Comments on: It’s all about saving the salmon runs http://homertribune.com/2012/12/it%e2%80%99s-all-about-saving-the-salmon-runs/ Homer, Alaska Fri, 17 May 2013 22:25:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: Bruce Hess http://homertribune.com/2012/12/it%e2%80%99s-all-about-saving-the-salmon-runs/comment-page-1/#comment-103308 Bruce Hess Sat, 15 Dec 2012 16:46:14 +0000 http://homertribune.com/?p=26488#comment-103308 Chris, So your your belief is property rights should include the right to destroy salmon habitat? I think at that point you are infringing on everyone rights. Chris,

So your your belief is property rights should include the right to destroy salmon habitat? I think at that point you are infringing on everyone rights.

]]> By: Chris Story http://homertribune.com/2012/12/it%e2%80%99s-all-about-saving-the-salmon-runs/comment-page-1/#comment-103218 Chris Story Sat, 15 Dec 2012 02:29:11 +0000 http://homertribune.com/?p=26488#comment-103218 Nice Try Bruce…but the conversation is about the rights of private property owners. To site that owners on Caribou Lake dispute the claim of Salmon returning to the lake is to prove the point that this is part of the process that should have taken place prior to passing the law; property owners deserved written notice. You and Assembly Member Smith served together for years on the Homer Planning and Zoning Commission. With that in mind I am surprised that you and Mr. Smith seem to be missing the point. It is about due process and private property rights. The notifications may have followed the requirements of the Borough Code, but the property owners were not individually notified that such a powerful piece of legislation was about to effect their property. It is so powerful; in fact, that the Borough now feels compelled to inform the individual property owners that they are under this new ordinance and its impact. I’m not a fish biologist; as a lifelong Alaskan I do understand the importance of a balance between our precious wildlife and man. The importance of our individual rights though, and the rights of private property owners is not something to be taken lightly. It is only a matter of time before it’s your ox being gored; perhaps next the P/Z commission will deem your collection of conex boxes too close a proximity to the Beluga Lake down there on Seaplane Court. I’m sure you’d like to be aware of any such discussion. Let's keep this on target: Individual Property Rights. Nice Try Bruce…but the conversation is about the rights of private property owners. To site that owners on Caribou Lake dispute the claim of Salmon returning to the lake is to prove the point that this is part of the process that should have taken place prior to passing the law; property owners deserved written notice.
You and Assembly Member Smith served together for years on the Homer Planning and Zoning Commission. With that in mind I am surprised that you and Mr. Smith seem to be missing the point. It is about due process and private property rights. The notifications may have followed the requirements of the Borough Code, but the property owners were not individually notified that such a powerful piece of legislation was about to effect their property. It is so powerful; in fact, that the Borough now feels compelled to inform the individual property owners that they are under this new ordinance and its impact.
I’m not a fish biologist; as a lifelong Alaskan I do understand the importance of a balance between our precious wildlife and man. The importance of our individual rights though, and the rights of private property owners is not something to be taken lightly. It is only a matter of time before it’s your ox being gored; perhaps next the P/Z commission will deem your collection of conex boxes too close a proximity to the Beluga Lake down there on Seaplane Court. I’m sure you’d like to be aware of any such discussion.
Let’s keep this on target: Individual Property Rights.

]]> By: Bruce Hess http://homertribune.com/2012/12/it%e2%80%99s-all-about-saving-the-salmon-runs/comment-page-1/#comment-103004 Bruce Hess Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:08:30 +0000 http://homertribune.com/?p=26488#comment-103004 Chris , I suggest you that a look at the following Alaska Fish and Game website. http://gis.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FlexMaps/fishresourcemonitor.html?mode=awc Spawning Sockeye salmon have been identified in Caribou Lake. Dolly Varden have also been identified as present. At the outlet of Caribou Lake at Fox Creek both spawning Sockeye and silvers have been identified along with the presence of Dolly Varden. If it's true that you care about salmon and salmon habitat why wouldn't you be a advocate for this ordinance because caring about salmon and salmon habitat is exactly what it does. Chris ,

I suggest you that a look at the following Alaska Fish and Game website. http://gis.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FlexMaps/fishresourcemonitor.html?mode=awc

Spawning Sockeye salmon have been identified in Caribou Lake. Dolly Varden have also been identified as present. At the outlet of Caribou Lake at Fox Creek both spawning Sockeye and silvers have been identified along with the presence of Dolly Varden.

