Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingScot
Even if this is 100% true (a couple of posters have suggested there may still be legal hurdles), that does not mean it is right for the Winchesters to sell to the developer.
An owner is presented with identical prices from two bidders for their land. One bidder will build houses for 12 families, increasing the environmental impact significantly. Another will grant low impact access to hundreds of kids every year, and protect the land forever.
If I were the Winchesters, I think I'd know how I'd want to be remembered.
|
Whether it is "right" or not is a matter of an emotional measure of right or wrong and while I get that it is still the owner's decision who they sell to. It would be no different than holding prejudice against one party because you simply don't like them or what they are interested in doing with property they one day could own.
Far as the mission statement of the town goes... that's all well and good but read the language carefully, words such as promote, and encourage they can certainly do and when it comes to say allowing special exceptions for development, these ideals can certainly play a part but they cannot just say you can't build a house there because the neighbors don't like it. Nor can they just inject themselves into a legal transaction between two parties just because. This is a serious overreach and I don't believe they have the authority to do so.
Keep in mind I am not taking sides on this just saying if all the requirements are met the town cannot come along and say no without just cause. The owner of the property has rights too. And not for nothing, ANY waterfront lot development creates an impact of some sort so using that as an argument then sets the precedence of what? No more waterfront lot development? Or is it just ok for some but not for others?