| Name: |
Wakely
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Another question
|
|
Date:
|
3/4/2008 7:00:11 PM
|
In the same document, Part 4 of Paragraph B in Section 2, Personnel of the Lake Martin Planning Commission, it states
(b) (b) (1) The members of the Commission shall be appointed as follows:
(iv) one member shall be appointed by Russell Lands, Inc., or its successors and assigns, for a term of five years from the date of such appointment
My question is, why Russell Lands? Why not any other business in the area, such as Lake Martin Building Supply? Is Russell Lands the only that cares about the future development of the Lake area, or the only company that has an opinion that counts?
|
| Name: |
Osms
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Old news
|
|
Date:
|
3/4/2008 7:58:49 PM
|
This has already been discussed on the Forum. Before posting each paragraph individually read the entire draft document--it makes more sense that way. Notice I used the term "draft"/
|
| Name: |
Catherine
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Conflict of Interest?
|
|
Date:
|
3/4/2008 8:05:59 PM
|
Given that Russell Lands and Alabama Power control over 90% of the land surrounding the lake, is it not the definition of "conflict of interest" for them to be granted perpetual representation on the Commission? A 7 member board, 2 of which own the resources they are purportedly "controlling for the betterment of all."
If that isn't a conflict of interest, my name isn't Catherine.
|
| Name: |
Catherine
-
|
|
| Subject: |
"Exclusive Jurisdiction?"
|
|
Date:
|
3/4/2008 8:23:49 PM
|
The Act calls for "exclusive jurisdiction" for the LMPC over the areas including in the "Lake Martin Development Area." It further requires the Counties and Alex City to pay the LMPC ad valorem taxes collected by those agencies. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I find it hard to believe that a county on the brink of bankruptcy (Tallapoosa) is going to give up control of their most valuable resource and the taxes it generates.
Unless........
Something smells very rotten in Ourtown.
|
| Name: |
Osms
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Catherine
|
|
Date:
|
3/4/2008 9:43:19 PM
|
Now you are making statements that are plainly not true You at least imply--I'll say, You state, that all property taxes in the Lake Martin Zone will be given up by the counties--NOT TRUE and I think you know it. A set dollar amount is allocated to each county and city--NOT ALL.
Opinions are great - everyone has one - but stick with the facts, don't make up your own version.
|
| Name: |
Catherine
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Now Osms....
|
|
Date:
|
3/5/2008 8:23:03 AM
|
I didn't say that, and didn't mean to imply it either, though I suppose I can understand how you got that impression. I DO suspect that the Commision, as proposed in the Act, would ultimately attempt to snatch the entire amount collected in their jurisdiction, and the Act is certainly written in a manner to allow that to occur.
I gather that you are somehow involved with an HOA or POA at the lake? If so (and even if not), could you give me your thoughts on the Commission as proposed in the Act? While I certainly agree with those who argue that a commission is neded to oversee the development of the lake, the proposed framework in the Act appears to me to be nothing less than an attempt to convey control perpetually to Russell Lands and Alabama Power. The lake doesn't belong to either of them, and I feel that any such commission should be comprised of representatives who are elected by the property owners whom they will regulate. I am intimately familiar with Russell Lands' involvement in "managing" their developments, and I would not wish that upon a farmer or homeowner who chose to purchase land outside of Russell Lands or APCO's holdings. Placing such regulatory power and fiduciary responsibility in the hands of the two largest owners of the property to be regulated would seem to me to be an incredible conflict of interest. Do you agree?
|
| Name: |
CAT BOAT
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Now Osms....
|
|
Date:
|
3/5/2008 9:38:39 AM
|
My .02 worth.... I agree!!!
|
| Name: |
LifeTime Laker
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Now Osms....
|
|
Date:
|
3/5/2008 10:17:54 AM
|
So do I. I suspect Osms might have been promised something in return for his, and by association, the HOBO support.
|
| Name: |
Catherine
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Boat owners have no say
|
|
Date:
|
3/5/2008 10:38:27 AM
|
Property owners do, but boat owners shouldn't. I understand the argument is that they use the lake, and contribute to it through such use, but that really has no bearing.
