|
Post by bchevy on Nov 16, 2013 19:07:51 GMT -4
Worth repeating. I almost never go to the individual forums, I use the recent posts link to see what's new, then go to that thread via that post. Not a slam, but it's amazing how many members (not just this board) don't know how things work. Click on some links and explore the site. you can't hurt anything. Could the new threads and post be moved up to the top instead of being at the bottom? The threads with the newest posts will (should) be at the top of the page, this thread is at the top of the page in the politico section for me. if it's on the bottom for you it might be a setting in your account section.
|
|
|
Post by jackbquick on Nov 16, 2013 19:20:21 GMT -4
Could the new threads and post be moved up to the top instead of being at the bottom? The threads with the newest posts will (should) be at the top of the page, this thread is at the top of the page in the politico section for me. if it's on the bottom for you it might be a setting in your account section. I am talking about the home page. No worries, I will just gonto the bottom of the page everytime on the home page.
|
|
|
Post by burnerbill on Nov 17, 2013 11:59:16 GMT -4
bchevy, is what you are saying that the most recent post made in a particular forum will put that forum at the top of the list when you click on "General"? I understand about those threads with the most recent post appearing at the top of the list of topics within a forum list. What about which forum has the most recent action? My forum lists always has the KI forum first and Politico is always listed as the 6th forum.
What would be a good idea is to have topics, regardless of the forum it is located, be listed as the most active and one can access it directly from the most active list ( IE - Top 10 topics list ) or go to the forum this topic is showing as residing in that list.
I know, this make too much common sense!
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Nov 17, 2013 12:30:31 GMT -4
What would be a good idea is to have topics, regardless of the forum it is located, be listed as the most active and one can access it directly from the most active list ( IE - Top 10 topics list ) or go to the forum this topic is showing as residing in that list. I know, this make too much common sense! Do you mean something like the Recent Threads link at the bottom of the main page?
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Nov 17, 2013 16:46:28 GMT -4
bchevy, is what you are saying that the most recent post made in a particular forum will put that forum at the top of the list when you click on "General"? I understand about those threads with the most recent post appearing at the top of the list of topics within a forum list. What about which forum has the most recent action? My forum lists always has the KI forum first and Politico is always listed as the 6th forum. What would be a good idea is to have topics, regardless of the forum it is located, be listed as the most active and one can access it directly from the most active list ( IE - Top 10 topics list ) or go to the forum this topic is showing as residing in that list. I know, this make too much common sense! BB TRY TO FIND Recent Threads link at the bottom of the main page, it's a great button
|
|
|
Post by burnerbill on Nov 17, 2013 21:09:48 GMT -4
bchevy, I see nothing with the title: "Recent Threads"! Are you referring to Forum Information and Statistics and in that area, Threads and Posts? It has an indicator for the recent post and name of poster. Is that it? Not much to go on if you want to learn about the topics with the most traffic.
Sorry, but, maybe my view is different than yours since you are a strong armed moderator?
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Nov 17, 2013 21:16:43 GMT -4
bchevy, I see nothing with the title: "Recent Threads"! Are you referring to Forum Information and Statistics and in that area, Threads and Posts? It has an indicator for the recent post and name of poster. Is that it? Not much to go on if you want to learn about the topics with the most traffic. Sorry, but, maybe my view is different than yours since you are a strong armed moderator? Look harder, main page, it's there, even when I log out I see it - Recent Threads
|
|
|
Post by burnerbill on Nov 17, 2013 23:22:12 GMT -4
falgar... what I see at the bottom....
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Nov 17, 2013 23:30:46 GMT -4
bchevy, I see nothing with the title: "Recent Threads"! Are you referring to Forum Information and Statistics and in that area, Threads and Posts? It has an indicator for the recent post and name of poster. Is that it? Not much to go on if you want to learn about the topics with the most traffic. Sorry, but, maybe my view is different than yours since you are a strong armed moderator? It's no different when I'm not logged in. It's amazing that you can act like an ass even when I'm TRYING to help YOU. LOOK FOR THIS: The BOLD is a LINK, no it's not bold on the page, Find it yet?
|
|
|
Post by deputy on Nov 18, 2013 8:43:39 GMT -4
falgar... what I see at the bottom.... You're looking right at it: "RECENT THREADS" "RECENT POSTS" click on them.
