George Rodrigue's whimsical Blue Dog artWednesday
Tuesday
Holiday Wishes
Wishing you peace, joy, health and happiness
this holiday season and throughout the coming year.
this holiday season and throughout the coming year.
Friday
Why Would Today's Weather Make Me Think of Ducks???
Mergansers on a snowy morning - wish the liquid we've been getting all day was snow..........
(photo by my neighbor, Norm Nicklas)
Thursday
Wednesday
Friday
Periodic Reminder from Mother Nature.......
......that she can wield unusual powers. Here's the creek at 4:15 today. I suspect it will come even higher as the waters find their way from the west.
What Can We As Homeowners Do?
A couple days ago I included the "As I See It" piece on the proposed "Buffer 100" bill that was published in the Patriot News. If you appreciate our "Creek" as I do I’m sure you’re concerned about its health and the health of the Susquehanna River and the Chesapeake Bay.
There have been a couple of follow-up pieces to that column from the other day and it concerns me that as is typical human nature, everyone is pointing the finger elsewhere trying to affix the "major contributor" label to someone else. My take – "Get over it guys. I don’t care who the "major" contributor is. We’re all contributors and we each need to take responsibility to fix our own problems. The sum of each of our contributions (regardless of how big or small) will result in a whole lot of positive benefit to the health of our waters".
That said, what can you and I do on our own properties to reduce the impact our "little pieces of heaven on earth" have on our Creek and its associated bodies of water? I’m guilty of not doing enough and I suspect many of you may be too. Perhaps sharing in this blog what we have done or what we can do will help stimulate new opportunities and action that will help us to individually contribute to the solution.
I invite readers to share their thoughts or ideas with the others reading this blog. For now, please forward those comments to me at via e-mail at guy.brunt@century21.com and I’ll include them in future updates to this site. Thanks. I look forward to your input.
There have been a couple of follow-up pieces to that column from the other day and it concerns me that as is typical human nature, everyone is pointing the finger elsewhere trying to affix the "major contributor" label to someone else. My take – "Get over it guys. I don’t care who the "major" contributor is. We’re all contributors and we each need to take responsibility to fix our own problems. The sum of each of our contributions (regardless of how big or small) will result in a whole lot of positive benefit to the health of our waters".
That said, what can you and I do on our own properties to reduce the impact our "little pieces of heaven on earth" have on our Creek and its associated bodies of water? I’m guilty of not doing enough and I suspect many of you may be too. Perhaps sharing in this blog what we have done or what we can do will help stimulate new opportunities and action that will help us to individually contribute to the solution.
I invite readers to share their thoughts or ideas with the others reading this blog. For now, please forward those comments to me at via e-mail at guy.brunt@century21.com and I’ll include them in future updates to this site. Thanks. I look forward to your input.
Thursday
On Days Like This......
....we can all use a "flashback" to prettier times along the creek. Here's another pic contributed by Tom Derr from Indian Creek....
Wednesday
"Buffers 100" Legislative Proposal
Many of you may have seen the "As I See It" piece in the Patriot News editorial page (or on Pennlive.com) last Wednesday addressing the concerns of the building industry on a proposal to require setbacks from streams, creeks and rivers in new developments. I've included that commentary below and will share some of my thoughts in future blogs. If you have thoughts you'd like to include here, please e-mail them to me at guy.brunt@century21.com and I'll add them to the blog. Thanks.
AS I SEE IT - JOSEPH MACKEY
Environmental buffer plan would raise cost of housing
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
For more than a year, report after report has confirmed the United States' economy is weathering an extremely difficult period, as a wave of bank failures, near-failures and ever-more urgent calls for additional federal intervention have made clear that Americans may be facing the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression.
In this uncertain climate, it should be obvious that this is the worst possible time in many areas of Pennsylvania for policymakers to add yet another barrier to desperately needed economic growth. Yet that's exactly what would happen if a coalition of environmental advocates, municipal governments and other groups get their way in Harrisburg. These organizations favor a statewide requirement for 100-foot riparian forest buffers along both sides of rivers, creeks and streams in new developments.
