Lots of interesting news today

It's the sport fishermen who are whining so much about it. There are obviously more sport fishermen spread across the state than there are commercial guys, they tend to be oddly concentrated at the coast.


This quote states the real issues and it came from a Dem! :eek:. Don't get hungup on the last statement about climate crisis. Regardless of what you believe is causing it, our waters are warmer than they historically have been. Flounder don't like warm water, it's a known fact.

"Flanked by those against the ban and other lawmakers, several representatives argued against the science and the process used by those in favor of the ban. Rep. Pricey Harrison, D-Guilford, argued that the ban is not an environmental policy.

“This is an allocation issue,” said Harrison, who has extensive experience with coastal resources issues having served on various boards and commissions. “And, in fact, if we were focused on the environment and its impacts on the sustainability of fish, we’d be talking about water quality, we’d be talking about coastal development, we’d be talking about protecting our wetlands, restoring our buffers, instead of going in the opposite direction. And the big elephant in the room, the climate crisis, because it is raising the temperatures of the estuaries and the ocean, creating ocean acidification and that is actually what’s affecting the access to the fish the most.”

that WRAL article quoting someone saying
"We’re going to shut down the dry cleaners? We’re going to shut down the gas stations? Are we going to shut down the people who go to work every day making an honest living because some branch of the government finally decides in some slimy backroom deal that they don’t want to do this anymore. Well, by God, down east we didn’t ask them what they want to do.”
makes no sense

no, not shutting down the dry cleaners. what a doofus.

no doubt trawling indescrimently kills thousands/milions of other sea creatures. that cant be good for the overall health of the ecosystem. recreational fishing is a huge economic driver to the area as well.

and we can do multiple things at one time Harrison.....we can limit catches AND limit development and restore buffers (but can you imgaine the outcry if 'they' enacted a limit on buidling permits........gonna put thousands out of business!!!!!!!!!1111)

the dummy city councils, county commisionser, mayors, and/or the Gov. keep approving every new biz that wants to move to NC, approves every new 1000 house neighborhood, approves every new forest and field to be paved over as fast as they can......thats not sustainable and something will break.......and someone will eventually lose
 
Kind of surprised I havent seen this here yet:


While these items dont immediately effect NC, they could have effect on OHV areas in the west. Plus, who wants to see any Public land turned into subdivisions.
Those are two very different items. Mixed bag of feelings on the first one. The government owns too much land, but the last thing we need is more forest mowed down to build apartments and townhomes.

I'm totally in favor of eliminating the roadless rule and using a more precise, logical approach depending on the situation.
 
Those are two very different items. Mixed bag of feelings on the first one. The government owns too much land, but the last thing we need is more forest mowed down to build apartments and townhomes.

I'm totally in favor of eliminating the roadless rule and using a more precise, logical approach depending on the situation.

Public lands are one of the few "socialism" items i can support. It shouldn't be the top priority, but I do think it's a good thing. That said, they ain't making any more forests so I do think we should keep the ones we've got.
 
Public lands are one of the few "socialism" items i can support. It shouldn't be the top priority, but I do think it's a good thing. That said, they ain't making any more forests so I do think we should keep the ones we've got.
How about a bill that says for every acre a major developer clears they have to save and replant in equivalent public land😆 for public wildlife activities.
 
Those are two very different items. Mixed bag of feelings on the first one. The government owns too much land, but the last thing we need is more forest mowed down to build apartments and townhomes.

I'm totally in favor of eliminating the roadless rule and using a more precise, logical approach depending on the situation.

I am kind of with Joel, as they are making more land but I also agree that the govt has too much control over it. Not sure what the right decision is, but the other "outdoor" organizations seem to have more money and power than the offroad community, so if they start building roads or selling off BLM land, it will likely be the places we want kept.
 
I'd propose for every acre they clearcut, they have to leave 2 acres untouched on the same tract.
Here's the thing.
Playing devil's advocate for discussion.

A guy buys a 1.5 acre plot of land, wants to build a home.
You're telling me that on top of zoning ords, covenants, easements, set acjs, misc county rules, .gov is telling them they can't even use more than 0.5 acres of it as they wish?

I think we all support the sentiment but this also violates the whole "freedom if use if private property" principleis your love of trees and natural area - that don't belong to you - more important than your neighbors freedom?
 
Here's the thing.
Playing devil's advocate for discussion.