I own a car. They County, nor State consult me when they construct a new road.
And with that reference in mind (property owner vs. recreational user of the lake), the composition and power of the Commission as propsed in the Act is glaringly suspect.
|
Could be a set amount or could be the the ad valorem taxes collected for property only in the counties LMPC authorization zone. Either/or, as John Coley has stated, any ceding of a counties zoning regulations would have to be approved by that counties commissioners first. So regardless of who sits on the commission, citizens will have a say in the crafting of the entire piece of proposed legislation before allowing a planning commission to control their own zoning regulations. If the formation of this commission is due to the absolute lack of zoning regulations, maybe this will spur citizen interest in the process. I support local control and tend to question the true motives of commissions such as these.
|
| Name: |
8hcap
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Catherine
|
|
Date:
|
3/5/2008 12:10:49 PM
|
The only things i have read on this subject is what has appeared on this board. However, just because zoninfg board has provenance over land use and site planning does not give it the right to collect property taxes. In Alabama I beleive property taxes are earmarked to education. Certainly the Board could charge application and inspection fees, etc.
Now, I understand Alabama has passed legislation to authorize Community Development Districts. These are common in Florida and are used to fund certain public improvements through a bond issue which is retired from property assessments imposed by the CDD. The CDD is treated as if it is a governmental entity and sunshine laws and the like apply.
Usually the CDD's are set up for a given neighborhood so I do not know if it would work for such a large area with diverse ownership. One thing I agree with Catherine concerns the placement of Russell and Al Power representatives on the board. If they are in the minorith, however it might not be too bad. Obviously, some of their self interest aligns with other property owners.
8
|
| Name: |
boataholic
-
|
|
| Subject: |
simpler local control
|
|
Date:
|
3/5/2008 1:09:12 PM
|
The planning commission smells like a lake-wide power grab. Citizens desiring zoning have a more direct method of obtaining that now. Those adjoining Dadeville, Alex City, and Jacksons Gap can ask for annexation, and then deal with their city council representatives for zoning. Others in more rural areas of the lake can get three hundred like-minded residents to form their own municipality, where they can set their own zoning without the need to petition the county or the State,
|
| Name: |
Osms
-
|
|
| Subject: |
LTL....
|
|
Date:
|
3/5/2008 1:47:35 PM
|
not every person has a price.
|
| Name: |
CAT BOAT
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Catherine
|
|
Date:
|
3/5/2008 2:29:19 PM
|
Was your "Boat owners have no say" post directed at me?
|
| Name: |
Pier Pressure
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Boat owners have no say
|
|
Date:
|
3/5/2008 2:56:37 PM
|
Excuse me, but I am a boat owner. I spend almost every weekend at the lake for 9 of 12 months a year. My family spends a considerable amount of money on the local economy.
Collectively, boat owners who use the wet and dry slips at the marinas obviously have a large impact on the decisions made around the lake.
If this commission changes the rights that we currently have, or alters the situation I currently enjoy, then I am positive that I should have a say so.
Just because I am not paying property tax does not mean I do not have a vested interest.
|
| Name: |
Catherine
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Certainly not!
|
|
Date:
|
3/5/2008 6:07:35 PM
|
It was a "pre-emptive" attempt to quell the inevitable "HOBO carries a lot of weight" argument I anticipate. It was a generalization of those boat owners who do not own property, and therefore will not be affected by a development commission.
No Cat, I've seen your boat(s), and they are beautiful!
|
| Name: |
Catherine
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I own a car.
|
|
Date:
|
3/5/2008 6:09:53 PM
|
Will you grant me a vote over how your driveway has to be landscaped simply because I own a car?
How about a car....AND a bicycle?
