Chop chop chop

After months of watching land-use applications, we’ve noticed they mostly fall in the categories of “build something new,” with the occasional “put antennas on building.” However, a couple hit the city site a few days ago (but dated 12/4, so it’s not windstorm backlash) for a plan to “remove vegetation,” including more than a dozen trees (center of the photo below, just to the left of the street light), on a lot over Beach Drive. The house on the property is on Atlas so one of the applications is for that address; the other application has a Beach address even though that part of the lot is steep slope, inhabited only by the birds. Seems too steep to safely get rid of the trees and brush without a major mudslide threat, but does the city ever say no to these things?


3 Replies to "Chop chop chop"

  • chet_desmond January 8, 2007 (9:23 am)

    I think all of the proposed land use signs that go up should be renamed, “Here is what we are going to do and if you don’t like it, tough $#!”. I have been to meetings about “proposed” changes and the public can express concerns but not ask questions. WTF?! It’s like, why have these meetings if there is nothing that can be done to stop what someone thinks they just have a right to do? Example, were all the houses that were knocked down and condos put up, just proposed? No, they are all staring us in the face.

  • Mike January 8, 2007 (5:12 pm)

    What also can happen is that if a steep-sloped, landslide prone site is not allowed to be built on, then the owner files suit. When the resulting lawsuit allows the development to occur, someday in the future a whopper of a landslide takes the new structure with it and the owner sues the city for allowing them to build on such a site. It seems as if it is a no win situation.

    With that being said, the ability to build more safely in such locations is a helluva a lot better today than when all the homes were built on the bluffs and hills over the past 90 years.

  • chet_desmond January 9, 2007 (7:32 am)

    Good points, thanks Mike.

Sorry, comment time is over.