Where I do most of my sailing, there is a man who I barely recognize
and do not know well at all but who is a developer. This man is
wealthy and made his wealth by developing the local area for boaters.
He did not do this simply to be good but to make a profit and in doing
so produced a boating community where none previously existed. He
helped found a local boating organization not to be a good local
citizen but because it benefited his real estate sales. However,
local boaters benefit from his development efforts that made him
wealthy.
Does his huge benefit to boaters make him well liked to them, no, he
seems to be very disliked. I do not know if the dislike is due to
dishonest practices because I have never done business with him. In
spite of all he has done for the local boating community, people say
"He ought to donate that piece of land for a park instead of trying to
develop it" or "How can he try to charge people to use the wet areas,
everyone who bought property thought they owned their canal bottom".
Some of the boaters complained to the state about some very minor
problems on his property and forced him to spend huge amounts for
nearly nothing useful.
All of this would have simply gone over my head (not wanting to get
involved in their community politics) and I would have taken the ideas
of my boating friends as the correct attitude toward him if I had not
been reading "Atlas Shrugged". Now instead of thinking "He's just a
selfish old developer who should care more for people", I think, "Hmm,
he may have made a lot of money but in doing so he sure benefited
everybody around him".

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
Where I do most of my sailing, there is a man who I barely recognize
and do not know well at all but who is a developer. This man is
wealthy and made his wealth by developing the local area for boaters.
He did not do this simply to be good but to make a profit and in doing
so produced a boating community where none previously existed. He
helped found a local boating organization not to be a good local
citizen but because it benefited his real estate sales. However,
local boaters benefit from his development efforts that made him
wealthy.
Does his huge benefit to boaters make him well liked to them, no, he
seems to be very disliked. I do not know if the dislike is due to
dishonest practices because I have never done business with him. In
spite of all he has done for the local boating community, people say
"He ought to donate that piece of land for a park instead of trying to
develop it" or "How can he try to charge people to use the wet areas,
everyone who bought property thought they owned their canal bottom".
Some of the boaters complained to the state about some very minor
problems on his property and forced him to spend huge amounts for
nearly nothing useful.
All of this would have simply gone over my head (not wanting to get
involved in their community politics) and I would have taken the ideas
of my boating friends as the correct attitude toward him if I had not
been reading "Atlas Shrugged". Now instead of thinking "He's just a
selfish old developer who should care more for people", I think, "Hmm,
he may have made a lot of money but in doing so he sure benefited
everybody around him".


Everyone but a fool would complain about somethng that benefited them.
Your rich boaing friend just may have had a negative effect on some persons
peaceful enjoyment of their property.
You'd have to ask the individuals themselves. You see it around here...
some rich 'merican businessman wants to come in and develop a rock quarry in
a rural setting. Some residents are overjoyed at the possibility of
relatively good paying jobs. Local politicians drool over the tax benefits
On the other hand some people like their beautiful peaceful rural setting...
probably settled for hundreds of years by their forefathers. Thay don't want
a noisy dusty rock quarry in their backyard with a hugh loading wharf.

"Don White" wrote in message
...

*Everyone* but a fool would complain about somethng that benefited them.
Your rich boaing friend just may have had a negative effect on some
persons peaceful enjoyment of their property.
You'd have to ask the individuals themselves. You see it around here...
some rich 'merican businessman wants to come in and develop a rock quarry
in a rural setting. Some residents are overjoyed at the possibility of
relatively good paying jobs. Local politicians drool over the tax benefits
On the other hand some people like their beautiful peaceful rural
setting... probably settled for hundreds of years by their forefathers.
Thay don't want a noisy dusty rock quarry in their backyard with a hugh
loading wharf.