You should have no say if you do not pay property taxes in the areas targeted by the commission.
|
| Name: |
LifeTime Laker
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I own a car.
|
|
Date:
|
3/5/2008 8:00:57 PM
|
And why does paying property taxes make anyone a 'higher class' citizen. And by higher class I mean one that gets a vote. Poll taxes were outlawed years ago. IF if affects the entire area, then the entire area should and will have a say so. PP is as much a part of the 'lake community' as you and I are. He may not pay property taxes but he does pay ad volurem taxes, gasoline taxes, sales taxes, etc. etc. In fact I would bet that him and many other non land owners make a bigger impact on the local economy than some property owners who only come around a few times a year. To just dismiss him and others because they choose to own a boat rather than a house is elitist and discriminatory.
|
| Name: |
longtimer
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I own a car.
|
|
Date:
|
3/6/2008 12:02:04 AM
|
While it's hard to argue about who might DESERVE to vote on issues surrounding the lake, what can't be overlooked is how it will be determined who is ALLOWED to vote. Sure, you might have your boat on the lake every weekend from March thru October; when you get to the polls, are they going to ask that? Even if they do, how are you going to prove it?
Should a voting situation ever arise, it will come down to place of primary residence. "Frequent boaters" will be left out, as will "cabin renters." Most "second-homers" will probably get to vote, if they actually own those vacation homes. It might not be fair to the boaters and the renters, but there must be a way to regulate who is going to vote; if "anyone who appears at the polling place" is allowed to cast a ballot, count on seeing a lot of 18-wheelers unloading their human cargo. Three guesses as to who is going to own those trucks... and the votes of the people in those trucks.
|
| Name: |
boataholic
-
|
|
| Subject: |
I own a car.
|
|
Date:
|
3/6/2008 9:09:08 AM
|
Actually, would it be legal to hold a vote that allowed non-resident property owners to vote? I bet any vote would be for legal residents only, so in most areas the off-lake residents will greatly outnumber the on lake residents. Fat chance they are going to vote for zoning. Better to pursue a "no high density" law kind of like the big boat ban law.
|
Stupid question, but in Alabama are property taxes considered ad valorem taxes?
|
| Name: |
8hcap
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Catherine
|
|
Date:
|
3/6/2008 2:37:04 PM
|
yes
|
yes they do!!
And I know what one of yours was. Do you want me to go there?
|
| Name: |
MythBuster
-
|
|
| Subject: |
You've made a point when...
|
|
Date:
|
3/6/2008 7:20:22 PM
|
You know you've made a point when your response doesn't agree with LTL's post... and he ignores it.
|
| Name: |
LifeTime Laker
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Dang Myth....
|
|
Date:
|
3/6/2008 8:11:40 PM
|
.... my puddin pot has gotten outta control today. I just missed it. But I don't see anything that deserves much. To think that only property owners and second home owners would be all that gets to vote is to naive to even respond too. ANY refferendem that comes up will be voted on County wide. And has been pointed out, will not even be close. And then ANY commision like the one proposed will MOST LIKELY require a constitutional ammendment, just like any thing else that happens in Alabama with our 100+ year old constitution that centers power in Montgomery. Fat chance of that passing too.
|
| Name: |
MythBuster
-
|
|
| Subject: |
You must admit....
|
|
Date:
|
3/7/2008 12:28:04 AM
|
that when one reads the original post, and your reply, that it is not inconceivable to think that you were claiming that all lake USERS, regardless of where they live, would be allowed to vote. In your response to me, you have assigned parameters ("a countywide vote") that did not exist in your original response.
Not all boaters live in, own property in, or even rent property in any of the three counties that the lake lies within. And I feel certain that those people, no matter how much gas or how many groceries they buy, will NOT be allowed to vote on any sort of lake referendum. Longtimer's explanation of why they won't was good enough; there's no reason to re-state it.
|
| Name: |
LifeTime Laker
-
|
|
| Subject: |
You must admit....
|
|
Date:
|
3/7/2008 8:33:13 AM
|
Ok I read it again and I guess I see where you are coming from. But I would never be so naive as to think that 'frequent visitors' would or should get a vote. I pointing out how absurd that would be. But at the same time trying to show that what happens affects EVERYONE, not just lakefront owners, and how non lakefront owners impact the local economy.
|
|
New Post
Search
Lake Martin Topics Forum
Reply
»
Alabama Lakes
»
Lake Martin
Login
|
Home