In some cases, even greater buffer widths would be required. Supporters of the "Buffers 100" proposal say their plan is needed to protect the quality of Pennsylvania's waterways, reduce damage caused by flooding, increase wildlife habitat, and improve the health of our communities.
While most Pennsylvanians would agree these are important objectives, the "Buffers 100" proposal would be bad policy because it doesn't balance environmental protection with the need for economic growth. Although some Pennsylvania municipalities have passed ordinances requiring buffers for new development (despite the lack of a state law specifically authorizing such measures), imposing any type of mandatory buffer requirement constitutes a regulatory taking of private property. It deprives landowners of the use of their property without compensation.
Since Pennsylvania has 83,000 miles of rivers and streams -- a figure second only to Alaska among the 50 states -- a 100-foot buffer requirement could result in the uncompensated taking of hundreds of thousands of acres of Pennsylvanians' private property. Although some government programs are available to compensate landowners for installing buffers on their land, it's highly questionable as to whether the level of compensation would even come close to mitigating the losses those owners will suffer if they aren't able to develop their land.
The proposal also would reduce the amount of developable land available. This would, in turn, raise the price of land and make housing less affordable to hardworking Pennsylvanians. One size doesn't fit all.
Although the "Buffers 100" campaign argues that its buffer requirements for all new development in Pennsylvania are scientifically justified, they are, in fact, arbitrary figures that fail to fully take into account a number of relevant issues. Mandatory buffer width requirements -- even those intended to address variables such as water quality and slope -- don't allow for the flexibility needed to address the specific conditions that may exist at an individual site.
They also don't sufficiently factor in whether or not the presence of other best management practices designed to protect rivers and streams from such pollution runoff -- a number of which are strongly promoted by the state for new development and therefore heavily influence local decision-making -- can achieve the same water quality goals.
Many environmental advocates have noted that reducing pollution from agricultural runoff is the cheapest, most effective method of keeping rivers and streams healthy. This is one of the central premises underlying the state's strategy for cleaning up waterways feeding the Chesapeake Bay, since agriculture is the largest single source of nutrient and sediment pollution flowing into the bay from Pennsylvania.
Pollution from agricultural sources far exceeds the percentages attributed to developed lands. Knowing this, it's puzzling why the "Buffers 100" proposal specifically omits farming activities from its mandatory buffer requirement.
The Pennsylvania Builders Association, as a founding member of the "Pennsylvania Fair Share for Clean Water Coalition," supports increasing state funding to help farmers use best management practices to meet their existing obligations to reduce pollution to the state's waterways. Pennsylvania needs flexible, common-sense environmental policies that produce the maximum benefit at the lowest possible cost to the state's families and businesses. A mandatory buffer requirement will fail to achieve either goal, and in the current business climate, could deliver a death blow to economic growth in much of Pennsylvania.
For those reasons, it's critical state policymakers reject the "Buffers 100" proposal.
JOSEPH MACKEY is secretary of the Pennsylvania Builders Association.
AS I SEE IT - JOSEPH MACKEY
Environmental buffer plan would raise cost of housing
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
For more than a year, report after report has confirmed the United States' economy is weathering an extremely difficult period, as a wave of bank failures, near-failures and ever-more urgent calls for additional federal intervention have made clear that Americans may be facing the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression.
In this uncertain climate, it should be obvious that this is the worst possible time in many areas of Pennsylvania for policymakers to add yet another barrier to desperately needed economic growth. Yet that's exactly what would happen if a coalition of environmental advocates, municipal governments and other groups get their way in Harrisburg. These organizations favor a statewide requirement for 100-foot riparian forest buffers along both sides of rivers, creeks and streams in new developments.
In some cases, even greater buffer widths would be required. Supporters of the "Buffers 100" proposal say their plan is needed to protect the quality of Pennsylvania's waterways, reduce damage caused by flooding, increase wildlife habitat, and improve the health of our communities.
While most Pennsylvanians would agree these are important objectives, the "Buffers 100" proposal would be bad policy because it doesn't balance environmental protection with the need for economic growth. Although some Pennsylvania municipalities have passed ordinances requiring buffers for new development (despite the lack of a state law specifically authorizing such measures), imposing any type of mandatory buffer requirement constitutes a regulatory taking of private property. It deprives landowners of the use of their property without compensation.