If it’s true that you care about salmon and salmon habitat why wouldn’t you be a advocate for this ordinance because caring about salmon and salmon habitat is exactly what it does.

]]> By: Chris Story http://homertribune.com/2012/12/it%e2%80%99s-all-about-saving-the-salmon-runs/comment-page-1/#comment-102995 Chris Story Thu, 13 Dec 2012 18:59:35 +0000 http://homertribune.com/?p=26488#comment-102995 Dear Reader; Upon learning of this ordinance and its widespread implications on the rights of private property owners, I emailed Assemblyman Smith and asked a few questions. 1. Why were property owners not informed of the impending ordinance prior to its passage? 2. Did you know property owners would not be informed? 3. Why would there be no notice required when it's required of almost any change that a citizen would make such as a lot split or vacation of a lot line; let alone a major ordinance that massively impacts the rights of private property owners? Assemblyman Smith's reply included the phrase, "silly questions". Notice that he has not addressed the fundamental question of why property owners were not included in the conversation regarding this ordinance restricting the use of 50 feet of their land, or at a minimum notified in writing that this ordinance was being offered to the Assembly and afford them an opportunity to speak to it. There I go again being silly. Let’s stipulate right up front that I and every property owner I’ve spoken to care about Salmon and Salmon habitat. No one is suggesting that property owners be able to make changes to the eco system in such a way that they destroy or inhibit the health of Salmon. One point that has been made by many property owners along the shore of the Caribou Lake is that there is not a salmon run emanating from or returning to the Caribou Lake. In addition to the fact the virtually all of the land surround the lake shore is designated on wetlands mapping as some form of wetlands bringing it under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. This is the kind of discussion that Caribou Lake property owners could have presented to the Assembly had they been given proper notice of the ordinance in advance of its passage. For Assemblyman Smith to suggest that it was good enough to notify them in writing many months after passage but prior to implementation is ludicrous. For Assemblyman Smith to suggest that my questions regarding the rights and notification of property owners were silly is the height of arrogance; unfortunately however this is the trend we are seeing at many levels of government. To place the burden of proof of a deleterious impact on the value of land on anyone who is looking to defend the rights of private property owners is a way of keeping you quiet. “Oh, you can’t prove that what we are doing is impacting the value of land; then you should keep your mouth shut.” Do not let go of your rights easily, today they come for the waterfront property, tomorrow they come for yours. Dear Reader;
Upon learning of this ordinance and its widespread implications on the rights of private property owners, I emailed Assemblyman Smith and asked a few questions.
1. Why were property owners not informed of the impending ordinance prior to its passage?
2. Did you know property owners would not be informed?
3. Why would there be no notice required when it’s required of almost any change that a citizen would make such as a lot split or vacation of a lot line; let alone a major ordinance that massively impacts the rights of private property owners?

Assemblyman Smith’s reply included the phrase, “silly questions”.
Notice that he has not addressed the fundamental question of why property owners were not included in the conversation regarding this ordinance restricting the use of 50 feet of their land, or at a minimum notified in writing that this ordinance was being offered to the Assembly and afford them an opportunity to speak to it.
There I go again being silly.
Let’s stipulate right up front that I and every property owner I’ve spoken to care about Salmon and Salmon habitat. No one is suggesting that property owners be able to make changes to the eco system in such a way that they destroy or inhibit the health of Salmon.
One point that has been made by many property owners along the shore of the Caribou Lake is that there is not a salmon run emanating from or returning to the Caribou Lake. In addition to the fact the virtually all of the land surround the lake shore is designated on wetlands mapping as some form of wetlands bringing it under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. This is the kind of discussion that Caribou Lake property owners could have presented to the Assembly had they been given proper notice of the ordinance in advance of its passage.
For Assemblyman Smith to suggest that it was good enough to notify them in writing many months after passage but prior to implementation is ludicrous.
For Assemblyman Smith to suggest that my questions regarding the rights and notification of property owners were silly is the height of arrogance; unfortunately however this is the trend we are seeing at many levels of government.
To place the burden of proof of a deleterious impact on the value of land on anyone who is looking to defend the rights of private property owners is a way of keeping you quiet. “Oh, you can’t prove that what we are doing is impacting the value of land; then you should keep your mouth shut.”
Do not let go of your rights easily, today they come for the waterfront property, tomorrow they come for yours.

]]>