Re: "Amendment would allow the CAFOs closer to some homes"

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:42:32 -0400, Jim wrote:

FarmI wrote:

Jim wrote:

earlier this week a house in rolesville caught fire and since
zoning had allowed the houses to be located only 10 feet a part
from one another the fire spread quickly from one house to the
next. I did not catch the total number of houses destroyed by
that tragedy but from the pictures on the evening news it
appeared as if over half the neighborhood was burned.

The total number destroyed according to the Raleigh news reports was 2. If
that is half the neigbourhood, then it doesn't sound like much.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20387371/

this report you cite makes no mention of the houses
being located as close to one another as they were.

I'd looked the fire up too and there is at least one article that mentions
how close the houses are and that government officials plan to look into
amending the set-back.

the news slant I watched on TV was intended to protest over development
by placing way to many homes on an acre of land. by the slick use of
their cameras they most likely created the appearance of mass
destruction on a grand scale.

So, it's the media's fault? They intentionally misrepresented the
situation to fool viewers? (Rather than because they had to "tape" from a
distance, the camera lens was zoomed in.)

newscast are not really about informing people as to what's going on but
rather they are more about swinging and swaying opinion.

If one wears an aluminum foil hat, their mind-control tactics don't work
as well. <vbg> But, seriously, it's our responsibility to be informed
viewers/readers. Use some common sense (and Google).

While we're on the subject, how about a cite for those 30-some houses you
claimed were destroyed by fire in NC earlier this year? Common sense says
that would have been national news but I hadn't heard/read about it ... so
I Googled. The closest I found was 40-some houses evacuated over-night
because of one of the wildfires in Robeson, where there were/are extreme
drought conditions.

when the
intruding newcomers first began to pour into our county no one paid much
attention however with recent drastic changes to our way of life being
inflected upon us as a result of massive numbers of newcomers arriving
in hordes, locals are sadly waking up to a much changed reality of what
once was is no longer.

Look up state-to-state migration. The Census Bureau did a report covering
1995-2000 and it's now included in their more frequent American Community
Survey. Also, government reports on job prospects in individual states.
NC is high on the list for net in-migration, but not at the top. Since
furniture and textile manufacturing tanked, the state has been
transitioning to a service economy. But, interestingly, from 1005 to
2005, 64% of the people moving to NC were over age 60. So, while you
probably can blame newcomers for cluster housing, you can't blame them
for over-flowing schools.

reading the article you brought forth, it is easy to see the slant is
towards how Rolesville currently does not have enough fire-guy rescue
rangers on "paid staff". placing the newcomer in a state of terror
while also helping the locals to realize their once adequate fire
fighting service is no longer able to actually provide the protect and
serve thingie due to having been over 'taxed' as in spread to thin.
using the word 'taxed' sets up the ground work for increasing the local
taxes so the town can hire more fire fighters and increase their "paid
staff". again the report is all about swinging and or swaying a mindset
and in this case, "it's going to cost you more to live here with your
newcomers than it did before you got your newcomers."

There is a huge hole in your conclusion. You'd have to demonstrate that
per capita government costs go down where the net in-migration is stable
or negative. (No, I'm not saying that I don't think local government is
bloated)

to the li-bi-rail mine, change is always good

Not necessarily good, but sometimes inevitable.

and therefore no one
should ever be content or happy with what they currently have and the
glass of water is always half empty

? It's you who is complaining that your preferred lifestyle is
evaporating.

not half full. with this mindset
anyone protesting against change can easily be labeled or cast in a
negative light. therefore it's not the complete and total destruction
of your way of life but rather a changing over to our way of life.

You do have a choice. Your government's reduced RE tax on ag use land
enables you to continue farming. The Right-to-Farm law protects you
against nuisance lawsuits. And the development has provided potential
customers for your landscape business. The Amish have demonstrated that it
is possible to maintain their preferred lifestyle in the face of
development; so can you.

Or, thanks to the "newcomers", you land is worth more $$ than you probably
ever anticipated. That gives you the option of selling out and buying in
somewhere where there is positive net out-migration. You could "turn the
clock back".

What you can't do is require others to adapt to your preferences. If
retirees moving in prefer cluster housing because they no longer require
(relatively) big lots for their kids to play and they'd rather play golf
than mow, you can't change that.

.

Relevant Pages
Loading