Since Pennsylvania has 83,000 miles of rivers and streams -- a figure second only to Alaska among the 50 states -- a 100-foot buffer requirement could result in the uncompensated taking of hundreds of thousands of acres of Pennsylvanians' private property. Although some government programs are available to compensate landowners for installing buffers on their land, it's highly questionable as to whether the level of compensation would even come close to mitigating the losses those owners will suffer if they aren't able to develop their land.
The proposal also would reduce the amount of developable land available. This would, in turn, raise the price of land and make housing less affordable to hardworking Pennsylvanians. One size doesn't fit all.
Although the "Buffers 100" campaign argues that its buffer requirements for all new development in Pennsylvania are scientifically justified, they are, in fact, arbitrary figures that fail to fully take into account a number of relevant issues. Mandatory buffer width requirements -- even those intended to address variables such as water quality and slope -- don't allow for the flexibility needed to address the specific conditions that may exist at an individual site.
They also don't sufficiently factor in whether or not the presence of other best management practices designed to protect rivers and streams from such pollution runoff -- a number of which are strongly promoted by the state for new development and therefore heavily influence local decision-making -- can achieve the same water quality goals.
Many environmental advocates have noted that reducing pollution from agricultural runoff is the cheapest, most effective method of keeping rivers and streams healthy. This is one of the central premises underlying the state's strategy for cleaning up waterways feeding the Chesapeake Bay, since agriculture is the largest single source of nutrient and sediment pollution flowing into the bay from Pennsylvania.
Pollution from agricultural sources far exceeds the percentages attributed to developed lands. Knowing this, it's puzzling why the "Buffers 100" proposal specifically omits farming activities from its mandatory buffer requirement.
The Pennsylvania Builders Association, as a founding member of the "Pennsylvania Fair Share for Clean Water Coalition," supports increasing state funding to help farmers use best management practices to meet their existing obligations to reduce pollution to the state's waterways. Pennsylvania needs flexible, common-sense environmental policies that produce the maximum benefit at the lowest possible cost to the state's families and businesses. A mandatory buffer requirement will fail to achieve either goal, and in the current business climate, could deliver a death blow to economic growth in much of Pennsylvania.
For those reasons, it's critical state policymakers reject the "Buffers 100" proposal.
JOSEPH MACKEY is secretary of the Pennsylvania Builders Association.
Tuesday
Monday
Sunday
Friday
Wednesday
Tuesday
Creek at Indian Creek
Thanks to Tom Derr of Indian Creek for sharing this great pic from his backyard.
Monday
A Reader of This Blog Shares Their Thoughts
Tom Derr of Indian Creek writes:
"I too live along the creek (Indian Creek) and across on the other side it is all natural and will remain so as it is flood plain. My wife and I like to sit on the bench and just look out over the creek and watch them critters. We see lots of ducks, geese, egrits, herons, turtles, cat fish, hawks, and frequently foxes and deer on the other side. We have a snapper turtle that hangs around and he is BIG......about 18 inches across. Got some snakes too that I've developed a good relationship with over the years...........got some ducks eating out of my hand too."
Tom has sent me some pictures from his yard which I will share in future postings.
If you have thoughts or pictures and would like to share them with other readers of this blog, please send them to me at guy.brunt@century21.com.
"I too live along the creek (Indian Creek) and across on the other side it is all natural and will remain so as it is flood plain. My wife and I like to sit on the bench and just look out over the creek and watch them critters. We see lots of ducks, geese, egrits, herons, turtles, cat fish, hawks, and frequently foxes and deer on the other side. We have a snapper turtle that hangs around and he is BIG......about 18 inches across. Got some snakes too that I've developed a good relationship with over the years...........got some ducks eating out of my hand too."
Tom has sent me some pictures from his yard which I will share in future postings.
If you have thoughts or pictures and would like to share them with other readers of this blog, please send them to me at guy.brunt@century21.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
