| OCR Text |
Show 10 - DECISIVE TIMES - SEPTEMBER 1993 Letters to theTimes Please Consider (Note: On September 2nd Judith Shroeder's dog, Ursa, ate a small animal and was poisoned by tainted grain inside it. After a week in a veterinary hospital Ursa seems to be ok, but it was close. Judith brought us this letter.) Here in Castle Valley we are blessed with abundant wildlife. On any given day we are visited by eagles, red tail hawks, great horned owls, deer, coyotes, and as of late, mountain lion. We also have those cute little pests: rabbits, mice, skunks, and squirrels, which some consider a nuisance at best. The eagles, hawks, owls, and coyotes love to dine on these pests (a tasty lunch). The food chain—life on planet earth. We all have experienced the havoc and destruction squirrels can do to our gardens and fruit trees. Some folks have sought to wage war on them, thinking that if they put out tainted grain or rodent bait the squirrel or rodent will eat it and die. In reality, however, it’s not so clear and easy. Let’s look at the way it works. Squirrels and small animals eat the poisoned bait, but they do not die instantly, right there on your property. The poisoning process actually takes six to twelve hours to kill, after ingestion. In that time the pest travels on and may be eaten by an eagle or caught by a neighboring dog or cat (even on their own property). And that animal is poisoned too. Are we willing to compromise our valley’s food chain—sacrificing the eagles, hawks, owls, other birds and wildlife, endangering neighbors animals and pets in order to protect gardens and fruit trees? I do not feel this is a fair trade for the potential overall destruction of valley wildlife—and not good for the big picture of our life. There are other options: you can shoot the little stinkers; just be sure your aim does not infringe on neigh— bors privacy or security. Live traps are effective too. If you don’t have a live trap, call Jared Ehlers, 7219—he has them, and he specializes in skunks! Another terrific resource is Bill Bates of Utah Wildlife Resources at 6373310. These non-poisoning options insure that our personal choices of “pest” management remain on our\own side of the property line without impact to our neighbors quality of life. —Judith Schroeder To Live in a Good Place (Following is a shortened version of a letter to the Planning Commission, in response to the Chair's requestfor comments regarding the Castle Valley zoning ordinance and suggestions for possible modifications. It is a thought provoking letter, and the only response received. Ifyou would like to read the full, uncut version, please call Jorgens at 4056.) Nationwide, zoning ordinances have been recognized as legitimate tools to preserve a decent place to live. The Castle Valley ordinance limits all development in the Town to one singlefamily dwelling per five acres. We support its purposes, which we presume to be the following: - to limit population density in order to limit air pollution (as from wood smoke, dust, and automobiles), water pollution (as from overdevelopment of septic systems and runoff from developed areas), and noise pollution (as from construction, yard maintenance machinery, barking dogs, automobiles, and other human activities); - to prevent pressures which might require the town to convert to municipal water and sewage systems, which would require high taxes and open the We see the zoning ordinance as the cornerstone to this effort. The many who object to any restrictions on individual freedoms ought to recognize that the greater the population density of this valley, the greater will be the call for restrictions on individual freedoms, and hence preserving the integrity of the zoning ordinance ought to be the essential goal. Everyone who bought property here in the valley did so with the understanding and agreement that development would be limited to one dwelling per five acres. To change that now destroys the fundamental premise upon which we and others moved here. The planning commission needs to clarify what the situation would be if the ordinance were to be eliminated (or the town authority eliminated), causing Castle Valley zoning to revert to Grand County authority. We have heard that county zoning precludes construction of more than one dwelling per five acres unless municipal water and sewage systems are in place. Is this true? Do we want to head for municipal systems such as these, with their resultant higher taxes? If we abandon our authority over local zoning, the powers—that-be in Moab will control zoning in Castle Valley, not Castle Valley residents. What fate do the people of Moab have in mind for our valley? Do they share our visions and concerns? If a way could be found to modify door to even more development; the ordinance to allow flexibility for - to minimize traffic on town roads and the river road; - to preserve the rural character of Castle Valley, including aesthetic qualities of scenic views, silence and nighttime darkness, and the small-town legitimate special needs without destroying the integrity of the ordi- character of the community, in which the population is small enough that neighbors know neighbors but don’t have them living right in front of their faces, and in which the commu- nity consists of family dwellings, primarily inhabited year—round by people who will persist in the community and give to it. The pressures of American urban life have brought most of us here, where we hope we can maintain a place of beauty, community, cleanliness, and freedom from the fear of crime, pollution, blight, and fast-paced life. nance (i.e., that could not cause a significant increase in density, or set a precedent that might open the door for such) we might support it. In practice, we suspect this will be difficult or impossible. . . . One possible modification is the “clustered home” option, under which owners of two lots would be allowed to build two dwellings on one lot in exchange for foregoing the opportunity to build on the other lot In principle this seems acceptable in that it would maintain the overall density of the valley at one dwelling per five acres. Owners with more than one lot would get what they paid for—the opportunity to build more than one dwelling. Owners of only one lot would not feel |
