If the ditch connects to another water and has wooded banks, it may well be regulated. There should be state regulations. If you have time or interest, you can check your state Department of Environmental whatever (could be protection, conservation, mangement etc.). Also, the current and proposed definition of the Waters of the United States is here at epa dot gov slash wotus. It may help you at least get someone to look at this. OTOH, they may have already gotten any necessary permits.
My NE state is similar to mathmom’s. Much complaining about environmental regs and the cost of development, but such regulations work to mitigate impacts of development, at least to some extent. The reality is the government can only regulate certain aspects of development. No power to completely stop it, unless the parcel is purchased.
The result of politicians lobbying that it’s all about “the rights of the landowner”, and that nothing else matters. We’re going to continue seeing this because land developers donate a lot of money to politicians to push this narrative.
It is the same as forcing workers to return to unsafe jobs during COVID. A small number of wealthy and/or powerful individuals are making lots of money from things that harm the public. So they pay politicians create a narrative that it’s all about “personal freedom”, and that somehow manages to convince a large segment of the population to support policies which personally harm them.
Oh, I agree with you totally on that. I’m good with environmental regulations. Setbacks not so much. My SIL has been very involved in New Urbanism and Strong Towns. We need the missing middle housing desparately and too many of our zoning rules make it very difficult if not impossible to build.
In many cases, wealth and power result in people who are focused on preserving their wealth and power. Their previous politics are often secondary to this.
Slightly different but relevant (I think) - many of the people who were engaged in paying off admissions officers and tester in the Varsity Blue scandal were people who claimed to be “progressive”, but then engaged in extreme examples of entitled and privileged behavior when their own social status was threatened.
But blaming “developers” for buying off politicians is silly. The value created by scarcity mostly flows to existing property owners, who are the bulk of voters for those politicians. That’s why in general politicians are more anti than pro-development. And property developers (ie builders) are usually not the original landowners, which is where most of the upside from redevelopment flows.
This is a fascinating piece which highlights how in many places we need to promote more development, not restrict it, and that current mandates placed on developers are often counterproductive:
And to the original thread title, we have a battle going on over removal of parking mandates to encourage people to use transit instead (AB 1401). It’s astonishing how much opposition has emerged from environmentalists and affordable housing groups:
You seem to be confusing the policies and laws pertaining to the development of areas that are already built and situations like in the OP, where it’s natural areas that are being developed.
In my experience as somebody who worked in environmental consulting, policies in most states made it ridiculously easy to develop natural areas. Those policies have absolutely nothing to do with homeowners, and all to do with developers who make millions on new developments in natural areas.
@mathmom and others: Any chance you can PM to me (or post if allowed), a link to your local ordinances which guide, or better yet dictate, saving trees, waterways, hillsides, etc. on private property? Even if it only covers trees over a certain diameter. Too late for my neighborhood, but several on our city board seem (mildly) interested in examples from other municipalities. Or maybe they just want me to go away
Thanks. I may get back to you, but only one more needed for now in NY. This is great. I already had two others in NY. (Greenburgh, Tarrytown). Seattle has an extensive one. Atlanta too! This gets me started, but if I overwhelm them with too many at once, none will get read. Any from the Midwest/Heartland would probably be helpful, but they’re harder to find. (Red vs Blue).
I hate when they do that. In our area they seem to be building on every piece of available land. A neighboring city is completely built out. I remember when we moved to the area back in the early 80’s and almost all of the hills were bare and many of the main streets were two lane roads…
Now, if there is any unbuilt land left: they’ll build subdivisions. On orphan lots they’ll build high rise apartments or in one area they built a high rise retirement home or they’ll build a professional building…
My old Boston-area town now has a sizable fee for cutting down a tree. There is no real land for subdivisions but any developer who finds a lot has to pay to cut down each tree. Our previous house was on almost a double lot. We had built a painting studio on the almost second lot. After 20 years of living next to some elderly neighbors, our neighbor gave us 4.5 sq ft of land that enabled us to have two lots. We had purchased a new house after one of the couple had died and put the existing house on the now double lot on the market. We moved the day after the second one died. A developer bought the second lot and his plan involved cutting down no or almost no trees because of the cost of doing so. He knocked down the studio, built a very aesthetically pleasing, pretty big house. It was a great neighborhood in which to raise kids and now two families, instead of one, live within a five minute walk to the elementary school.
