Oh come on people!

In reply to SV reX :

My FIL landed a helicopter at the local rural high school to pick up his daughter (my wife) after school one day...

He also used his pasture as a runway for his Piper Cub. 

In reply to llysgennad :

Grass airstrips are the natural habitat of the Piper Cub.

Steve_Jones said:

Scotty Con Queso said:

Steve_Jones said:

All he needed to do was apply for a permit.  He did not.  Seems reasonable to want someone to follow the rules. 

I agree he should have applied for necessary permits, but honesty that would not have mattered in this case.  Again, shame on him for not, but even if he did, and used the track for private use with electric go carts, someone would still be mad, very mad about the fact that this track exists.  "I can't believe someone is doing a hobby they enjoy that angers me for no reason whatsoever" is a common war cry.  I'm convinced there is a miserable society of people that believe the only two hobbies someone should have are ones indoors (no videogames, of course) and walking.  Even the walking should be heavily regulated.  No dogs using the bathroom, not stopping in front of people's property, etc. etc.  

They could be as mad as they wanted at that point, but if the rules were followed, too bad. It would have mattered in this case, because if it was a permitted track, there's nothing anyone could do to make him remove it. 

A lot of shut down race tracks would disagree with you. Story has been told countless times. Race track in a rural area long before development. Karen moves into her new housing development and complains constantly about that dern racket. Track is forced to close. The guy on the first page commenting about living in a rural area but complaining about his neighbors four wheeler is a prime example. 

Looks what's happening in Florida at the Freedom Factory. That track was built beyond the anti sprawl line. A hard line that was meant to keep parts of the rural county rural. Established in 1970. Now, the county has decided that nah we don't want to honor that and now there will be housing built on on three sides of the track and Bradenton Motorsports Park. They are even forcing the people buying a home to acknowledge that the track has every right to lawfully exist. Mark my words. The Freedom Factory and BMP will not exist in their current locations in 10 years or less. They will be shut down. 

Dang, that is only about 10 miles from where I work.  I question the rural part.  McMansions have been built out that way for years.  And I get it.  If you had the money to build the track, you should have spent the money to see if you should build the track.

trigun7469 said:

Million dollar homes and golf courses ain't no rural I ever heard of. Do they speak permit in "rural?"

Scotty Con Queso said:

The guy on the first page commenting about living in a rural area but complaining about his neighbors four wheeler is a prime example. 

 Mark my words. The Freedom Factory and BMP will not exist in their current locations in 10 years or less. They will be shut down. 

This. What is the problem with being able to hear your neighbor enjoy himself? If it's excessive, grab the proverbial six-pack and go strike up a conversation. While there is no shortage of a-hole neighbor examples, the great majority of the time you'll be able to reach a compromise by being decent about it. My next door neighbor's kid used to ride his four wheeler all the time. I gave him permission to ride on my property as well. Within a couple of years he'd outgrown it. It never bothered me, but it sure made his childhood better. 

I wanted to click the thumbs up in agreement re: the Freedom Factory but I can't "like" that. I'm so tired of seeing racetracks go away.

In reply to Scotty Con Queso :

A lot of airports would disagree also.

"Waaaaah, this airport is sooo. Noisy!!"

"That airport has been there since 1943. You didn't notice the 2000 acres it takes up when you moved in 5 years ago?!?"

Motojunky said:

Scotty Con Queso said:

The guy on the first page commenting about living in a rural area but complaining about his neighbors four wheeler is a prime example. 

 Mark my words. The Freedom Factory and BMP will not exist in their current locations in 10 years or less. They will be shut down. 

This. What is the problem with being able to hear your neighbor enjoy himself? If it's excessive, grab the proverbial six-pack and go strike up a conversation. While there is no shortage of a-hole neighbor examples, the great majority of the time you'll be able to reach a compromise by being decent about it. My next door neighbor's kid used to ride his four wheeler all the time. I gave him permission to ride on my property as well. Within a couple of years he'd outgrown it. It never bothered me, but it sure made his childhood better. 

I wanted to click the thumbs up in agreement re: the Freedom Factory but I can't "like" that. I'm so tired of seeing racetracks go away.

I said I hated the sound. I tolerate it. It's what people do out here. You ought to hear the gun fire. I did call over there and ask how long they were going to be setting off dynamite last year as it was rattling the windows and scaring my dog and cats. She nicely said she'd get'm to stop. Something about a gender reveal party for th' twins.

In reply to Scotty Con Queso :

Apparently, every time you write "airport" autocorrect changes it to "racetrack" 

1)  Buy house next to an airport at a big discount.

2)  Complain, complain, complain about the noise.

3)  Hope and pray there's a fiery crash with charred bodies strewn everywhere to add safety concerns to the complaints.

4)  Shut down airport and displace aviation community that has been there since before you were born for big profit.

