Part 1: Rules skirted and lakes under attack

  • Article by: JIM SPENCER , Star Tribune
  • Updated: June 23, 2010 - 10:47 AM

Officials in Minnesota's vacationland can't say 'no' to those who want to break the rules.

  • 206
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
gonetofishJun. 23, 10 7:45 AM

Its all about the mighty dollar. People are just like the aliens depicted in some Hollywood movies. Use up resources then move on to the next pile of resources. In time, it will all be gone. The end.

tobytobytyJun. 23, 10 7:50 AM

officials and the homeowners are simply irresponsible. Shame on them! It appears they're intent on having Minnesota's walleye going they way of Gulf oysters. And for what? Private greed.

BucklawJun. 23, 10 7:53 AM

What's happening to the lakes is depressing. It is bad enough that urban lakes are now ringed with obnoxious development that ruins the shoreline and land surrounding our lakes, but even in remote parts of the state this is happening. The lakes are owned by the people even if the land around it is owned by only a few. In some areas it is too late, but tougher laws apparently are needed to protect one of our state's top assets. People have proven to be too self-interested and short-sighted to manage property they own on our lakes. We never should have allowed the buidling of shoddy McMansion vacation homes on lakes...or allowed urban style landscaping.

And yes...lake property owner here. Plenty of it.

sralbistJun. 23, 10 7:59 AM

Maybe the solution is more government..? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Maybe the solution is more capitalism..? ha ha ha ha ha. Nothing to see here folks, just keep consuming and smile...

prepfootballJun. 23, 10 8:11 AM

you should check out deposits into these land use commissioner's bank accounts, its not different at the local level then it is on the national lelvel. Those with the bucks get what they want.. Term Limits for all elected officials at all levels of government is the only solution. Vote the Bums OUT!

LymanWaltersJun. 23, 10 8:15 AM

Unfortunately a couple years ago the state of Minnesota passed laws to provide exceptions to "small, family-owned resorts". While tourism is important, all these "small" resort owners control larger parcels of lake shore and have overbuilt by adding cabins and landscaped lawns contributing to the degradation of our lakes. BOTH private lakeshore owners and small resort owners should be restricted from the proliferation of all these variances!

richard1673Jun. 23, 10 8:20 AM

The days of the average family, if they work hard and save their money, owning a lake place is gone forever. Unless, you have unlimited wealth your only hope is to use public landings to get your boat on a lake, hoping the lake property owners haven't arranged to have it block off. So this is a battle between the wealthy doing anything they want to do, because they always have, in partnership with counties that want additional taxes, verse the environmentalis. Environmentalists are not the bad guys, but they don't have the numbers on their side because even if they win I still can't afford a, "place on the lake" any more. These waters come under the jurisdiction of the State, but they're not going to touch it for fear of losing political donations from those same wealthy property owners. So, it doesn't matter to me, there is just no upside for the averrage family.

northwestmnJun. 23, 10 8:21 AM

Wonder how much it costs to get a board members vote?

chevinrudeJun. 23, 10 8:21 AM

The quote about the current rules protecting our waters isn't quite correct either. The current rules and ordinances are a compromise between what science requires and what landowners and politicians want. Thus, the rules that are being broken do no themselves suffive to protect the resouce; they only delay its death. Allowing the rules to be broken through the variance process simply speeds up the process.

teamericJun. 23, 10 8:21 AM

Everyday I gain more insight on why the northern locals commonly refer to us metro folk as "cidiots" or "612'ers" (usually with the F bomb in front of it). Seems to fit in this case because yes, I would assume a large percentage of these violators who have deemed it their right to do whatever they want regardless of the environmental impact fall primarily reside in the cities. But, shame on the overseers who have allowed this to happen.


Comment on this story   |  


Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters