|
Post by burnerbill on Nov 14, 2013 23:40:31 GMT -4
A new QAC ordnance, 13 - 24, has been proposed which will result in a drastic reduction in the potential number of homes which could be built in SKI when the sewer is run. It effectively brings up to present day the building codes for lot sizes. If, and when passed, the number of potential homes which could be built as a result of the sewer extension will go from approximately 3500 platted lots to 650 with an expectation the actual build out may only occur on 85% of the lots. This goes a long way to diminish the scare tactics of the anti sewer folks who claim there will be over 2000 new homes. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by ravens20 on Nov 15, 2013 0:00:00 GMT -4
I haven't read over the document but it sounds like you get the best of both worlds. SKI gets public sewer and water without the threat of a bunch of new homes.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Nov 15, 2013 5:09:50 GMT -4
Someone is sure to complain that this would take value away from properties people have held for a long time and they should somehow be compensated for that.
My concern is that ordinances and zoning can change. Change them now to get your project approved then change them later to allow your builder to do what he wants.
At the very least, it looks like the Commissioners are trying to find a way forward.
|
|
|
Post by jackbquick on Nov 15, 2013 8:07:00 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.
|
|
|
Post by burnerbill on Nov 15, 2013 11:22:33 GMT -4
jackb... understand that fewer lots "may" increase the costs to existing homeowners for the sewer, but, I would much prefer to see homes on half acre+ lots than trying to squeeze shot-gun splits onto a 50X200 lot. I moved here from Pasadena MD and that is what happened up there. Shot-gun splits everywhere. Fewer lots means more space, more trees and a feeling you are not packed in like sardines. Besides, it is the empty lot owners who will benefit the most in that they can now build and the cost estimates do not even include grant money which is currently being negotiated between the county and the state.
|
|
|
Post by alleycat on Nov 15, 2013 12:29:14 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. You paid for ours? OH REALLY!!!!!!!!!!!L!! . I and many other have receipts to give that the lie. Mybe you should keep your opinions to yourself until you know what you're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by jackbquick on Nov 15, 2013 12:58:54 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. You paid for ours? OH REALLY!!!!!!!!!!!L!! . I and many other have receipts to give that the lie. Mybe you should keep your opinions to yourself until you know what you're talking about. Thanks for proving my point. You can argue with Lainey now. Her words not mine!
|
|
|
Post by ravens20 on Nov 15, 2013 14:39:21 GMT -4
jackb... understand that fewer lots "may" increase the costs to existing homeowners for the sewer, but, I would much prefer to see homes on half acre+ lots than trying to squeeze shot-gun splits onto a 50X200 lot. I moved here from Pasadena MD and that is what happened up there. Shot-gun splits everywhere. Fewer lots means more space, more trees and a feeling you are not packed in like sardines. Besides, it is the empty lot owners who will benefit the most in that they can now build and the cost estimates do not even include grant money which is currently being negotiated between the county and the state. +1
|
|
|
Post by burnerbill on Nov 16, 2013 10:51:46 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?
|
|
|
Post by burnerbill on Nov 16, 2013 10:59:57 GMT -4
alleycat... one of the biggest positions opponents to the SKI sewer project is that the tax payers of QAC will be paying for this sewer line to the benefit of the residents of SKI. I know the homeowners in Bay City and Cloverfields paid for their water and sewer without the benefit of any grant money or raising of taxes. The fact the residents of SKI will be footing this bill was clearly explained at all public meetings held for this matter as well as the documentation for the project.
JackB was making a statement based on the NO Sewer folks who spout this rhetoric. When someone like you comments you DID PAY to acquire your public sewer and water, this pokes a hole in the sewer opponents who claim all taxpayers will foot this bill for the SKI sewer. If you drive down towards SKI, there are still a few signs up, I saw some in the Kentmoor area near that airstrip, which have the line: "Say NO to higher taxes.". Implying the sewer line will raise taxes.
|
|
|
Post by alleycat on Nov 16, 2013 13:19:39 GMT -4
I see. Yup, we did pay, and quite a bit. Maybe if there is grant money or other money lying around, we all should get some reimbursement!
|
|
|
Post by burnerbill on Nov 16, 2013 13:44:54 GMT -4
alleycat, I believe the difference between the sewer being run up in the Bay City and Cloverfields area is the failing septic concerns which are in SKI. I was not around when your area got the septic and the basis for running it. Was it just to expand those communities and allow more build out? In SKI, it is to resolve failing septic issues and the health hazard it presents.
|
|
|
Post by ravens20 on Nov 16, 2013 15:21:01 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? I have idea why they would move it and I'm not going to speculate, but it certainly does ensure that less people read the thread and participate in the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by jackbquick on Nov 16, 2013 15:24:50 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? I have idea why they would move it and I'm not going to speculate, but it certainly does ensure that less people read the thread and participate in the discussion. Could not agree more.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Nov 16, 2013 15:28:07 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? I have idea why they would move it and I'm not going to speculate, but it certainly does ensure that less people read the thread and participate in the discussion. How does moving the thread ensure any such thing? Did you have any trouble finding it? For anyone having trouble finding new posts to threads, try using the Recent Posts link near the bottom of the main forum page. All the recent posts show up with the date and time they were posted. Pretty simple to read everything on every forum that way.
|
|
|
Post by alleycat on Nov 16, 2013 16:25:14 GMT -4
alleycat, I believe the difference between the sewer being run up in the Bay City and Cloverfields area is the failing septic concerns which are in SKI. I was not around when your area got the septic and the basis for running it. Was it just to expand those communities and allow more build out? In SKI, it is to resolve failing septic issues and the health hazard it presents. Failing septic and salt infiltration in the aquifer. Certainly allowed for more buildout, but I don't think that was the prime instigator.
|
|
|
Post by jackbquick on Nov 16, 2013 17:04:43 GMT -4
I have idea why they would move it and I'm not going to speculate, but it certainly does ensure that less people read the thread and participate in the discussion. How does moving the thread ensure any such thing? Did you have any trouble finding it? For anyone having trouble finding new posts to threads, try using the Recent Posts link near the bottom of the main forum page. All the recent posts show up with the date and time they were posted. Pretty simple to read everything on every forum that way. Falger25, Did not know that. Thanks for the tip. I usually forget to check politico and miss some good stuff.
|
|
|
Post by burnerbill on Nov 16, 2013 17:08:35 GMT -4
falgar25... the moving of that topic to a less viewed forum is suspect. Unless you originally saw it in the originally posted forum, one would not know to look for it. Then, for you to lock my explanation request about the move is also suspect. Classic silencing of a position which does not support, possibly, your position? As a moderator, it is not your job to move things as YOU see fit. I can see you moderating content to be polite etc... not censor. Like was done to the original SKI sewer topic of a while ago in which a vast majority of the posts were lost. I put my topic in there and should have stayed since it is a KI issue. Your explanation is shallow.
|
|
|
Post by jackbquick on Nov 16, 2013 17:10:42 GMT -4
falgar25... the moving of that topic to a less viewed forum is suspect. Unless you originally saw it in the originally posted forum, one would not know to look for it. Then, for you to lock my explanation request about the move is also suspect. Classic silencing of a position which does not support, possibly, your position? As a moderator, it is not your job to move things as YOU see fit. I can see you moderating content to be polite etc... not censor. Like was done to the original SKI sewer topic of a while ago in which a vast majority of the posts were lost. I put my topic in there and should have stayed since it is a KI issue. Your explanation is shallow. Falger25, Anyway that could be at the top of the first page instead of at the bottom. I will use that search feature from now on. I hate looking through each section to find interesting topics.