Edit...

Oopsie, I replied before reading the additional posts including the one from Aircooled.

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

One of the reasons this is such a sore spot for people is that regulations get added to a lot more often than relaxed. Look at the building or fire codes. It would take rain man to remember it all, and where I live, to do it by the book has become a rich mans game. In this case, the owner may have made a calculated decision: Get all the approvals with the associated cost and time spent, or build it and hope for the best. The approval could take years, require a rezoning, and could be denied altogether. 

Assuming that it's the immediate neighbor, if I were the track owner, I'd consider buying my kid the loudest 2-stroke dirt bike I could find and cut some paths along the property line. I wouldn't do it, but I'd sure think about it.

Funny, down here in Florida the rich are most likely to throw the rules out the window.

In the early 70s my grandparents bought a piece of land on Dragon Point Dr, in Merritt Island, FL  Their piece of land was 80 feet wide? Waterfront on east and west with lots north and south.  Over the years the county and Florida cracked down on how close you could build to the water.  Eventually every house on that road would have been banned, but were grandfathered in.  You could build new, but to do so required keeping the foundation and some portion of the existing house.  Lso, being Florida, lots of laws on the books about what you could do to the waterfront, the plants, etc etc.

Then comes a rich shiny happy person (a whole bunch of em, actually.  Most were somewhat respectful of the rules though) and he fully clears an entire plot.  No foundation, no plants, all sorts of ecological damage.  Then he built out, then he built up.  Put in this horrible 3 story modern brutalist nightmare of a building right on the edge of the water.

He was fined.  He paid the fines.

By contrast, my B.I.L. up in N. Florida is a contractor, knows the codes in and out, follows the codes.  Its easier for him to follow the rules than to convince some home owner to pay fines.

Doing it right doesn't take any significant effort, but if you dont do it regularly you will probably get caught up in minutae

Depending on how congested the local court system is, you could probably use the track for at least a year before your case comes up for trial. Get a real shiny happy person for a lawyer and he could file another year of postponements and filed motions. You will eventually lose, but by the time the case winds it's way through the appeals court, the state supreme court and the Federal District Court where you could argue the county's Constitutional right to regulate your private property, your kid would probably have outgrown the track and gone on to his own Formula 3 ride in Europe.

Of course who needs a permit went you aren't going to need a racetrack.

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/bay-area-cops-stopping-dirt-bike-packs-liability-19733461.php

Rich man didn't buy enough property. 

If you have enough average and enough trees nobody knows what you are doing. 

Although it seems this thread may have dodged a bullet by that particular conversation ending, I am truly curious about the objection to rural="do whatever you want." That's literally THE reason for anyone I ever talk to who wants to move to the country or has already moved to the country: "to be able to do whatever I want without anyone bothering me"

And I'm not talking the specifics of permits or not permits here-- just wondering why it is that anyone thought rural/fewer people="freedom" was not normal/good. 

They are running ELECTRIC carts, which are extremely quite. So quite that you can stand next to a track full of them racing indoors and still have regular conversation. I remember when my local cart tracks switched from gas to electric, it was so quiet that it was weird. I guarantee that the complaining neighbors' landscapers make much more noise that the cart track. I could list a dozen common things found in rural communities that make more noise. The neighbors are making a big deal about nothing. 
 

This is an unincorporated, rural property. What he wants to do on his own land should be none of his neighbor's business, if it doesn't affect them. Even if it does affect them, there should be some give and take. Or we could keep bitching at each other and take away everyone's joy until we are equally miserable. That doesn't sound like a great way to live. 
 

As for permits- it disturbs me how accepting people are of allowing the government to confiscate their rights and sell them back to them. 
 

Rules and permits are not the same thing, A community should be able to set limited rules to help maintain the happiness and safety of the community. But if you are following those rules, I fail to see why one should be required to pay for permission to build within those rules. When the mob does that it's called extortion, when the government does it they call it a permit. 
 

If I were the homeowner, I would higher a lawyer to explain that their walking path/ landscaping feature is well within the rules and does not violate any pavement percentage ratio, and does not fall under the umbrella of a permit requirement. 
 

In reply to P3PPY :

Although it seems this thread may have dodged a bullet by that particular conversation ending, I am truly curious about the objection to rural="do whatever you want." That's literally THE reason for anyone I ever talk to who wants to move to the country or has already moved to the country: "to be able to do whatever I want without anyone bothering me"

And I'm not talking the specifics of permits or not permits here-- just wondering why it is that anyone thought rural/fewer people="freedom" was not normal/good. 
 

I don't think that has changed, people still move out to the country so that they can have the freedom to do what they want. What has changed is that people moving out there now want others to do what they want as well. They leave the restrictions of the cities/suburbs but want to bring them with them, as long as it suits them. 

