Howdy, This Here is the BS-Ranch, The Ranch looks after a small amount of land located in the Inland Empire, but we also take notice to Things that are going on in the Owens Valley. We Welcome to the Ranch Pasture, Barns, and Corrals! But, if your not minding your feet you will have a Smelly Mess to clean off your boots when you leave.. Have a good time I hope you enjoy Da' BS.Ranch!
Friday, September 14, 2007
Court Issues Initial Ruling to Hault Mount Whitney Devlopment (Aug. 31, 2007 YubaNet.com)
Court Issues Initial Ruling To Halt Mount Whitney Development Decision Points Way For Land Swap
By: SRVA Advocates for Smart Growth Published: Aug 31, 2007 at 10:49
In an initial ruling released August 27 2007, the California Court of Appeals sided with Sierra Nevada conservationists and concluded that development approvals in the Mount Whitney Portal area violate state law.
The ruling clearly states, "The County failed to proceed in the manner required by law." Once finalized, the Court action would overturn Inyo County approvals of the "Whitney Portal Preserve" project, a remote subdivision of 27 luxury homes along Whitney Portal Road, the sole paved access route for the tallest mountain in the continental United States.
SRVA Advocates for Smart Growth, the plaintiffs in the case, have long advocated for a better blueprint for development in the region. They argued that Inyo County decision-makers should have considered the possibility of a land swap, whereby the threatened landscape could be protected and growth could be focused closer to existing development.
The panel of judges agreed. "We agree with SRVA that the analysis of the land exchange alternative is legally insufficient and reverse on that ground," according to the initial decision.
"The proposed development was clearly an unacceptable threat to the Mount Whitney area and the Owens Valley," said Jennifer Fenton of the grassroots SRVA Advocates for Smart Growth. "We look forward to working with public agencies, private developers, and local residents to open a meaningful dialog and work on a resolution that honors the values of the region and protects the resources of the Sierra Nevada."
State law requires that environmental review provide decision-makers with adequate information to assess the impacts of a proposed project, including alternatives to the proposal. But, according to the initial ruling, environmental review "�includes only the barest of facts�, vague and unsupported conclusions about aesthetics, views, and economic objectives, and no independent analysis whatsoever of relevant considerations."
The decision is another important example of citizen action to stop illegal approvals of Sierra development. "We are delighted with this tentative ruling," said Tamara Galanter of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP, counsel for SRVA. "The 45 page decision reflects a careful analysis of the applicable law and recognizes the importance of considering alternatives as part of the environmental review process"
Conservationists throughout California look to the proposed project as a dangerous precedent for leapfrog development in the fragile Eastern Sierra landscape. "This is an important victory for the entire Sierra Nevada," said Tom Mooers, executive director of Sierra Watch. "It's another great example of how people are standing up to defend the Sierra landscape � from Mount Whitney in the south to Dyer Mountain in Lassen County."
Now conservationists will seek to work with the landowner to reach a collaborative resolution to the contentious issue. "Our goal was never simply to win a lawsuit," said Fenton. "Our goal is to reach a win-win agreement that protects the land and encourages responsible development. We look forward to taking that next step."
SRVA Advocates for Smart Growth is a non-profit organization working to promote sustainable development in the Eastern Sierra region. For more information, call (559)658-8189 or visit http://srva.net/cms/.
BS Ranch Perspective
It looks like the Conservantionalists are looking out for my beloved Eastern High Sierra Mountions. I am not sure how I feel on this issue, I should be in favor of change, but on the other hand I beleive that I want the least amount of intrusion to the eco-system as possible. after all with change brings People, People brings Trash, garbage that they don't seem to want to carry for 100 to 200' ft to a trash can and throw it away in a proper trash can. NOO, they will throw it down on the grownd and that is where it stays, never to break down, and the beuty of Nature is taken away. I was born and raised in the Eastern High Sierra's and we used to get sick of those "Flat Landers" that garbaged up our playgrounds! Go Home better yet stay home and trash your own land!