|
|
|
Post by jackbquick on Nov 16, 2013 17:10:58 GMT -4
falgar25... the moving of that topic to a less viewed forum is suspect. Unless you originally saw it in the originally posted forum, one would not know to look for it. Then, for you to lock my explanation request about the move is also suspect. Classic silencing of a position which does not support, possibly, your position? As a moderator, it is not your job to move things as YOU see fit. I can see you moderating content to be polite etc... not censor. Like was done to the original SKI sewer topic of a while ago in which a vast majority of the posts were lost. I put my topic in there and should have stayed since it is a KI issue. Your explanation is shallow. Falger25, Anyway that could be at the top of the first page instead of at the bottom. I will use that search feature from now on. I hate looking through each section to find interesting topics.
|
|
|
Post by jackbquick on Nov 16, 2013 17:11:15 GMT -4
falgar25... the moving of that topic to a less viewed forum is suspect. Unless you originally saw it in the originally posted forum, one would not know to look for it. Then, for you to lock my explanation request about the move is also suspect. Classic silencing of a position which does not support, possibly, your position? As a moderator, it is not your job to move things as YOU see fit. I can see you moderating content to be polite etc... not censor. Like was done to the original SKI sewer topic of a while ago in which a vast majority of the posts were lost. I put my topic in there and should have stayed since it is a KI issue. Your explanation is shallow. Falger25, Anyway that could be at the top of the first page instead of at the bottom. I will use that search feature from now on. I hate looking through each section to find interesting topics.
|
|
|
Post by ravens20 on Nov 16, 2013 17:22:13 GMT -4
I have idea why they would move it and I'm not going to speculate, but it certainly does ensure that less people read the thread and participate in the discussion. How does moving the thread ensure any such thing? Did you have any trouble finding it? For anyone having trouble finding new posts to threads, try using the Recent Posts link near the bottom of the main forum page. All the recent posts show up with the date and time they were posted. Pretty simple to read everything on every forum that way. I'd suggest asking the board admin how many unique views you get on the politico sub-forum versus the KIO sub-forum. After that I'd have him check how many unique clicks per day you get on the "Recent Posts" link on the bottom of the page, I'm betting it's less that 10, and that's being generous. You're right, it is very simple to click that link or to read through each sub-forum individually, but that's not how people use Internet Forums. I'm gonna take a wild shot in the dark here and say that the KIO forum is where the vast majority of your traffic comes from. Moving a thread out of that forum absolutely guarantees that less people will see that thread. BTW I'm not suggesting that was the motive behind it. I didn't find the thread until BurnerBill posted about it being moved in the KIO forum. I rarely visit the politico forum so I doubt I would've stumbled across it for another few weeks. Why would I assume a thread has been moved to a specific forum when it just disappears from the original forum that it was in? There's nothing to indicate the thread was moved, it's just gone. The KIO forum, still has active threads going back over 3 weeks on the front page, there's no need to aggressively move threads out of that forum unless it is completely off topic.
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Nov 16, 2013 18:52:55 GMT -4
For anyone having trouble finding new posts to threads, try using the Recent Posts link near the bottom of the main forum page. All the recent posts show up with the date and time they were posted. Pretty simple to read everything on every forum that way. 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.
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Nov 16, 2013 18:55:18 GMT -4
falgar25... the moving of that topic to a less viewed forum is suspect. Unless you originally saw it in the originally posted forum, one would not know to look for it. Then, for you to lock my explanation request about the move is also suspect. Classic silencing of a position which does not support, possibly, your position? As a moderator, it is not your job to move things as YOU see fit. I can see you moderating content to be polite etc... not censor. Like was done to the original SKI sewer topic of a while ago in which a vast majority of the posts were lost. I put my topic in there and should have stayed since it is a KI issue. Your explanation is shallow. Falger25, Anyway that could be at the top of the first page instead of at the bottom. I will use that search feature from now on. I hate looking through each section to find interesting topics. Post in the thread, it'll bump it up to the top of the page if you think it needs to be there. If it's on the front page it'll be seen. when it hits the 2nd page would be a better time for a bump
|
|
|
Post by jackbquick on Nov 16, 2013 19:00:04 GMT -4
For anyone having trouble finding new posts to threads, try using the Recent Posts link near the bottom of the main forum page. All the recent posts show up with the date and time they were posted. Pretty simple to read everything on every forum that way. 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?
|
|