TexasCHLforum.com

for anyone living in/near the City of Dripping Springs, there's proposal to build a concrete plant not too far from schools and neighborhoods:


http://dsbabble.com/2015/02/08/proposed ... ings-road/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

think: noise, lights at night, and air contaminants......

So it this a case of nimby, banana, or something else?






nimby: not in my back yard.
banana: build absolutely nothing anytime nor anywhere

nimby.


residents don't have an issue with development of that property, but don't want a cement plant there. There are concerns of 2 schools and residences downwind from the plant - we don't want to be breathing concrete dust. There are concerns about water contamination for those downstream of the proposed plant, which includes at least 1 working ranch with livestock.

My understanding was at least one of the forms says it was going to be for an office complex and a notice was published in a San Marcos paper on Dec 23 or 24 (!) saying a concrete plant was going in.

Heard about this on the radio yesterday. Sounds like all the other schools are planning on not letting their teams play on the fields there. So all of dripping springs games would have to be away.

tms119 wrote:Heard about this on the radio yesterday. Sounds like all the other schools are planning on not letting their teams play on the fields there. So all of dripping springs games would have to be away.

Help me out. What would be wrong with the fields again?

I wonder how many Dripping residents subscribe to the San Marcos Daily Record? I would guess not many. Why put it in a residential area in the first place? (Right in an Austin DJ's backyard.) Further west of town would seem to be more suitable. I hear that State Rep Jason Isaac is going to hold a meeting sometime about it (busy with the Wimberley water situation), we will see.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

tms119 wrote:Heard about this on the radio yesterday. Sounds like all the other schools are planning on not letting their teams play on the fields there. So all of dripping springs games would have to be away.

Help me out. What would be wrong with the fields again?

I believe they are concerned about air and water pollution at the fields.

Are they making concrete or cement?

I've overseen the placing of millions of CY of concrete and yet to see any evidence of air or water pollution therefrom. In fact, I used to love the smell of fresh concrete in the morning. Fresh concrete signaled progress was being made.

Concrete batch plant using cement. The link in the op provides the information.

KXAN Investigates did a segment on the issue tonight, but I can't find anything on their website.

I did find a report on KVUE:

http://www.kvue.com/videos/news/local/2 ... /23214925/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There's NIMBY, and then there's NIMBY. Let's look at concrete plants and shooting ranges.

One of our (gun owners) complaints is when people move into a area near an outdoor shooting range and then complain about the noise and safety concerns and try to get the range shut down. That's not a legitimate complaint. If you have noise and safety concerns, then don't buy your home next door to a source of those concerns!!!! The range was there first.....and that's an operating principle here. The home owner's private property rights end where they impact the range owner's rights.

Reverse the situation, and the right of the owner of a proposed range to build that range near a residential area ends where it begins to intrude on the rights of existing homeowners. This is common sense. Yes, the owner of a property has a right to develop his property, but his right to do so ends where it negatively impacts the quality of life and safety of existing residents. This is why we have zoning ordnances which disallow one property owner to put a strip club in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

Now, substitute "concrete plant" for "shooting range"..........

Does NIMBY get carried too far sometimes, lending an air of illegitimacy to the complainers? Yes. But sometimes it is a perfectly legitimate exercise of a property owner's rights. If my property was worth X $$ when I bought it, and the current market says that it should now be worth X+Y $$, but another property owner moves in after the fact and builds a cement plant that reduces my property's value to X-Y $$, then as far as I am concerned, the new property owner owes me Y$$ x2 for loss of value to my property which is HIS fault, plus real estate sale costs and moving expenses so that I don't have to continue to live in a deteriorating neighborhood which was just fine before he moved his concrete plant into it.

You can't always avoid progress, nor necessarily should you. But progress for the new concrete plant owner doesn't equate to progress for the residents who are being negatively impacted by the new neighbor, and the original residents' concerns must be addressed to their satisfaction. That's not just NIMBY, it's fair play.

The Annoyed Man wrote:There's NIMBY, and then there's NIMBY. Let's look at concrete plants and shooting ranges.

One of our (gun owners) complaints is when people move into a area near an outdoor shooting range and then complain about the noise and safety concerns and try to get the range shut down. That's not a legitimate complaint. If you have noise and safety concerns, then don't buy your home next door to a source of those concerns!!!! The range was there first.....and that's an operating principle here. The home owner's private property rights end where they impact the range owner's rights.

Reverse the situation, and the right of the owner of a proposed range to build that range near a residential area ends where it begins to intrude on the rights of existing homeowners. This is common sense. Yes, the owner of a property has a right to develop his property, but his right to do so ends where it negatively impacts the quality of life and safety of existing residents. This is why we have zoning ordnances which disallow one property owner to put a strip club in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

Now, substitute "concrete plant" for "shooting range"..........

Does NIMBY get carried too far sometimes, lending an air of illegitimacy to the complainers? Yes. But sometimes it is a perfectly legitimate exercise of a property owner's rights. If my property was worth X $$ when I bought it, and the current market says that it should now be worth X+Y $$, but another property owner moves in after the fact and builds a cement plant that reduces my property's value to X-Y $$, then as far as I am concerned, the new property owner owes me Y$$ x2 for loss of value to my property which is HIS fault, plus real estate sale costs and moving expenses so that I don't have to continue to live in a deteriorating neighborhood which was just fine before he moved his concrete plant into it.

You can't always avoid progress, nor necessarily should you. But progress for the new concrete plant owner doesn't equate to progress for the residents who are being negatively impacted by the new neighbor, and the original residents' concerns must be addressed to their satisfaction. That's not just NIMBY, it's fair play.

....and that's why we have zoning ordinances, right?

Some places do.

Zoning can however, turn into the ancillary funding program for local persons of interest instead of a tool of protection.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Some places do.

Zoning can however, turn into the ancillary funding program for local persons of interest instead of a tool of protection.

Yep, like all coins, zoning has two faces......at a minimum.