To the Editor:
THE REST OF THE STORY:
Regarding the recent Craig Daily Press editorial (April 17) with reference to Douglas Weers' summer-camp proposal:
I certainly agree that property rights need to be protected, and that applies to all the property owners, especially to those that may be affected by the use of the property. It is well established throughout our society that there are some limitations on what we can do with our property in relation to others in the area. We have established zoning laws that control which property may have certain types of structures, etc. These laws are often in conflict with the parties involved.
The area in question has been zoned agriculture and people make their decisions and investments based on these parameters. The same would hold true within the city. Now if changes are made through conditional use permits it seems to me that those interested parties should be able to voice their objection or support for those changes. The process of expressing these concerns is basic to freedom of speech, and of course some items may, or may not, be qualified objections to be included in a final decision. It is the purpose of the planning board to hear all sides of proposals and to make the very difficult decisions of what is to be considered before passing this on to the Commissioners.
I had given Mr. Weers trespass on my property for the purpose of feeding his elk. There was no animosity over this. I indicated at the planning meeting that one of the concerns I had was trespass and fire danger. The more people in an area, the greater the exposure to both would be.
Either item would not be crucial to me, because as you say there are other ways to handle trespass. The fire situation is not really critical for me either. Both the grass and fences can be replaced. I also brought to the attention of the planning board that the road leading into Mr. Weers' is a dead-end road, and that this should be considered in the decision of the safety of having a commercial summer camp with small children.
In conjunction with the condition of an all-weather road for such access would seem to me to be worth mentioning, and was discussed by a number of people at the planning meeting. (We do have some road conditions that do not require snow plowing).
Now if the system works, all these items are considered and presented to the commissioners for a decision. What is the great problem that you have with this process? The items which you refer to as an invasion of property rights were considered and discarded. The remaining items of road and safety and fire control access appear to have been the basis for the final decision, as it should have been. And even though commissioner Hampton resides in the general area, I think he is capable of making a fair but difficult decision. As for your editorial opinions on this matter, I consider them an attempt to remove others property rights and to downgrade and belittle the input of those that it affects.