by Buckaroo » Thu Aug 04, 2011 6:01 am
by Bob Sihler » Thu Aug 04, 2011 6:21 am
by Marmaduke » Thu Aug 04, 2011 7:52 am
by Alpinist » Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:50 pm
by Dow Williams » Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:57 pm
by lcarreau » Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:41 pm
Bob Sihler wrote:" ... but is this about blocking any development at all or just blocking development for the unwashed masses so that a few rich people can enjoy their views ...?
by MoapaPk » Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:02 pm
by Sarah Simon » Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:43 pm
Buckaroo wrote:The developer wants to ignore the 2 acre per unit limit that was in place at the time of purchase and put in high density housing, like up to 5,500 homes.
by chugach mtn boy » Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:20 pm
Alpinist wrote:Fewer homes on larger lots will be less intrusive, less harmful to the environment, and more aesthetically pleasing than a larger number of homes on smaller lots. Will it not? That's generally why those zoning laws exist.
by Clark_Griswold » Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:56 pm
by MoapaPk » Fri Aug 05, 2011 12:13 am
Lionel wrote:My gut tells me something else is going on here. The development company is "gypsum resources" which hardly sounds like a home builder. Is it possible that the company wants to sell of this investment property that they bought hoping to flip for big bucks in the last 5 years? Maybe they want to put pressure on some organization to purchase it?
I found this article about the land condition. Seems it has an extensive mining history, among other issues. Rhodes bought the land in 2002, so it is possible he was hoping to build during the boom and wasn't able to. Then again, I'm just speculating.
by jmatthys » Thu Aug 18, 2011 5:37 am
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests