Retaliation on the ridgeline?
August 23, 2014
In my opinion, the Board of Supervisors made a foolhardy decision by denying the appeal of the Lockyer/Ericksons regarding the deed restrictions the county wants to place on their property. The lone "no vote" was by Supervisor Anderson, who by his comments and examples showed the best understanding of the issues being debated.
By denying the appeal we taxpayers will likely pay an extreme price to cover the damages and legal expenses incurred by the Lockyer/Ericksons if their position (as more or less confirmed by the Superior Court's recent ruling) is affirmed and upheld in the lawsuits that have been filed and will now proceed.
For some reason the Planning Department is applying, for the first time in the history of Nevada County, an "important visual ridgeline" concept in an arbitrary and inconsistent manner. I believe they, too, have made a big mistake and their illogical power play will prove very costly.
It is too bad that the financial consequences of the denial of appeal won't come out of the personal pockets of the supervisors voting for the denial. That consequence might have motivated them to think through this dispute in a more neutral and business like manner. Defending the Planning Department's arbitrary restrictions, as opposed to applying common sense and consistency, just doesn't add up.
One can't help but wonder if this whole mess is some sort of retaliation against the Lockyer/Ericksons for their objection to the Verizon cell tower being built in their backyard.
It is tragic that this unnecessary dispute is going to be left in the hands of the courts and we will pay the price.
Trending In: Letters
- Downtown Grass Valley police chase ends in creek, police say
- Driver rear-ends vehicle, flees scene of Highway 49 wreck, CHP says
- Man dies from NorCal gas station nacho-cheese dip
- Couple found dead in plane wreckage in Northern California
- Nevada County judge dismisses conviction against former Supervisor Terry Lamphier