What People are Reading
- What a very sad and shocking
2 years 2 days ago
- Smart Meters
2 years 3 weeks ago
- 100 year old house burns
2 years 3 weeks ago
- Column 2-10 re Treason
2 years 12 weeks ago
- Radical Difference
2 years 13 weeks ago
- This activity is such a
2 years 21 weeks ago
- Okay Great we got a sign!
2 years 21 weeks ago
- Hate Crime a Sad Moment Indeed
2 years 23 weeks ago
Paris land management
To the Editor:
The following is a letter of opinion and information which I feel should be of interest to residents of Paris.
re: Paris land management committee public meeting: Committee charged to develop a reasonable sustainable growth management plan for town - Why?
1. Is it because we have an eyesore on the Paris Hill road just as it leaves Route 26? For years families have owned this business/residential location and supported themselves so they were not on the welfare rolls. They pay property taxes like the rest of us.
They already have rules from the shoreland zoning/EPA that they have to follow. The new rules would not affect them now, but they would limit the property use of any future buyer, thus they limit the options and value of the present owner.
Why are we so non trusting of future generations. We are not in bad shape now why do we fear what “We the People of 2036 or 2056 or 2076” will do?
2. Is it because there are randomly throughout the town a few dilapidated buildings that good people just can’t afford to or don’t care to fix up right now?
If the new requirements are going to put restrictions on what can be done to your building, are you going to swallow the extra time or expense that may be necessary to get clearance for what you want to do?
Or are those requirements going to delay the fix up because the new rules make it more expensive? They already have health and safety codes, local, state and federal, which have to be met.
Do we need another layer of Control? Again future buyers will have to consider what the rules require them to do which may make it more expensive and less likely to buy.
3. Is it because the people of Paris Hill want the town to enforce strict guidelines on what can be built or how current buildings can be changed, and they don’t trust future generations to have the same opinion about what is “Historical” and how it should be maintained?
Is the designation of a National Historic Site so important that you want to bind future generations to your wishes? There was talk about not being concerned for themselves, but for what their grandchildren might have to deal with. Since you don’t know what your grandchildren will consider valuable to maintain, why would you foist your current opinion on them.
Do you not trust your grandchildren to decide for themselves? If you don’t have neighbors you are worried about, why do you assume that future citizens will be different than you? Trust is a great virtue, if you want to be trusted you must trust others.
My questions to the consultant for the committee resulted in the admission that this new “plan” would not replace or modify any current plans, it would just add another layer of government. Would that be enforced by current personnel taking on more tasks or by hiring more personnel?
Several members of the committee shared that they tried to respect property rights and make the rules as un-restrictive as possible. I asked if that was the case, had they considered reporting back that there was no need for new rules.
They indicated that indeed some of them felt that way, but they were charged with the duty to come up with a plan for the betterment of the Town of Paris.
If doing nothing is the best plan for the people of Paris, then why isn’t that the plan? Will the dissenting opinion be part of the proposal that goes to the voters?
What if the impetus for this type of plan - usurpation of individual property rights - is part of a much larger plan that seems so far, far away that it is hard to believe?
I contend that that is exactly the case and Agenda 21, a UN plan to control property usage all over the world, is at the root of everything that made this type of government control seem so very, very good and necessary.
This type of control flies in the face of every founding father and true patriot. Man can govern himself, and if we give up that liberty for a little security (more control of individuals), we will soon have neither!
There is acceptable and unacceptable behavior. There are already laws enough to punish wrong doers. Don’t burden all people with rules just because there will be a few who may not be good neighbors.
If my property is an eyesore to you, isn’t it possible that yours is an eyesore to me? Who do you want to decide which one of us has to clean up their yard? Why don’t we just talk to each other and be nice to each other and help each other.
Every town I’ve ever been in that has really restrictive rules, still has eyesores. Why do we think Paris will be the one that gets everyone to be perfect? Just the divisiveness that these plans stir up are a part of the plan of Agenda 21- because if people contend, that justifies the need to implement more control.