The state is paying 12 million to take over one of NCs biggest tourist attractions and historic landmarks. This includes 8k of surrounding land and the historic "swinging bridge".

Im sorry to see this happen...Anytime a govt. bureaucracy takes over private lands...they go....downhill fast. Tragedy of the commons!

Been there a few times. Why are they taking it over?

ETSUfan1 Wrote:Been there a few times? Why are they taking it over?

I think its been run privately after Hugh Morton died in 06? I dont know the details...all I know is I hate to see the govt. take over.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:The state is paying 12 million to take over one of NCs biggest tourist attractions and historic landmarks. This includes 8k of surrounding land and the historic "swinging bridge".

Im sorry to see this happen...Anytime a govt. bureaucracy takes over private lands...they go....downhill fast. Tragedy of the commons!

that is too bad. I've been there twice, it's really beautiful. Good hiking, especially if you go off the trails.

Are they going to make it a state park?

TomorrowHerd Wrote:Are they going to make it a state park?

Thats my understanding. Id rather it remained private property.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:The state is paying 12 million to take over one of NCs biggest tourist attractions and historic landmarks. This includes 8k of surrounding land and the historic "swinging bridge".

Im sorry to see this happen...Anytime a govt. bureaucracy takes over private lands...they go....downhill fast. Tragedy of the commons!

If you don't already know it, I think you'll enjoy this blog.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/20...s-and.html

Scroll down to the bottom of this day's entry

Quote:The other problem sitting on my desk is a snack bar I inherited on a lease in California at Lake Piru. The snack bar is a dump. It is designed wrong, it is set up to cook the wrong kinds of foods, and uses space in the building very inefficiently. I want to lay the whole thing out differently, as a win-win for everyone. We could sell more with fewer workers. The customers would get more selection, including much healthier choices. The operation would be safer, because we would eliminate most of the heavy cooking (e.g. deep fat fryers). And it would be cleaner, with less wastewater and cleaner wastewater because there would be less grease and oil.

Unfortunately, it is very clear that Ventura County, California is not going to allow me to make these changes, at least at any cost I can afford. First, apparently I need to build a new wastewater treatment plant for the snack bar! But I am reducing the waste water load, I argue. Does not matter. New code requires a plant. So because of this environmental code, I am pushed to continue the current operation which is environmentally worse than my proposed alternative. We have the exact same problem on fire suppression. But I am removing the ovens and most of the cooking equipment! It's safer! Doesn't matter, if I make any change at all, I have to install a new fire suppression system. And on and on. this is the true face of government regulation. We face this kind of thing ten times a day.

gotta love Cali

I think we went there just after September 11. It was nice, but I grew up going to the Rocky Mountains every summer, so the Appalachians aren't too impressive to me on the whole. I don't seem to remember the bridge, though, so we must not have known about it, or may have wandered aimlessly.

With regards to building codes - I think a whole lot of people in the Houston area are glad to have them at this point, and I have to believe that only a fraction of the 80000+ that died in Szechuan province would have died if the buildings were built to American like codes. Codes themselves I think are good, but transitioning facilities that are grandfathered often leads to ridiculous things like what you quote. If you accept that codes are necessary or useful, then what is the alternative? It seems like there could be a reasonable solution, but it also seems like it could easily be abused to look like a completely new facility that's allowed to bypass codes through a loophole.

Maybe it's just me, but the Rockies PALE in comparison to the Smokies. The only thing they have on them is height. Nothing else.

Rebel Wrote:Maybe it's just me, but the Rockies PALE in comparison to the Smokies. The only thing they have on them is height. Nothing else.

I thought we were comparing mountain ranges?

I45owl Wrote:

Rebel Wrote:Maybe it's just me, but the Rockies PALE in comparison to the Smokies. The only thing they have on them is height. Nothing else.

I thought we were comparing mountain ranges?

Smokies, Blue Ridge, Appalachians, all the same to me.

If you exclude the natural beauty of the rocks, the aspen, pine, snow covered mountain tops, actual wildlife, and other such things, I could see where you're coming from. I do like the smokies (I prefer most mountain-like things to plains or hills or the like), but they seem like a pale imitation to me. I guess you'd have to be more specific about which areas you're comparing.

I45owl Wrote:If you exclude the natural beauty of the rocks, the aspen, pine, snow covered mountain tops, actual wildlife, and other such things, I could see where you're coming from. I do like the smokies (I prefer most mountain-like things to plains or hills or the like), but they seem like a pale imitation to me. I guess you'd have to be more specific about which areas you're comparing.

