Republi-CONS Now Out to Get Seniors - Good Luck!

We've found that it's easier just to buy something with a lake already in place.

 

I dont know the situation with Davids lake but I do know that water is a comodity and it is quite possible that in the building of such a feature they need to take into account the effects on the surrounding area (as I say this is nothing to do with Davids lake, I have no idea of it's location) ie would it have a negative effect on the farms in the area are they or others reliant upon a certain flow of water, is the proposed site one of scientific interest or is it a place of outstanding natural beuty? Many questions need to be answerd
Look at it like this if the local or national goverment decided to build something in your area you would expect them to follow a set of rules (they dont allways I admit but they should) so why shoudnt the individual?

 

You are correct, to a certain degree. The policies I had to abide by were written for instances just as you described. My lake plans wouldn't have effected anything but did fall under the gov't one-size-fits-all policy.

 

If the government started doing such things on a case-by-case basis would you then start whining about inefficiency and expense and making accusations of favoritism?

 

Since when would common sense create inefficiency & expense? I would expect it to do just the opposite.

 

Common sense costs money because it requires additional time and thought and you have to pay someone to take the time and do the thinking Much easier and cheaper to apply the one-size-fits-all approach when you have the option. That's the way the company I work for operates. I thought you were in business.
Let me correct that. Doing a case-by-case analysis costs money. Even with that it doesn't necessarily follow that there will be any common sense involved.

 

I guess if there is no familiarity with the project you may be right but in the case of agriculture there are always localized agents who typically end up being the decision maker too.

 

The common sense I am aware of does the exact opposite. Common sense simplifies the process. It does not complicate it.

 

So where was the localized agent in the case of your lake? Apparently he or she made some decisions you didn't like and even with their lake project familiarity required you to jump through some hoops that you thought were silly and cumbersome. I'm just guessing. Seriously. You seem uncharacteristically mellow and reasonable this morning. Maybe you need coffee. But I'm just guessing that the only way you would have been happy with the process is if some bureaucrat had simply spent 15 seconds reviewing your lake project, yawned, and signed off on it. I could be wrong though.

 

Read the correction, rim.

 

About 15 miles away

Regarding the decisions? You guessed wrong. Hoops? You guessed right. The hoops involved time, studies & "experts".

The frustrating part is that gov't interference stretched the process out for so long. My local ag agent approved the plans right up front, heck I had him involved from the get go. The bureacracy involved...all the steps...the expert's reports...the studies....simply drug the process out longer than was necessary.

 

I think you're full of it and have nothing more than the ability to avoiding and dodge as usual. Here is yet one more claim that you can't prove. So what else is new? I am so used to your flimsy accusations and false statements. You've been caught "red-handed" again and all you can do wiggle and twist as you always do. Shame on your nonsense. Grow up man!

I do recall the "Pelosi incident" you speak of. Didn't she and I use the same word within a day or two of each other? Yeah that single word was some talking point.

Now I'll ask again. Where is this talking point/my idea you are sure I am parroting. Come on, use Google and find it. It should only take about two seconds if it actually is a talking point. You are just plain pathetic. For once in your life man up and admit you don't know what you're talking about or remain the spineless worm we all see day in and day out in this forum. All you have to do to prove me wrong is find the talking point.

*****Sits back with popcorn and drink and gets ready for the show.

 

I understand the frustration. Dealing with any bureaucracy can be a bit.... trying. I know. I'm on the inside of a huge private one and as a minor functionary my hands are pretty much tied.

 

Ahhh...the cornered animal strikes back....keep going.

 

Unfortunatly common sence and bureacracy do not realy belong in the same sentence, red tape is the same the world over we have a name for those who practice it "Jobs Worths"

 

Boy did you miss the point, tikija. Now de orc has some of the idea.

 

Expect to see more and more red-tape concerning water-uses in the decades to come. Our water sources are being depleted. That said, you'd think new ponds, lakes or storage basins would be welcomed lol

 

No you actually just avoided proving your accusation again. I know how this goes too. In some later thread you say, "Remember when you were caught red-handed using Left-wing talking points?" You're just a very sad person. If your neighbors were smart, they'd shovel every bit of your land into rusty buckets, load them onto a garbage scow and drive out into the middle of the ocean and throw them overboard, and then fill the hole with Styrofoam and rope it off. Who would ever want you as a neighbor. Yuck!
I knew you couldn't man up and you continue to prove it with every post.

 

I have had enough experience with red tape over the years to heartily detest it LOL

 

I live near the Great Lakes (Lake Superior specifically) and understand it's value as a fresh-water source. Over the past few decades the states that share borders on the lakes, as well as Canada, have been taking steps to safe-guard the lakes.

The agreements each has signed is the red-tape everyone despises, but it serves as a buffer. Without that buffer large businesses would drain the lakes faster than the water could be replenished. Even now, with the agreements in place, water is being drained in massive volumes by bottlers and other industries.

I'm no fool though. I don't expect these safe-guards to last forever, and understand that one day the lakes may be little more than puddles. Eventually the government itself may take the water, most likely to grow food. In the meantime, I'm glad the red-tape is there, if only to protect the lakes for a bit longer.

The good news (for my area) is that I don't expect the lakes to be in any great danger of being drained for several centuries... depending on the weather lol ...unless the federal government desides to 'bail out' the South-West. Once that decision is made, expect a U.S./Canadian War (which the U.S. will win) LOL