A guy buys a 1.5 acre plot of land, wants to build a home.
You're telling me that on top of zoning ords, covenants, easements, set acjs, misc county rules, .gov is telling them they can't even use more than 0.5 acres of it as they wish?

I think we all support the sentiment but this also violates the whole "freedom if use if private property" principleis your love of trees and natural area - that don't belong to you - more important than your neighbors freedom?
Yes, be a man and buy (preserve) more acreage.
 
Yes, be a man and buy (preserve) more acreage.
Doesn't matter how much you buy, .gov is still preventing you from using 66% of what belongs to you.
 
And if it preserves some of the trees and natural habitat. Good. Don’t like it move to the desert and don’t worry about the trees.
Huh. Never would have pegged you you for a government overreach liberal :lol:
 
I am kind of with Joel, as they are making more land but I also agree that the govt has too much control over it. Not sure what the right decision is, but the other "outdoor" organizations seem to have more money and power than the offroad community, so if they start building roads or selling off BLM land, it will likely be the places we want kept.
According to this post, Moab, Sand Hollow, and the Rubicon are already on the list:
 
Here's the thing.
Playing devil's advocate for discussion.

A guy buys a 1.5 acre plot of land, wants to build a home.
You're telling me that on top of zoning ords, covenants, easements, set acjs, misc county rules, .gov is telling them they can't even use more than 0.5 acres of it as they wish?

I think we all support the sentiment but this also violates the whole "freedom if use if private property" principleis your love of trees and natural area - that don't belong to you - more important than your neighbors freedom?
My original statement was developer. My thoughts ran along the lines of these out of town folks buying tracks up and making the 1.5 to .625 acre plots out of every square inch. I also agree with what your saying. I also believe a lot of those other rules have become a large amount of over reach as well.

The mindset has shifted for the most part. Woodlots, countryside, and grandmas farm are worth more to folks as cash in their suit pockets.
 
unlimited capitialism will ultimately destroy. no matter how many times you shout regulations down as 'liberal'
we are just too new of a country to have seen it yet. we have already more than doubled the population in 2 generations. Just to keep that economic engine full throttle. That can't happen forever.
just wait till we have 550MM people. thats got to happen right? to keep real estate values constantly going up.....to keep selling more and more Pepsi.
there will be no Moab, no trails, limited trees, pit mines, strip mines, cobalt mines, oil fields, no uwharrie, no 'quite' beaches or rivers
we can see it coming, pretty quick actually, but it is for sure easier to kick the can to tomorrow

tragedy of the commons will clear cut it all, for yes, short term cash
 
My original statement was developer. My thoughts ran along the lines of these out of town folks buying tracks up and making the 1.5 to .625 acre plots out of every square inch.
Just to pull this thread a little - what's the difference between 1 guy buying land for 30 homestead plots, then reselling it, and 30 people individually buying that same land 1 at a time? Developers exist because people don't have the time and resources to go through the paperwork, clearing, and building their own homes. Developer is just a middle man serving a needed role.

People (and this includes me) are upset bc we see tress going away, but the fact that houses are on smaller tracts of land is largely driven by economics and the ratio of people who want a place to live vc the spaces available. Most people would love and prefer to have a giant yard but can't afford it because land is expensive and becoming increasingly scarce. The farm HAS to be cut into pieces in order to be affordable - otherwise, somebody would just buy the farm and leave it as is.
If we don't like this situation then, well... see the World Population thread. We're already heading down the road of decreasing habitants, and while that will likely removee this pressure it comes with a lot of other economic realities too (see the Social Security solvency discussion, for instance).

And yeah we love to bag on "out of towners" taking up the land, but (1) town economic models relies on them coming in and (2) unless you're native American and still living in the same 300 y/o hut then either you or your family did the exact same thing at one point.
The mindset has shifted for the most part. Woodlots, countryside, and grandmas farm are worth more to folks as cash in their suit pockets.
this is what it comes down to. Which has higher value to the seller. Trees or cash?
And in many cases - at least whats happening around here - small family farms CAN'T sell to other family farms bc literally nobody wants to go into that business. In the last 3 years we've had 3 families close up bc they were just too old and retiring, and they practically begged the community for somebody to take it over. Made it very clear they did not want the land developed. In the end... one is becoming a solar farm, the others are still looking for buyers, with developers pushing for rezoning so they can get them.
 
Here's the thing.
Playing devil's advocate for discussion.