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

No, he is saying he will run electric now that he got caught. The fact that you think permits should not be required is irrelevant. They are, and he didn't get one, it's that simple. Instead of a racetrack, make it a homeless commune, still cool right?

This is not the "rural area" most people picture when they hear that term. 

In reply to P3PPY :

Well, "Rural" can mean lots of things. Ultimately, each community is shaped by the values of its inhabitants. So rural could absolutely mean snooty as F-ck. Or rural could mean do what you want as long as you don't kill someone I like. And everything in between. 

In reply to Steve_Jones :

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

No, he is saying he will run electric now that he got caught. The fact that you think permits should not be required is irrelevant. They are, and he didn't get one, it's that simple. Instead of a racetrack, make it a homeless commune, still cool right?

You are confusing two things. Inanimate objects and the actions of people. The pavement that the homeowner puts down just sits there, it's not doing any harm to anybody. How complaining neighbors "thinks" it will affect them is irrelevant. If it's method of use breaks any laws or ordinances, then the neighbors should feel free to file a complain. But right now it's simply petty "I don't like it." The homeless commune is a bad comparison. If a property owner wants to allow law abiding people to camp on their property, it shouldn't be anyone else's business. If they are breaking laws, then they should be held accountable for those laws. I'm not comfortable with holding people accountable for laws that they "might" break. Funny, I was going to use a homeless example. Here in the CA Bay Area, we have many areas very similar to the ones we are discussing, where they squeeze property owners for every penny they can get to "permit" them to use their own property as they would like. Within these same counties, we have third world communities built in and around public land and infrastructure (sometimes in the middle of the roads and bridges) that are allowed to exist. You can literally have a homeowner be required to permit a fence, on the other side of which bums and junkies have built an apartment building out of burned out RV's and scrap.

Boost_Crazy said:

If they are breaking laws, then they should be held accountable for those laws. I'm not comfortable with holding people accountable for laws that they "might" break. 

He broke the law by building it without a permit, there's no "might" here. To hold him accountable they want it returned to the way it was, why is that not reasonable? It could have been a non issue if he followed the laws. 

I guess the real question here is, that many never bother to even consider:  "why is there a regulation that would prohibit someone from building a track like structure on their own land that would have no possible effect on his neighbors?" 

 As noted, it's not about the carts, it's about the track.... but why?  If he wants to build a driveway with a curve in it (a minimalistic version of a "track"), why is that a concern?  Are they somehow trying to protect him from himself?

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

I can back you up on the absurdity of the state of regulation in CA (might be similar other places?)  CA is clearly one of the most regulated (and taxed) places (for F sake, there are labels on almost everything that say it might cause cancer, and no one has any idea what that actually means!!), yet, if you live on the street, you can do whatever the F you want (violating many many laws), and almost nothing will be done about it.  In fact, in many cases, there are people that will gladly support you in your wildly self-destructive and socially harmful behavior!

There was a very recent story of the owner of a rather famous deli restaurant in LA who is threatening to shut down because of the current situation.  One of his specific complaints is that there are many very strict food safety regulation (e.g. required temperatures) for his restaurant, yet you can walk outside the door of the restaurant and buy a hot dog from some random guy on the street, heating them on piece of metal with a propane burner under it!  Zero regulation enforcement.

So, there are regulations... and there are regulations... 

In reply to Steve_Jones :

I fully agree with you that this area isn't near as "rural" as it's described in the article. It's relatively dense when you look at Google Earth. 

Kinda like how people say I'm from a really small town of 500k people. 

I think there is a great big grey area of details that none of us know anything about. 
 

If a permit was required and he didn't get one, ok he broke a law.  My question is... What permit??

A permit required for land clearing or wetlands impact?  Maybe. 
 

A permit required to build a commercial race track?  Yes, but that's not what he built. 
 

I seriously doubt there is a law on the books requiring a permit if you want to build a child's paved pathway for private recreational purposes. 
 

Generally speaking, permits are for building structures. Landscaping and hardscaping generally doesn't require a permit, except as it relates to building a structure. 
 

For example... when I build a new commercial building, we often have to submit a landscape plan. It would include a lot of things required- a certain number of trees, density, species, height, etc. But if most of you want to landscape your yard and plant trees, you go to Home Depot, buy something, and stick it in the ground.

There are restrictions for percentages of pervious areas, but that is usually in the context of site development for a building or community. Neighborhoods require green spaces and drainage areas, but that's because they built a neighborhood. Those things were not required when it was a field. 
 

I question whether a permit was actually required for what he built, or if it's just a lot of Karens  with their panties in a wad.

We'll probably never know. It's sensational news that sells and gets people to argue- we won't see a follow up or the final outcome.

It's a private athletic training area. If the sport was track and field, would neighbors object to a sand pit, a high jump area, and a running track?