Dan is on the plaintiff side! Note EACH of those requirements must be shown true in a court of law for the county to take the property. Do you think the county can PROVE removing property rights without compensations is reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute in a court of law? Be honest.
The county can purchase properties and turn them into public beaches, but I am not sure that is a good idea. I think the natural resources of SOWAL are more in danger of exhaustion under control of the county than the control of private property owners. Do you fully trust the county? Look at the beach property across near Stinky's. It was purchased for $3MM and then sold to the County 3 years later for over $7MM, and way above appraisal, and a few years later still waiting for it to open. Wonder who made money on that deal? Why didn't the county buy it 3 years earlier at half the price? Right now people dig and leave craters on SRB public beaches which can harm people and turtles. The TDC can't even force people to fill up the holes when they leave. And you think the TDC is going to regulate behavior? What about spending money on a new TDC home, without inspections, purchased over appraisal, only to find out after closing it does not pass code and must be torn down? Do you think the county is best to manage our Natural Resources with a free for all, unlimited access, by unlimited numbers of people, with unlimited beach equipment?
I think the State would do a better job of managing property than the county ever could from an ecological view point. Like when the SRB community came together to have the State purchase the Topsail property. At least that way density, ecological management, and to some extent behavior, will be controlled. Note that the Topsail property and other State/Federal property is not in the law suit by the county. Why? If CU is really true, shouldn't it apply equally over all 26 miles of beach front? If you want to go to the State Park, you buy a pass (or during high season the TDC buys them for the public) and the State Parks limit the number of people and enforces rules and behavior. If you don't behave or follow the rules you are kicked out and not allow back in the park. It is not a free for all.
I agree.
I think the Natural Resources are in much better hands with individual private property owners than the county or large developers.
This lawsuit is about taking property rights without compensation on property that has been private for generations. The county is going to make a free for all for the economic benefit of some businessmen and developers (AKA power brokers). That would dramatically increase the rate of exhaustion of our natural resources.
The county's lawsuit states that is it ancient, reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute, but did not provide any evidence . Some affidavit saying someone stayed on some beach, somewhere along a 26 miles stretch, that may have been public or private property, or saw someone else on the beach that may have had or may not have had permission from the owner to be there, doesn't count. Although there may be differences of opinion if it is reasonable (some may think is not reasonable for people to own property next to the GOM), however both Dave and Sydney have stated that CU has been interrupted and the lawsuit defense proves this is under great dispute. Certainly Dan's Public Radio interview, YouTube videos, and Mother Jones interviews prove the dispute. And Dan is on the plaintiff side! Note EACH of those requirements must be shown true in a court of law for the county to take the property. Do you think the county can PROVE removing property rights without compensations is reasonable, without interruption, and free from dispute in a court of law? Be honest.
The county can purchase properties and turn them into public beaches, but I am not sure that is a good idea. I think the natural resources of SOWAL are more in danger of exhaustion under control of the county than the control of private property owners. Do you fully trust the county? Look at the beach property across near Stinky's. It was purchased for $3MM and then sold to the County 3 years later for over $7MM, and way above appraisal, and a few years later still waiting for it to open. Wonder who made money on that deal? Why didn't the county buy it 3 years earlier at half the price? Right now people dig and leave craters on SRB public beaches which can harm people and turtles. The TDC can't even force people to fill up the holes when they leave. And you think the TDC is going to regulate behavior? What about spending money on a new TDC home, without inspections, purchased over appraisal, only to find out after closing it does not pass code and must be torn down? Do you think the county is best to manage our Natural Resources with a free for all, unlimited access, by unlimited numbers of people, with unlimited beach equipment?
I think the State would do a better job of managing property than the county ever could from an ecological view point. Like when the SRB community came together to have the State purchase the Topsail property. At least that way density, ecological management, and to some extent behavior, will be controlled. Note that the Topsail property and other State/Federal property is not in the law suit by the county. Why? If CU is really true, shouldn't it apply equally over all 26 miles of beach front? If you want to go to the State Park, you buy a pass (or during high season the TDC buys them for the public) and the State Parks limit the number of people and enforces rules and behavior. If you don't behave or follow the rules you are kicked out and not allow back in the park. It is not a free for all.