|
|
|
Post by deputy on Nov 18, 2013 8:45:37 GMT -4
Whoever moved this from the KI forum, why? An attempt to bury a potentially supportive move by the county to run the SKI sewer in a place not too many folks visit? Because that's where it belongs, it probably should have been merged into the SKI thread to avoid duplication. when folks learn to use the buttons this place becomes a lot more user friendly
|
|
|
Post by burnerbill on Nov 18, 2013 10:09:24 GMT -4
Ok, I see. It lists only the ONE most recent post regardless of the forum it comes from. I'll go back to bothering bchevy... (-; Thanks BOTH of you!!!!
|
|
|
Post by ravens20 on Nov 18, 2013 10:19:53 GMT -4
Whoever moved this from the KI forum, why? An attempt to bury a potentially supportive move by the county to run the SKI sewer in a place not too many folks visit? Because that's where it belongs, it probably should have been merged into the SKI thread to avoid duplication. when folks learn to use the buttons this place becomes a lot more user friendly You guys keep suggesting to use the "Recent Threads" link, which basically strips out all of the sub-forums and displays all the threads in one main forum. If that is the optimal way to view the site, why are you so concerned with moving threads to the correct forum, when no one should even be using the individual sub-forums? Why don't you just remove all of the sub-forums and make this site one giant forum with the most recent threads at the top? If that's the most user friendly way to use the site it should be the default.
|
|
|
Post by burnerbill on Nov 18, 2013 10:44:25 GMT -4
bchevy.... did you even think about why I used the term "strong armed"? Look at your avatar. It depicts a STRONG ARMED Uncle Sam!!!!!! I took that statement from that. What were you thinking??!!!!
|
|
|
Post by lainey on Nov 18, 2013 15:30:08 GMT -4
Where is Lainey to tell us that her taxes are going to pay for this and not the sewer bond. The problem with eliminating too many lots is that is drives up the cost for the existing homeowners on a limited budget. Less people in the pot to share the costs. I think the folks who already have sewer should reimburse those who don't since we paid for yours. JackBQuick, You have never and will never pay for my sewer. But you keep crying that someone else should pay for yours! This is going nowhere. The whole ordnance is ridiculous, combining lots? That wont happen.
|
|
|
Post by burnerbill on Nov 18, 2013 15:36:00 GMT -4
Lainey... if you read the ordnance, it is to bring up to code all those lots platted before the current codes were effected. IE - lot size, set back requirements etc..
What do you mean by your comment the ordnance is ridiculous regarding combining lots? It does impact SKI more than anything else, so, what is your concern?
|
|
|
Post by jackbquick on Nov 18, 2013 15:44:42 GMT -4
Where is Lainey to tell us that her taxes are going to pay for this and not the sewer bond. The problem with eliminating too many lots is that is drives up the cost for the existing homeowners on a limited budget. Less people in the pot to share the costs. I think the folks who already have sewer should reimburse those who don't since we paid for yours. JackBQuick, You have never and will never pay for my sewer. But you keep crying that someone else should pay for yours! This is going nowhere. The whole ordnance is ridiculous, combining lots? That wont happen. I am not asking for anyone else to pay for my sewer. I never did. If I did not pay for yours and you are not going to pay for mine, then we are good. I want to pay for it but I can't because the county will not bring it to may house even though I am going to pay for it. They county is unbelievable, even though the property owners in the impacted communities are going to pay for it, they still won't bring it to us. I would dig the d**n thing myself it is was legal!
|
|
|
Post by lainey on Nov 18, 2013 16:27:24 GMT -4
Lainey... if you read the ordnance, it is to bring up to code all those lots platted before the current codes were effected. IE - lot size, set back requirements etc.. What do you mean by your comment the ordnance is ridiculous regarding combining lots? It does impact SKI more than anything else, so, what is your concern? Burner, How are they going to decide which lots are losers and which are winners? Using your numbers, 3500 and 650, that means 650 happy people and 2850 very unhappy people ready to hire lawyers and sue over it.
|
|
|
Post by burnerbill on Nov 18, 2013 17:02:08 GMT -4
Lainey, it has to do with the code.. simply put, if your property is in line with the code, you are good. There is no subjective judgement.
