Rhizo, wish you could come to my area and fight the Walmart coming to my area. There is a large Walmart less than a mile away and it is probably only 10 years old. That one will be closed and a super Walmart is to be built a block or so away from me which makes it about 1/2mile from their present site. We are all sick about this but fighting it got us nowhere. I don't understand why they want to build this. Within 2 miles of this new store is a Giant food store and Wegmans. Also within two miles is HomeGoods, Petsmart, Pier one, Marshalls, Lowes etc. I don't know what will become of the present building.

No I don't go. I live in a really small town so that particular problem is not an issue for us. I think my hubby would get a bit angry if I went to a meeting because he's on the village board. But I will say, he does like when people go and speak their mind because then he has an idea of what people think. He's also always willing to listen to people for their input, although he may not always agree with them. He hates it though when people come and rant and don't offer anything constructive. He really hates when people say they are going to have his job. He makes very little money, not even enough to pay our property taxes. He always tells them they should run for office because they need new people with fresh ideas on the board. That usually shuts them up.

Okla, why do you oppose the development of green spaces?

Oh - I took it just the opposite - I thought Moni went to oppose open spaces becoming developed.

I interpreted Moni's post the same as Maire_Cate. We haven't had such meetings here, but if we did, I'd go.

Opposing the development of green spaces means to me, leave the green spaces alone. Don't put houses, businesses there. Improve them with parks, playgrounds, multi use trails etc.!

Yes, but property owners have a right to do with their property as they wish, within the zoning or other guidelines set by the local government. Getting community input can be instructive but shouldn't trump an owner's rights.

For those who prefer to leave the green spaces alone and undeveloped, should someone have insisted on that before your own home and neighborhood were built? Or before your favorite market and other places you go to were built? No, probably not. Who's right and who's wrong, what's good and what's bad? Growth can be reasonably managed but it can't be stopped. Thinking otherwise is unrealistic.

That's exactly what I thought you meant, Moni, but I had to read your post a couple of times, lol. I sure agree that the natural spaces HAVE to be kept out of the hands of developers who plan to turn them into something that will only line their pockets, and not benefit the community as a whole.

You only have one chance to keep natural areas around a lake natural. You have tons of opportunities to build malls, shopping areas, hotels and other brick and motar areas... Lets keep natural natural... may enhance it, but leave it natural!

There's a charity in my area called the Peninsula Open Space Trust. It actively identifies land in private hands and then solicits contributions of said parcels by gift or bequest so that they can remain undeveloped. It also raises money to purchase parcels from owners unwilling to dispose of what they own by gift.

Other organizations are in other areas with similar activities, or to identify land that could be transferred by gift to public ownership via conveyance to the local county or state for use as parks. I think your attitude is admirable, you'd do the most good by getting active with such an organization or, if there isn't one in your area, getting some people to band together and start one.

I agree that we need to protect areas such as the beach and parkland from commercial development or any development that would block public access or enjoyment. However, in other instances, I remind myself that I don't own that land where a shopping center or homes will be built.

I lived in a development that was in the designated "growth corridor" for the
county. When the development was originally approved the entire X acre
space was determined to be suitable for Y dwelling units. One section
was developed as single family homes, another (where we lived) was
side-by-side duplex units. The remaining piece of the land was right
along the road, and it hadn't yet been developed because it was hilly
and awkwardly shaped.

A developer came along with a plan that placed all the remaining allowed dwelling units in the remaining space by cramming in butt-ugly, three-story tall, 12-unit townhomes.

The planning commission rolled over saying our predecessors approved the original plan, and this proposal meets the criteria they laid out, so we have no option but to approve it. However the architectural planning board decided that since the proposed development would be visible from the road which was deemed an "Entrance corridor" that they had a say about how such a development would look and had a public meeting on the subject.

I attended the meeting and spoke out against the particular form of the planned development -- giant, ugly, multi-unit townhomes. The archtectural board decided that proposed plan couldn't go forward without several changes to the layout, the look from the main road, and the access. Which given the small awkward shape of the remaining parcel was impossible, or at least economically infeasible.

We moved out of the development not long after that, and they have since filled that portion of the development with single family homes, which are not lovely, but at least they aren't as in-your-face ugly as 3 story town homes would have been.