News-Record.com

To determine the answer to this dilemma; who has deeper pockets? Is it the State of NC or the Florida developer? That should be a no brainer. However, the State could condemn the land and settle the issue!

Shalom

Darryl,

For a Quaker, you sure are willing to use a heck of a lot of force to get a heck of a lot of things you want. Why are you such a bully?

"However, the State could condemn the land and settle the issue!"

So long as the State pays the fair market value that it is required to do I think it's an appropriate use of eminent domain.

The other issue that could derail the current development plans is the proposed treated sewage discharge into the Haw River. It's a no brainer that the river isn't capable of handling effluvium from nearly 800 homes.

Right now the land is just woods and farmland with a few scattered homes and has a value monumentally less than 775 bona-fide home sites on a sewer would be.

The State will want to take the land at its most minimally developed cost. Denying Bluegreen a sewage discharge permit would probably kill the golf course and require lot sizes to be at least three to four times bigger to accommodate septic tank systems. Without a golf course it's just another outlying subdivision with a swimming pool and club house and has much less appeal than the proposed golf course development.

It will be years before the issue is resolved.

The Bluegreen contract has determined the true value of this property. If this rezoning is blocked by the County Commissioners it will be in an effort to actively support the Haw River State Park, not because Bluegreen's development idea was unsound. Any appraisal must take that into account. The N.C. Department of Environmental and Natural Resources has the money set aside to counter the offer of Bluegreen and that has been made clear in Lewis Ledford's (Director of NCDENR) important letter to David McNeill (Guilford County Manager). So the property owners are in good shape with either option. They properly get to maximize the value of their beautiful land. It is, however, essential for this property to become part of the new, developing Haw River State Park or else State Park funds will be diverted to other more welcomed projects and the HRSP will dry on the vine.

Also funds for the expansion of the Haw River State Park are of little drain on the State's budget. Money for the huge land acquisition needed for the long term development of the HRSP will likely come from the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund, supported by a portion of the state's tax on real estate deed transfers. Other funding comes from the Clean Water Management Trust Fund and the Natural Heritage Trust Fund.

The choice is easy -- YES!! -- we want a growing, dynamic Haw River State Park placed in our backyard for the long range benefit of Guilford and Rockingham County. This is a gift far too good to turn down!!

AC, I do not understand the comments in the posting.

I just stated the obvious. And remember, NON-VIOLENT force is NOT against Quaker principles.

Shalom

Darryl,

Theft is violent force. If the state decides they want that land and every landowner doesn't willingly sell their land, the state will use violent force to get it. Never mind that they may not actually show up with guns; the THREAT of them showing up with guns if the landowner(s) doesn't cooperate is there and all too real.

Hmmm A-c, you are a frightening person.

Shalom

Darryl,

So I denounce violence, you advocate it, and I'm the frightening one. I don't get it.

Seriously, Darryl, I apologize for taking the tone I so often do with you, but I wish you'd consider the things you advocate more closely. You're apparently a fan of Jesus, but I don't see much of him in you at all. I can't conceive of him forcefully and permanently driving someone off their property so that someone else can have a picnic there. I recall Jesus saying to do unto others as you'd have them to unto you. Would you have someone force you off of your property? And don't say, "Yes, if I like what they want to do with my property or if I think it would serve a good purpose," because then they wouldn't be forcing you off; you'd be volunteering.
I'm not really a big fan of Jesus' golden rule though because it can actually be twisted around in a way which allows people to do bad things. I like the karmic rendition of it better: Don't do unto others what you wouldn't want them to do unto you. Again, thinking of it in those terms, would you have someone force you from your property?

Remember also that if you allow government to have the power to do your will and you screw others, you're allowing them to have the power to do others' will who will screw you. And all the evidence for that statement is abundant right now. You constantly complain about so many things governments at all levels currently do, but you are responsible for it by advocating that they have the power to do so.

Anarcho-capitalist, Darryl wants the state to have maximum power to do the things he wants and minimum power to do the things he doesn't want. Trying to explain the problem with this will be about as fruitful as explaining the problem with "non-violent force."

As has already been pointed out in other lte's, this same group of commissioners voted to allow an asphalt plant to be built adjacent to a mobile home park and within a mile both ways of established residential areas. No matter that these plants spew toxins and known carcinogens into the atmosphere, the tax revenues will buttress the heavy handed spending of the county bureaucrats.
Not a problem- annexation is planned for that area within the next ten years. By then, the damage and lawsuits will begin to take their toll on municipal citizens as well as the city's coffers; out of the pockets of those living in the northeast, northwest and central residential areas. We will all share in the misery of lack of foresight, and the problem will fall squarely in the lap of the Greensboro city government, not the county "leaders".

AC, giving me credit for something that I do not advocate is shameful. I only stated what COULD be done, not what SHOULD be done! Learn to discern context and if unsure, ask for clarity. That would be better than saying untrue comments to support and buttress one's self.

brian444, no need for further comment as most who read/post here are aware of how you feel.

WJE, you have summarized the basic situation.

And personally, I would much rather see a natural park than some high-dollar gated community. When someone feels that they have to live behind a locked/gated community, it is time to reassess society in general.

Shalom

Darryl,

"AC, giving me credit for something that I do not advocate is shameful. I only stated what COULD be done, not what SHOULD be done!"

That's technically true, but given the context of your statement, I think most other people in addition to myself would interpret your statement as having a strong implication that condemnation should be done.

Do you in fact think it should?

Darryl,

Sorry. You said you don't think it should be done. What I meant to ask is whether you would support such a thing (eminent domain/condemnation) for any other reason.