Never seen the Aspens during "that" season when they all turn, but I've been to the Rockies. Cascades are nice as are the Olympics. There's an actual rain forest on the Olympic peninsula. The Alaskan range is also nice. They're just all a little too high for me. Never been to the Sierra Nevadas. Have been to the Ozarks. Those are nice, IMO. Isn't the oldest in the country the Wichita Mountains in Oklahoma?

I45owl Wrote:If you exclude the natural beauty of the rocks, the aspen, pine, snow covered mountain tops, actual wildlife, and other such things, I could see where you're coming from. I do like the smokies (I prefer most mountain-like things to plains or hills or the like), but they seem like a pale imitation to me. I guess you'd have to be more specific about which areas you're comparing.

The Rockies are shockn'awe....Smokies are moonshine and shade...both are wonderful to me in different ways.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:The state is paying 12 million to take over one of NCs biggest tourist attractions and historic landmarks. This includes 8k of surrounding land and the historic "swinging bridge".

Im sorry to see this happen...Anytime a govt. bureaucracy takes over private lands...they go....downhill fast. Tragedy of the commons!

Hey, your point is well taken, but

"private" lands has reduced my hunting and fishing land by god knows what percentage. "Public" land has many good uses, and everyone's enjoyment of the outdoors would be limited if all land was private land...... especially the outdoorsman, who do so much to keep the public land in good shape.

DrTorch Wrote:Scroll down to the bottom of this day's entry

Quote:The other problem sitting on my desk is a snack bar I inherited on a lease in California at Lake Piru. The snack bar is a dump. It is designed wrong, it is set up to cook the wrong kinds of foods, and uses space in the building very inefficiently. I want to lay the whole thing out differently, as a win-win for everyone. We could sell more with fewer workers. The customers would get more selection, including much healthier choices. The operation would be safer, because we would eliminate most of the heavy cooking (e.g. deep fat fryers). And it would be cleaner, with less wastewater and cleaner wastewater because there would be less grease and oil.

Unfortunately, it is very clear that Ventura County, California is not going to allow me to make these changes, at least at any cost I can afford. First, apparently I need to build a new wastewater treatment plant for the snack bar! But I am reducing the waste water load, I argue. Does not matter. New code requires a plant. So because of this environmental code, I am pushed to continue the current operation which is environmentally worse than my proposed alternative. We have the exact same problem on fire suppression. But I am removing the ovens and most of the cooking equipment! It's safer! Doesn't matter, if I make any change at all, I have to install a new fire suppression system. And on and on. this is the true face of government regulation. We face this kind of thing ten times a day.

This is true with many building codes across the country. Open up a wall and see wiring? Well, if the wiring is not to code you have to replace it. Is the header over a door or window not up to code? If you open the wall and it is you'll have to replace it.

While the above example is frustrating, if we have codes and they're interpreted differently by different people in different situations then the codes sort of become useless. I'd even argue that if there's a chance of getting an exception to a code then getting a permit to do something might take even longer and be more expensive than usual because you'd have to argue your point to the governing agency and wait for them to decide - then you might appeal and it would take even longer. Strictly enforcing code might ensure migraines and ulcers but it keeps things consistent and the line moving.

Lord Stanley Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:The state is paying 12 million to take over one of NCs biggest tourist attractions and historic landmarks. This includes 8k of surrounding land and the historic "swinging bridge".

Im sorry to see this happen...Anytime a govt. bureaucracy takes over private lands...they go....downhill fast. Tragedy of the commons!

Hey, your point is well taken, but

"private" lands has reduced my hunting and fishing land by god knows what percentage. "Public" land has many good uses, and everyone's enjoyment of the outdoors would be limited if all land was private land...... especially the outdoorsman, who do so much to keep the public land in good shape.

I think in a world of only "private" land that those problems would be solved with free market solutions like Disney World and private hunting and fishing reserves(which already exist)..but..I see your concern.

I guess my biggest problem with public lands is the same problem I have with almost all government programs...they are financed by the coercive use of force against those that dont use them.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:I guess my biggest problem with public lands is the same problem I have with almost all government programs...they are financed by the coercive use of force against those that dont use them.

Good point.

Obama, are you listening?

smn1256 Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:I guess my biggest problem with public lands is the same problem I have with almost all government programs...they are financed by the coercive use of force against those that dont use them.

Good point.

Obama, are you listening?

Well..Let's be principled with that view. Both parties are guilty of the same use of coercive force through taxation....They just choose to spend(or waste) it in different ways.