Will someone please help me understand how it is a function of government to "preserve scenic views" and "prohibit ridgetop development if it would be visible from major roadways." Where is the health, safety, and welfare in that? It's nothing more than a taking of the right, from ridgetop property owners, to build on a ridgetop in order to preserve scenic views for those who don't own a ridgetop. What if I want to see the scenic views from my ridgetop home? If that could be seen from major roadways, you've just taken that from me by an act of the government. Surely I'm entitled to compensation.
Don't worry, amorphous, it's only the Chamber that wants to do that, and their plan is too much of an abortion to get much support from the legislative bodies.
Share your thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Rikki writes:
Don't worry, amorphous, it's only the Chamber that wants to do that, and their plan is too much of an abortion to get much support from the legislative bodies.
Share your thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.