|
Land use laws must serve all in Houston County
|
|
|
To the Editor:
There may be 700 people who have signed the Houston County Landowners Concerned about Property Rights petition, but there are thousands more who recognize that the pursuit of happiness on our land affects others’ abilities to pursue happiness on theirs. This is not the Wild West (nor is it Wyoming), and when We the People pass laws that define how we may legally use our property, we do it to ensure the greatest benefit for all current and future citizens of Houston County.
I grew up in a Northwestern Minnesota county with weak zoning laws. Farmland, businesses, housing developments, junkyards, and mobile-home courts all intermingle. I return home and believe that there is no way that they’ll recover from their lack of foresight and leadership.
I’ve lived in Houston County these past 30 years and know what it’s like to be in the middle of a land-use squabble. I had a neighbor who overwhelmed his property (and mine) with old--some would say “junk”--farm machinery. Was it his Constitutional right to accumulate and sell his machinery? Or was it my Constitutional right to enjoy my property without being surrounded by a junkyard?
It was neither. Instead we looked to Houston County’s zoning laws. Our laws explicitly said that commercial junkyards can only operate on land that is zoned as industrial; and as hard as it was to do, the county forced the cleanup of the area.
Land use laws are difficult to write and implement. There will always be those who feel that the laws are restrictive or unfair. During planning commission meetings to sort out my complaint, how many times did I see commissioners agonize over decisions in which individuals’ reasonable requests ran counter to the law? But zoning laws exist to protect our land from harm and unintended consequences and resolve disputes when they appear. The laws do neither if they are not enforced.
Land use laws change over time. Maybe some Houston County laws need revisiting, and perhaps some will be changed to reflect current trends. But changes are best made by individuals whose goal is the future good of all Houston County citizens.
We should resist groups like the HCLCPR whose demands are self-serving, and whose tactics seek to intimidate rather than find common ground.
Joel Lidstrom
Caledonia, Minn.
|
|
|
County commissioners should adopt framework
|
|
|
To the Editor:
The purpose of this letter is to follow up with the Houston County Commission on the proposed framework for a land use plan that the Concerned Landowners of Houston County have presented. The Concerned Landowners understand the economic concerns and pressures weighing upon Houston County at this time and believe that they have presented a solution to the Commission that avoids the additional expense of appeals and litigation, something the taxpayers would appreciate. That solution is to adopt the framework presented to the Houston County Commission on April 6, 2010. As has been presented, this framework reaffirms the Houston County’s property owners statutorily and Constitutionally protected private property rights.
Karen Budd-Falen
Atty., Cheyenne, Wyo.
|
|
|
County needs to adopt landowners’ resolution
|
|
|
To the Editor:
The Land Use Plan of Houston County is again in the news. Once again our county commissioners are seeking the advice of an attorney (at the expense of all county residents). Do they want to know if they can legally disregard listening to their constituents? The commissioners say they don’t like the preconditions that must be met before representatives of the Landowners Concerned About Property Rights will meet with the board.
The Concerned Landowners offered the county a solution which would involve a change in the foundation of the Houston County Land Use Plan, so that the application of the plan is consistent with Minnesota law and the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. This foundation would provide a measuring stick against which the land use plan and all applications are measured and would prevent arbitrary decisions by the county. The precondition is that the foundation be adopted by the commissioners as written, which basically is:
“We the people retain the right to own, maintain, and develop private property as we see fit, free of restrictive zoning regulations. This right being guaranteed to all in their “pursuit of happiness.” These liberties extend until it can be proved that their executions brings harm to or infringes upon the rights of others. …Seeking liberty and justice for all - let all zoning regulations be examined to see if they accomplish this.”
The landowners are the first to agree there is a need for some regulations. What we don’t need is repetition of our state and national guidelines pertaining to clean air, water, sewer, etc. The current land use plan and zoning regulations are so extensive, administration is difficult. So instead of going back and changing what needs to be changed, more regulations are piled on - typical government. If you don’t believe it, just read the commissioners meeting minutes.
Now I ask you, what would be the harm in adopting the resolution? The commissioners and landowners representatives could then begin looking at the land use plan and make changes as needed. After all in the end, the county commissioners have the final word as they would approve or disapprove a new plan and zoning regulations.
Yvonne Krogstad
Spring Grove, Minn.
|
|
|
The new future of U.S. space program
|
|
|
To the Editor:
On Thursday, April 15, President Obama took the podium at Kennedy Space Center and delivered his vision for the US space programs. After weeks of speculation over what would or wouldn’t be covered under the space plan, he delivered a focused, concise plan for the future of NASA and the commercial space programs in the United States.
