Rapid River

Dave LaCourse wrote:
Tim writes:


i lifted a copy of your post and put it onto FFIM...hope you don't
mind!


Not at all. Ya done good.

Yours is the only reply so far to the post. I hope others who have experienced
this wonderful fishery will contribute something to save it from development.
If this goes through, I see Lake Richardson turning into another Lake
Winnipesaukee in the next 25 years. I remember Winnipesaukee in the 40s when
it was undeveloped. Today it is a lake surrounded by a city.

Thanks for your and FFIM's help, Tim. I'll be at Lakewood on the 12th of June,
but may borrow a car from the Carters and meet you at the raffle.

Again, thanks.

Dave


I'm assuming that those are private lands that are being considered for
development?

If so I have missed feelings about this. I am in favor of not having
those lands developed, HOWEVER, I believe the landowners deserve
compensation for the loss in value that results from these new
restrictions. If you are in favor of placing new restrictions on a
landowner that results in a reduction of the value of his land, I
believe that you need to be willing to take the responsibility to
compensate the land owner for that loss.

Willi

Willi writes:

I'm assuming that those are private lands that are being considered for
development?

If so I have missed feelings about this. I am in favor of not having
those lands developed, HOWEVER, I believe the landowners deserve
compensation for the loss in value that results from these new
restrictions. If you are in favor of placing new restrictions on a
landowner that results in a reduction of the value of his land, I
believe that you need to be willing to take the responsibility to
compensate the land owner for that loss.

Willi


Most of the land up there is owned by paper companies (as is most of Maine
ftm). This is not about compensation but about greed. The company that wants
to "develop" the river is doing it simply to please some of the higher
mucky-ups in the company. For example, the condos will be out of reach of most
folks, especially those who fish this wonderful river. The first offerings
will be to executives of the company. The entire ecosystem of the Rapid is in
danger if this goes through.

The New England states are not like the Western states. Our population density
is emmense. We have only a few more places like the Rapid. To open this
pristine land and river to the wealthy will do much harm.

Dave LaCourse wrote:


Most of the land up there is owned by paper companies (as is most of Maine
ftm). This is not about compensation but about greed. The company that wants
to "develop" the river is doing it simply to please some of the higher
mucky-ups in the company. For example, the condos will be out of reach of most
folks, especially those who fish this wonderful river. The first offerings
will be to executives of the company. The entire ecosystem of the Rapid is in
danger if this goes through.

The New England states are not like the Western states. Our population density
is emmense. We have only a few more places like the Rapid. To open this
pristine land and river to the wealthy will do much harm.





I'm VERY much in favor of preserving places like the Rapid but feel that
there are legitimate compensations that need to be paid to the land
owner who is giving up some of his rights. In CO, the BLM and the Nation
Forest will often do land swaps in cases like this or some monetary
compensation can be paid. It doesn't matter if the land is owned by a
private person or a wealthy corporation. If you place new restrictions
on land that rule out development, that land loses much of its value and
I think the land owner is entitled to compensation for this loss.

Willi

This isn't about taking rights away - it is about NOT giving additional
rights beyond what are already in place.


"Willi" wrote in message
...



I'm VERY much in favor of preserving places like the Rapid but feel that
there are legitimate compensations that need to be paid to the land
owner who is giving up some of his rights. In CO, the BLM and the Nation
Forest will often do land swaps in cases like this or some monetary
compensation can be paid. It doesn't matter if the land is owned by a
private person or a wealthy corporation. If you place new restrictions
on land that rule out development, that land loses much of its value and
I think the land owner is entitled to compensation for this loss.

Willi

Willi wrote:

I'm assuming that those are private lands that are being considered for
development?

If so I have missed feelings about this. I am in favor of not having
those lands developed, HOWEVER, I believe the landowners deserve
compensation for the loss in value that results from these new
restrictions. If you are in favor of placing new restrictions on a
landowner that results in a reduction of the value of his land, I
believe that you need to be willing to take the responsibility to
compensate the land owner for that loss.

My understanding is that this involves a rezoning that would allow
development not allowed under the current zoning, i.e., it is not a new
restriction, but rather the elimination of a long-standing restriction.

JR