|
Find CA real estate agents and Murrieta real estate on ActiveRain.
Disclaimer: ActiveRain Corp. does not necessarily endorse the real estate agents, loan officers and brokers listed on this site. These real estate profiles, blogs and blog entries are provided here as a courtesy to our visitors to help them make an informed decision when buying or selling a house. ActiveRain Corp. takes no responsibility for the content in these profiles, that are written by the members of this community.
© 2013 ActiveRain Corp. All Rights Reserved
5 Comments on Liberty Quarry - For Realtors a Private Property Rights Issue?
Another case of the free market being stymied by a minority.
Follow the money. Who stands to benefit from the downzoning and residential construction????
That's the funny thing, Lenn. Doesn't seem to be any benefit from that approach. The city would make millions if they annexed and let the quarry build but realistically nothing will be built there if they just annex and downzone. It's strictly a NIMBY thing.
Well then doesn't that speak volumes about the issue? It's hard to believe that the City Council would be behind something that was so detrimental to the community they represent and love. Then what is their angle?
It's interesting because the city is very well run. I'm trying to find their take on this as we speak.
While I would not normally reply to an anonymous comment, yours illustrates the point I was trying to make. SDSU & SMER are capable of fighting the quarry issue on it's own merit or lack thereof. If LAFCO buys your argument that the 150 acre quarry will destroy life as we know it on the 4,400+ acres, then you win - if not you lose.
But the private property rights issue is between the buyers and sellers of that specific property and unless you are one of those parties then you are free to offer an opinion but you don't have a dog in the fight.
Finally, having just spent 2 hours with the city, whom I admire and support on most issues, they have stated their intent to annex is not to preserve the Reserve but to exert local control over the land. They have stated, and will be providing documentation to that efect, that their annexation proposal would not change the underlying zoning for the area whatsoever - in other words, no taking and downzoning, which is the legal issue. Under the current climate, it would make an acquisition by Granite and the subsequent issuance of a CUP more difficult than selling the program to the county. But that may well be subject to change in the future and the preservation of the Reserve is by no means guaranteed by this annexation.
Interesting that my gotcha graphic to post this is guano - which pretty well sums up most of the emotional diatribes I've heard both for and against this project.
Login or register to leave a comment