Reader Responds to 270 Acres in San Francisco under Consideration for Endangered Species Protection

One of our readers sent me an email in response to the article we published last month on 270 Acres in San Francisco under Consideration for Endangered Species Protection. He feels strongly that these land restrictions are getting out of hand. He has asked me to post his response in the hope that you will join him in sending a petition to our elected officials.

image1
Please feel free to reach out directly to Jim if you want to join him in this effort.

Here is Jim’s message to me:

Great job Re-Insider, Jim Miller here, Owner/Broker of American Eagle Realty, in Southern Cal. Riverside /San Diego border, Temecula. We help good folks buy and sell LAND, Acreage, Ranches and Ag-properties.

For 13 years I’ve loved land and the many uses of it. The freedom of land ownership is the core of country living, raising your own beef, vegetables, raising your kids to work hard and harvest the rewords of an honest day’s labor. On 5 acres of land a family could feed themselves and the kids would be so busy they wouldn’t have time to become the state’s next problem.

This great state of California is heading down a path of self-destruction between the restrictions imposed to develop raw land and the ENDANGERED SPECIES. We have already destroyed the dreams of 30% to 40% of good hard working people that just want a peaceful way of life to raise their kids right and true. I see it every day and the restrictions/high fees are only getting worse. It appears to be a matter of MONEY. In most cases if you have an open check book there is always a way for the state or county planning department to allow you to develop your land as you wish and that’s the greatest wrong of all, the word (ALLOW).

I FEEL SO STRONGLY ABOUT THIS INJUSTICE, I would like your help in starting a state wide petition, to let our elected officials know that the people of this Great State of California are fed-up with being bossed around on our own land! Below are some suggestions of points to be made.

*If the Special interest groups in this State want to protect a Rat or frog or butterfly, they should have that right. So they, themselves should buy the land, put down their own group’s hard earned money and just buy it, and give it to the State for public parks. That way they can visit their little friends any time they want. Fish and game should only be concerned with State LAND and parks. They have no business in private property.

*Mandate a 15% no disturbance area for private land owners State wide, and here’s how it should read: any private land owner with 5 acres or more as part of their develop process will delegate 15% of their land by their own choosing, no reports or fees will be imposed but it must be mapped out on their plot map, no questions asked. If every land owner gave up 15% of their property to wildlife this State and all the furry little friends would be fine. The 15% must be donated by the land owner in one piece and by their own delegation.

Thank you for your hard work and your time I have other ideas and a lot of neighbors fed-up with these States restrictions, high fees, and loss of freedom.
Please respond when you get a chance. The newest Endangered Species to hit the list in the State of California is human beings and their freedom of property ownership.

Jim Miller, Owner/Broker
American Eagle Realty
(951) 265-3798
ameagleland@hotmail.com

  • Mary H

    Jim you’ve got some great ideas! I agree the rich developers always seem to get their way!

    • Patric Barry

      You are so out of step with reality. “Rich developers” are as entitled to anyone else to develop their land – property rights are a basic right in our country. But developers get hammered all the time, and many lose their shirts in the business of property development.

  • sguy707

    I like your spirit for California and America here Jim. All of your points are some of the characteristics that this country was founded on and we are slowly loosing grasp/control of these values. Please let me know when I can sign the petition.

  • TJ Singh

    We won an auction to buy 250 acres of land in San Diego county to build a camp site with some huts etc for kids for my church. That piece of property had an existing RV park on it which closed some years back when the owner died. When we went back to the county to revive the RV park and ask for permits to build some huts etc. for children to camp and learn about the nature (which would be less than 10% of the land), we were given a list of studies (environmental, Archaeological, endangered species etc. etc.) and soil tests which we got estimate would cost us $500 to a Million Dollars and that too would not guarantee us that we would be given a permit to build a camp site as this was only a prerequisite to apply for permits. The non-refundable fees for applying was in the thousands. I agree that these special interest and greedy cities should be stopped and the land freed from their shackles. Please let me know how I can be of any help for this noble cause.

  • RE_Insider

    One of our readers sent me an email with a response to Jim and I’ve included the message from Pat below:

    As luck would have it, I am totally on the opposite side of “Jim” the realtor in So. Cal. who feels that protecting land for native plants and animals

    is a waste of tax payer money and impinges on individual property rights. He could not be further off the mark.

    I live in the country on a small acreage. I have horses and sheep. Most of my neighbors are “Johnny Come-Latelies” to the country. Do they bring their kids?

    Yes. Do the kids spend their time productively learning to raise livestock and/or fruit/veggies for the family to eat? NO WAY. They either play with plastic toys which they abandon helter-skelter around the property, leaving the junk to litter the landscape or they loll around the pool that they HAD to have. They MUST have a dog, however and that dog spends at least as much time on my property as it does at “home”, ’cause these very kids, who WOULD benefit from learning more about real rural life, are busy playing sports at school or video games in the house.

    Jim is living in a fantasy land that exists no longer. I for one would far rather the land be used as it has been since time immemorial by animals and plants that the above referenced “All American Family” has driven from their native habitat.

    If Jim wants to have dirt-bike riding neighbors who tear up the ground so that NOTHING grows, let him, but keep him as far away from Northern California as possible. At least here we have respect for wild and native species. Better them than the hooligans of his “All American Family”!