[at-l] Warehouse Hearing - Silver Spring Township, PA

[jbullar1 at twcny.rr.com (Jim Bullard)]

My wife likes to watch a program on TV called "Flip This House". The 
premise is that the star, a developer, buys a rundown house does a one wekk 
make over and resells at a ridiculous profit. I watched one with her a 
couple of nights ago where he bought a place in NC on the water and ran 
afoul of the county because he was bothering with building permits, etc. 
His attitude (stated on camera) was "Let them fine me a couple thousand 
dollars. I don't care I'll make way more than that on the resale". The only 
thing that convinced him to halt work and follow the rules was a threat of 
arrest and jail. Eventually the project went forward and he turned a $190K 
profit on the house.

Moral? A lot of these guys take the attitude that the fine is cheaper than 
compliance. In this case they should be forced to move the warehouse to the 
agreed upon location. Making them pay the costs of enforcement as well is a 
good idea. If a few people actually lose money as a result of their 
defiance of the rules, maybe they will get the message. They should not get 
away with it.

At 06:43 PM 12/13/2005 -0500, Doug Mathews wrote:
>List,
>
>A few years ago in Atlanta, a developer built a house too close to the 
>street in violation of the community ordinance.  They not only had to 
>remove the wall, but they were forced to demolish the home. As well they 
>should in my opinion. Too many times folks assume that its easier to ask 
>for forgiveness than permission.  When I worked I made sure my employees 
>knew that it is easier to ask for forgiveness, but the price they paid for 
>that forgiveness was very high. One or 2 examples put an end to that.
>
>There seems to have been a history with this development and if they are 
>over the limit, then either move the wall or demolish the building.  I 
>also think they should be accountable for the cost to get them to comply. 
>I tire of all the establishments that like to push the limits, just as a 
>very few hikers try to do sometimes.
>
>My 2cents once more!
>
>Mainframe
>
>At 03:30 PM 12/13/2005, you wrote:
>>Still following this story...
>>
>>http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2005/12/13/news/news07.txt
>>
>>"Supervisors have reminded DiSanto how at hearings years ago Appalachian 
>>Trail advocates expressed concern about allowing an industrial park so 
>>close to the trail.
>>The warehouse location is now closer to the trail than the agreement 
>>stipulated.
>>*Melanie Wertz represented the Cumberland Valley Appalachian Trail Club* 
>>-- local volunteers who help maintain and monitor the trail under a memo 
>>of understanding with the National Park Service.
>>"We have been involved with this project since day one," said Wertz, who 
>>asked the zoning board to stand firm and deny the Triple Crown appeal to 
>>protect the trail.
>>Wertz said her group met several times with DiSanto and township 
>>officials to push the need for an adequate buffer zone between the trail 
>>and industrial park.
>>Shifting the building 30 feet to the west is significant, Wertz said, 
>>adding the buffer zone along that stretch of trail is already at its 
>>narrowest point in the region.
>>She added the warehouse not only obstructs the view hikers have of the 
>>valley, but is a potential source of light, noise and air pollution from 
>>the trucks and trash from the site.
>>*Michele Miller, who represents the Appalachian Trail Conservatory*, said 
>>the developer should be held to the agreed-upon land development plan and 
>>make efforts to mitigate the impact the warehouse would have on the trail."
>>
>>Steve
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>AT-L Mailing List.
>
>Go here to unsubscribe or change your options:
>
>http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l