Also, from what I recall attending the various SKI meetings, many lot owners talked about combining their lots to create a single, larger lot for their "hoped for" new home on Kent Island. For which many have been waiting decades to build since the county told them sewer was coming. Also, did not hear at all from any folks who spoke about owning 4 lots and building a home on each one.
|
|
|
Post by cruzincat on Feb 14, 2014 14:21:50 GMT -4
Re: the discussion on Bay City and Cloverfields having the sewer installed first. This happened before I moved to SKI, so I don't have exact knowledge of when it happened. I am willing to bet, though, that it occurred at a time when home values were still climbing every year. There are many areas in SKI that have not yet started to climb out of the basement, so to speak. It's a much different time now. For an existing homeowner to commit to adding cost to their home that will have to be passed on to any prospective buyer at this time, makes it even harder to sell, if they should find themselves in a position where they have to do so quickly.
I do feel for the people who own the vacant lots and have been refused permission to build on them. Even though it will cost them just as much for their share of the sewer, they will finally realize the benefit of their investment, by either selling the lot or building the home they wanted to in the first place. In the short term, the people with existing homes will be stuck with lower home values for quite a while, because there will be construction for a few years followed by a rapid increase in the number of new homes they have to compete with for buyers.
I think, though, that the limit on square footage should be done away with. The impact of the additional homes on property values will more than be offset by the costs of the sewer being shared by more.
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Feb 15, 2014 13:26:55 GMT -4
Re: the discussion on Bay City and Cloverfields having the sewer installed first. This happened before I moved to SKI, so I don't have exact knowledge of when it happened. I am willing to bet, though, that it occurred at a time when home values were still climbing every year. There are many areas in SKI that have not yet started to climb out of the basement, so to speak. It's a much different time now. For an existing homeowner to commit to adding cost to their home that will have to be passed on to any prospective buyer at this time, makes it even harder to sell, if they should find themselves in a position where they have to do so quickly. Bay City and CF did get W&S while prices were rising, but before the big boom in the market. It was based on the same "premise" of failing septic systems" I doubted it then and still do. IMO it was more of the good ole boy system and a bunch of the good ole boys owned a bunch of lots in each of these neighborhoods and profited huge when the systems were installed. MUCH like the vacant lots in SKI. Each neighborhood had their own huge building & selling boom after the systems came in, passing along all the costs to the new owners. Tossing the whole benefit assessment theory right out the window.
|
|
|
Post by cruzincat on Feb 15, 2014 14:32:40 GMT -4
I wish they would just start allowing building on the vacant lots as long as they install adequate, designed to last, septic systems, with fees included that would go into a fund to help existing homeowners replace their systems when they fail. I think that would help everyone involved.
|
|
|
Post by burnerbill on Feb 16, 2014 17:12:42 GMT -4
I wish they would just start allowing building on the vacant lots as long as they install adequate, designed to last, septic systems, with fees included that would go into a fund to help existing homeowners replace their systems when they fail. I think that would help everyone involved. Problem is.. where does the water go? The state and county has already deemed the new BAT systems are not effective when the ground water invades the septic field. Did you know one of the failed fields in SKI which has to have a holding tank installed was a BAT system field? PS - after this past week of snow/rain.. took a nice walk around the community Friday afternoon, that smell in the air in some areas was certainly not "ground water"!
|
|
|
Post by cruzincat on Feb 16, 2014 20:51:29 GMT -4
I'm sure they could determine which lots could use a system that would work. Sure, some wouldn't have any type of system that could work. Still a better situation to let those build that can.
|
|
|
Post by burnerbill on Feb 16, 2014 20:58:35 GMT -4
I'm sure they could determine which lots could use a system that would work. Sure, some wouldn't have any type of system that could work. Still a better situation to let those build that can. cruzincat... excellent point. There are systems out there that can allow on site disposal without adding the effluent to the ground water if you are willing to spend the money to do it. But, and this is a BIG BUT, if the county allowed it, what is to prevent any lot owner willing to spend the money to build their "dream" home on their lot? Nothing! This it totally against all what the "no growth" folks want and that is NO MORE new homes AT ALL on Kent Island. If they had their choice, no one else should be allowed to build on any lot they own. As far as they are concerned, they were here first and if you weren't part of "their" wave, too bad. Lock the gates and throw the keys away.
|
|