Should be *nobody*

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:20:10 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Where I do most of my sailing, there is a man who I barely recognize
and do not know well at all but who is a developer. This man is
wealthy and made his wealth by developing the local area for boaters.
He did not do this simply to be good but to make a profit and in doing
so produced a boating community where none previously existed. He
helped found a local boating organization not to be a good local
citizen but because it benefited his real estate sales. However,
local boaters benefit from his development efforts that made him
wealthy.
Does his huge benefit to boaters make him well liked to them, no, he
seems to be very disliked. I do not know if the dislike is due to
dishonest practices because I have never done business with him. In
spite of all he has done for the local boating community, people say
"He ought to donate that piece of land for a park instead of trying to
develop it" or "How can he try to charge people to use the wet areas,
everyone who bought property thought they owned their canal bottom".
Some of the boaters complained to the state about some very minor
problems on his property and forced him to spend huge amounts for
nearly nothing useful.
All of this would have simply gone over my head (not wanting to get
involved in their community politics) and I would have taken the ideas
of my boating friends as the correct attitude toward him if I had not
been reading "Atlas Shrugged". Now instead of thinking "He's just a
selfish old developer who should care more for people", I think, "Hmm,
he may have made a lot of money but in doing so he sure benefited
everybody around him".

Yep. Pretty much like those carpetbagger Yankees who put up those
condos all over the Florida coasts.
Without all that most native Floridians would probably be skinning
gators and making shine.
Is that what you're getting at here?
I guess you were kidding when you wished some hurricanes would wipe
those coastlines clean.
Am I right?
Wonder what Rand thought of Al Capone. That feller put a lot of
people to work, and even ran soup kitchens for the jobless.

--Vic

On Mar 31, 12:55 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:20:10 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch



wrote:
Where I do most of my sailing, there is a man who I barely recognize
and do not know well at all but who is a developer. This man is
wealthy and made his wealth by developing the local area for boaters.
He did not do this simply to be good but to make a profit and in doing
so produced a boating community where none previously existed. He
helped found a local boating organization not to be a good local
citizen but because it benefited his real estate sales. However,
local boaters benefit from his development efforts that made him
wealthy.
Does his huge benefit to boaters make him well liked to them, no, he
seems to be very disliked. I do not know if the dislike is due to
dishonest practices because I have never done business with him. In
spite of all he has done for the local boating community, people say
"He ought to donate that piece of land for a park instead of trying to
develop it" or "How can he try to charge people to use the wet areas,
everyone who bought property thought they owned their canal bottom".
Some of the boaters complained to the state about some very minor
problems on his property and forced him to spend huge amounts for
nearly nothing useful.
All of this would have simply gone over my head (not wanting to get
involved in their community politics) and I would have taken the ideas
of my boating friends as the correct attitude toward him if I had not
been reading "Atlas Shrugged". Now instead of thinking "He's just a
selfish old developer who should care more for people", I think, "Hmm,
he may have made a lot of money but in doing so he sure benefited
everybody around him".

The first flaw I see in your discussion is the thought that anyone
"owns the canal bottom". It belongs to the state of Florida and the
DEP and/or your Water Management district will be permitting any
construction there (in addition to whatever your county requires).
Once you get into historical "wetlands" and natural water bodies there
are a myriad of state and federal agencies involved.
The only bright light for land owners is the little known "Reahard"
case that came out of Lee County. The US Court of appeals ruled in
that case that if a landowner owned property before a more restrictive
use classification was imposed, keeping him from developing it would
be a taking and he must be compensated (preserving 40 acres cost Lee
County about $22m with court costs). If you buy a property after these
restrictions were imposed you are on your own.
The SCOTUS let that ruling stand.
In that case Richard Reahard's family bought a large tract in the 40s
and sold some of it off to developers (Bonita Bay Properties). After
that was developed they attempted to develop the part that was left
and Lee County decided there was too much development there already
and blocked it citing "wetlands". It took them over 10 years to get it
settled. The taxpayers paid.

In this case, I believe the developer who has been here since the
early 60s might have been grandfathered in because he does seem to own
at least part of the canal bottom. I think he even paid to have the
canals dug many years ago.
Vic: Yes, this does conflict with my wishing the carpetbagger Yankees
would go away. However, i still have to admire what he has
accomplished and see the inconsistency in the ideas of his critics.
The people who are doing the complaining are not local natives but
more yankees who bought lots around him. The locals need the tax
money to solve the problems of overdevelopment. Yes, I'd still like
to go back to the era before the development when one could simply
moor a boat up in the salt marsh for nothing.
So, bring on the hurricanes and clean MY shores of condo trash.