A guy buys a 1.5 acre plot of land, wants to build a home.
You're telling me that on top of zoning ords, covenants, easements, set acjs, misc county rules, .gov is telling them they can't even use more than 0.5 acres of it as they wish?

I think we all support the sentiment but this also violates the whole "freedom if use if private property" principleis your love of trees and natural area - that don't belong to you - more important than your neighbors freedom?
Well, first off, keep in mind the comment was made about developments. Secondly, assuming my rule is suddenly the law, it doesn’t apply to single occupancy lots. Thirdly, if you need 2 acres for every 1 clearcut, I don’t see any decimals, so it’s a 3 acre minimum. I’m not looking to stop all development, just the bullshit cut down EVERY tree and make it a big flat clay slab to fit the max number of houses with the minimum amount of nature left.
 
Well, first off, keep in mind the comment was made about developments. Secondly, assuming my rule is suddenly the law, it doesn’t apply to single occupancy lots. Thirdly, if you need 2 acres for every 1 clearcut, I don’t see any decimals, so it’s a 3 acre minimum. I’m not looking to stop all development, just the bullshit cut down EVERY tree and make it a big flat clay slab to fit the max number of houses with the minimum amount of nature left
Developers and track home builders are different in my mind. More so when you get into the higher end developments.
Guy im working for now the development is 4500 acres and 4200 are protected
 
Well, first off, keep in mind the comment was made about developments. Secondly, assuming my rule is suddenly the law, it doesn’t apply to single occupancy lots. Thirdly, if you need 2 acres for every 1 clearcut, I don’t see any decimals, so it’s a 3 acre minimum. I’m not looking to stop all development, just the bullshit cut down EVERY tree and make it a big flat clay slab to fit the max number of houses with the minimum amount of nature left.
I agree in theory.

The problem is - a developer can put 100 homes on 100 acres and the net result is potentially 100 clear acres surrounded by forests.

The other option is 100 homes on 250 acres each wooded but no forests. It looks better aesthetically but is much worse for wildlife.


One of the things I learned.....I used to despise clear cut and pine plantation...but you learn that by doing this you actually require LESS deforestation because of concentration.


People in the northeast laugh at young sunbelters just learning what they learned 100 years ago.

When I was a kid my grandads road was 8 miles and had 5 houses on it.
Today there are over 300 homes on that road. The single best deer bottom I ever hunted now has an HOA pool and RV storage. It breaks my heart in some ways, but I also understand.

The problem with population control is what about when they decide to eliminate your number.
 
I agree in theory.

The problem is - a developer can put 100 homes on 100 acres and the net result is potentially 100 clear acres surrounded by forests.
The problem is they put 300 homes on 100 acres. Then they put 500 apartments on the 100 acres beside that. Then they put 400 townhomes on the 100 acres on the other side.

Here's the map between Stanley and Mt Holly. The green areas are ones that have already been clearcut, graded, built, sold, and inhabited since these pics were taken ~2 years ago. The red areas are actively being clearcut and developed right now.
1751052184073.png



There is absolutely nothing being done to improve the roads and infrastructure for the existing community, and the influx of high density neighborhoods changes the feel and makeup of the area. It is dereliction of duty by the zoning boards.
 
There is absolutely nothing being done to improve the roads and infrastructure for the existing community, and the influx of high density neighborhoods changes the feel and makeup of the area. It is dereliction of duty by the zoning boards.
That has nothing to do with the deforestation. Its a city planning / prioritization problem
The problem is they put 300 homes on 100 acres. Then they put 500 apartments on the 100 acres beside that. Then they put 400 townhomes on the 100 acres on the other side.
I know this is an unpopular opinion but dense housing SAVES trees.
What's the alternative? those 1200 homes on 1200 acres?

Yeah what you really wants is all those homes to not be built at all.
But thats what causes the housing price inflation crisis.
 
dense housing just means more of everything else. becuase more people. that means more paving over to create the places that all those people want/need to go when not at home.

and yea, don't build 'out' anymore at all is a start. want to rehad an old gas station on that sq footage? go ahead.
and if there ever was a time that populations start to decline, its not like it would happen overnight. would take decades. we can plan and prepare and become more efficient.

doubling NC's population again in 2 decades is what we want? keep the same rate of increase?

or stop/greatly slow it down now instead of waiting to find max breaking point and it crumbling fast could be better?
 
Back
Top