On May 29, 8:34 pm, Robert Allison wrote:
dpb wrote:
....
This doesn't sound like you, Bob...

I am probably projecting.... I have been working on a project
in a neighborhood where everyone is very concerned about every
little thing that you do.

Given some of the things I've seen happen around rural areas and
smaller, established subdivisions, I'm not at all surprised nor do I
blame them for being concerned. Wichita City just went an bought most
of a quarter directly across a county road from a very nice area of
existing acreages/houses with the expressed intent of placing a
landfill there -- hardly conducive to making friends. Another area
just got told there's now going to be a large development of
subsidized housing go in what is presently a city park in the middle
of what has been for 40+ years single-family or duplex residential.
And, yet another residential area edge has been sold out to allow yet
another WalMart SuperCenter with it's main parking lot entrance
sharing the one entrance/egress street to their neighborhood which is
landlocked and can't be provided a second egress w/o taking out
multiple homes. To top this one off, there's an existing WM within 3
miles...

We don't know for sure there were any (at least close) neighbors
before. The incremental effect of one additional residential well as
opposed to the addition of a fairly large number of individual or a
few larger, communal wells isn't necessarily the same. Again, all
depends on what is actually happening and what the local aquifer
characteristics are...

Agreed, but at what point do you get to tell your neighbors
that own the land around you (whether they be individuals or a
corporation) that there is enough development and they have to
stop using their property because it may have an effect on
you? One does not have the right to do that. Every bit of
development affects neighboring properties in some way.

One doesn't have an absolute right to say how adjoining property is
used, granted. But, otoh, while the adjoining landowner/developer may
have the legal right by law to do something, doesn't necessarily make
it right from a more neighborly point of view for lack of better way
to put it. To make a nuisance for existing neighbors of whatever type
is not an optimal answer, either.

....

My problem with the OP is that as long as the proper
procedures are followed, there isn't anything that they can do
to stop progress. I would hate to have someone try to tell me
what I can do on my property (or especially what I can't do).

You're undoubtedly much more reasonable than some individuals and
certainly some developers aren't at all concerned about effects on
those surrounding them. It would be ideal if zoning and other
ordinances were able to be totally fair to all involved but,
unfortunately, like most other issues, "right" is colored mightily by
the point of view.

That is why I live out in the country.
....
I wish I could buy up all the property around me, but I can't
afford to pay all the taxes just to be able to keep progress
at bay.

And that's why I have an option on the half-section north of the house
so that when the current owner decides to sell I can prevent the
feedlot east from acquiring it and moving their operation directly
across the road. Fortunately, as agricultural land, it is revenue-
generating even though I don't need it for our operation I'll add it
to ensure the integrity of the surrounding area around the home
quarter (which is three of the four quarters on the section).

In general, it's not an easy question...