On Mar 31, 1:19 pm, Frogwatch wrote:
On Mar 31, 12:55 pm, wrote:



On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:20:10 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch

wrote:
Where I do most of my sailing, there is a man who I barely recognize
and do not know well at all but who is a developer. This man is
wealthy and made his wealth by developing the local area for boaters.
He did not do this simply to be good but to make a profit and in doing
so produced a boating community where none previously existed. He
helped found a local boating organization not to be a good local
citizen but because it benefited his real estate sales. However,
local boaters benefit from his development efforts that made him
wealthy.
Does his huge benefit to boaters make him well liked to them, no, he
seems to be very disliked. I do not know if the dislike is due to
dishonest practices because I have never done business with him. In
spite of all he has done for the local boating community, people say
"He ought to donate that piece of land for a park instead of trying to
develop it" or "How can he try to charge people to use the wet areas,
everyone who bought property thought they owned their canal bottom".
Some of the boaters complained to the state about some very minor
problems on his property and forced him to spend huge amounts for
nearly nothing useful.
All of this would have simply gone over my head (not wanting to get
involved in their community politics) and I would have taken the ideas
of my boating friends as the correct attitude toward him if I had not
been reading "Atlas Shrugged". Now instead of thinking "He's just a
selfish old developer who should care more for people", I think, "Hmm,
he may have made a lot of money but in doing so he sure benefited
everybody around him".

The first flaw I see in your discussion is the thought that anyone
"owns the canal bottom". It belongs to the state of Florida and the
DEP and/or your Water Management district will be permitting any
construction there (in addition to whatever your county requires).
Once you get into historical "wetlands" and natural water bodies there
are a myriad of state and federal agencies involved.
The only bright light for land owners is the little known "Reahard"
case that came out of Lee County. The US Court of appeals ruled in
that case that if a landowner owned property before a more restrictive
use classification was imposed, keeping him from developing it would
be a taking and he must be compensated (preserving 40 acres cost Lee
County about $22m with court costs). If you buy a property after these
restrictions were imposed you are on your own.
The SCOTUS let that ruling stand.
In that case Richard Reahard's family bought a large tract in the 40s
and sold some of it off to developers (Bonita Bay Properties). After
that was developed they attempted to develop the part that was left
and Lee County decided there was too much development there already
and blocked it citing "wetlands". It took them over 10 years to get it
settled. The taxpayers paid.

In this case, I believe the developer who has been here since the
early 60s might have been grandfathered in because he does seem to own
at least part of the canal bottom. I think he even paid to have the
canals dug many years ago.
Vic: Yes, this does conflict with my wishing the carpetbagger Yankees
would go away. However, i still have to admire what he has
accomplished and see the inconsistency in the ideas of his critics.
The people who are doing the complaining are not local natives but
more yankees who bought lots around him. The locals need the tax
money to solve the problems of overdevelopment. Yes, I'd still like
to go back to the era before the development when one could simply
moor a boat up in the salt marsh for nothing.
So, bring on the hurricanes and clean MY shores of condo trash.

BTW, I read that Hollywood is planning a movie of Atlas Shrugged for
2010. Even worse, Angelina Jolie will play Daqny Taggart. This is so
wrong. Most idjits in Hollywood hate Ayn Rands ideas so you can be
sure they will present it wrong. Joli is simply the wrong woman.
Dagny Taggart was s'posed to be very thin and cerebral. Joli is
neither.

Frogwatch wrote:

Vic: Yes, this does conflict with my wishing the carpetbagger Yankees
would go away.

If it weren't for "carpetbagger" Yankees, you and yours would still be
in the moonshine business, and slurping squeeze as a chaser.

--
Palin & Bachmann in 2012 -
All Stupidity All the Time

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:19:20 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Yes, I'd still like
to go back to the era before the development when one could simply
moor a boat up in the salt marsh for nothing.
So, bring on the hurricanes and clean MY shores of condo trash.

I doubt even hurricanes will get rid of them now.
You'd need a whole bunch of hurricanes every year.
That might do it.
Probably chase you out too.

--Vic