The plan is as follows:
• The Apollo-heritage Orion crew module will still be built and used initially as an escape module for astronauts aboard the ISS.
• The Constellation family of rockets is to be cancelled; however, funding is provided for NASA to create a new family of heavy lift rockets to replace Constellation by 2015. Included in this was also the goal of incentivizing private industry to work closely with NASA in designing the future U.S. path forward into space.
• The NASA budget is to be increased by $6 billion over the next five years.
•Manned missions will be planned for near-Earth asteroids and eventually Mars in 2030.
Immediately following this announcement, sources that are typically critical of the President began their predictable barrage of hyperbolic aspersions. Fox News proclaimed that Obama had slashed the NASA budget, was ending the manned space program, kids won’t know the dream of growing up to be astronauts. They said Buzz Aldrin came out and publicly denounced this plan, and that it was the Obama’s fault that our astronauts would have no American provided means of space travel once the space shuttle is decommissioned in September of 2010.
While it’s not surprising to hear these outrageous claims from this particular source, the level of blatant dishonesty and misconception is a bit unnerving.
First of all, nearly all of these claims are wholly debunked by performing the simple task of reading the proposal or by listening to it at www.nasa.gov.
Secondly, not only did Buzz Aldrin come out and speak IN FAVOR of this plan he is also one of its major proponents.
Finally, anyone who knows anything about the timeline associated with the Constellation program (as set forth under the Bush administration) knows that the space shuttle program was to be shelved this year regardless of this announcement. What’s the point? Even before the cancellation of the Constellation program, our only real access to space for the next five years is through the Russians aboard the Soyuz program.
With this announcement President Obama set forth the most aggressive and comprehensive plan for the U.S. space efforts since Kennedy’s vision in the 1960s.
I find it remarkably sad that something that should be heralded by both sides as a major shift in the direction of advancing the country’s best interest is instead being demonized by those that should most support it. When those who rail against government run programs are paradoxically criticizing the President for passing the baton off to private sector in the space industry, something reeks of hypocrisy and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
Scott J. Roland
Former Caledonia resident
Newport Beach, Calif.
|
|
|
Soccer volunteers needed for Caledonia program
|
|
|
To all Soccer Parents and anyone who loves the game of soccer:
I have been the president of the Caledonia Youth Soccer Association for three years and have been privileged to work with excellent board members. It has been a wonderful experience for all of us. But it is that time for most of us to be moving on with our children. This will be my last year as the president. It is also the last year for most of the board members listed below. The C.Y.S.A. is a 100% volunteer based club. The club is in search of a new president and new board members to do the many tasks necessary to have a successful year. This cannot be done without your help.
Without your help the C.Y.S.A. may fold. We want to make this a smooth transition. If you are interested please contact one of the following:
President: James Larson, 507-459-1202
Vice President: Steve Peter, 725-3749
Treasurer: Dawn Sonsalla, 507-482-6215
Referee Coordinator: Jim Schoh 725-2945
Secretary: Kathy Renk, 563-419-4150
Sincerely,
James D. Larson
C.Y.S.A. President
|
|
|
The self-employed and farmers need health care insurance too
|
|
|
To the Editor:
My husband and I are hard working self employed farmers and have a home woodworking business which keeps us fully employed. We do not have an outside job on top of that to provide us our medical insurance. For many years we have been buying our own independently.
Given the recent rate increases in our medical insurance premiums, here is what I said in a letter I sent to Blue Cross Blue Shield of MN.
“Customer service department,
“Due to economic circumstances in our household and your two most recent rate increases, we can no longer afford to or justify holding medical insurance with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota.
“From our perspective, the rate increase is unfounded and further depletes our monthly budget to the extent that a visit to the doctor is nearly impossible.
“I am not comfortable with being underinsured and still paying $539 per month for that privilege. Our current policy looks like a very big waste of money.
“Please cancel my insurance policy numbered XXXX effective April 1, 2010.”
We need a different way to do this. A way so independent, hard working people don’t get left out.
We have always considered the United States to be a great country to live and work in. But now many who fall in the middle, are being forced to take the gamble that we won’t get drastically sick and save the dollars that were spent on medical insurance to use to actually go see a doctor if we need to.
America’s current health care system means people pay more and get less. This weakens our economy, undermines families, stifles entrepreneurial spirit and puts people’s long-term health at risk. It’s clear to me that America would be stronger with a decent health care system.
We in our state of Minnesota can and should do much better on health care, and can help lead the nation on real reform that fits into average people’s budgets. We can’t afford to keep letting this slide.
Leslea Hodgson
Fountain, Minn.
|
|
|
