Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > The Pub
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

The Pub A friendly forum where everybody is nice, and will answer any questions you have about life.







Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 9th, 2007, 06:28 PM   #1
Buggy_Tim
(513) 891-8372
 
Buggy_Tim's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Sault Sainte Marie
Posts: 11,699
iTrader: (12)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default Wow...Wal-Mart being forced to do some cool things up here.

In the recent city meeting, Wal-Mart agreed to purchase 62 acres of wet-land and basicly donate it back to the city to be managed by the city and the DEQ as a protected "Green Space" in the city. They are also going to build walking trails and things like that on the property.

They have also agreed to give the Chippewa/West Mackinac Conservation District something in the range of $30,000 for the purposes of improving the Ashmun Creek Water Shed.

This is in preparations for the new Super Wal-Mart and do not include the cost of purchasing and development of an additional 30-40 acres that will be turned into a wetland to replace the wet area that will be filled by the building of the new Wal-Mart grounds.

They are also NOT getting the property tax deferment that is all too common when a Wal-Mart comes to town. For the schools.
Buggy_Tim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2007, 06:53 PM   #2
amc78cj7
Senior Member
 
amc78cj7's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-07-05
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,352
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

So what does 62 acres of land cost up there, something like $5k?
__________________
I'm not quoting idiots who promote unsafe recovery strap techniques anymore. :miff:
amc78cj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2007, 07:11 PM   #3
Tonka
YJ build in progress
 
Tonka's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Lapeer Township, Mi.
Posts: 2,063
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to Tonka Send a message via Yahoo to Tonka
Default

say goodbye to allot of local small businesses
Tonka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2007, 08:25 PM   #4
Buggy_Tim
(513) 891-8372
 
Buggy_Tim's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Sault Sainte Marie
Posts: 11,699
iTrader: (12)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonka View Post
say goodbye to allot of local small businesses
We already have some of the big stores...not much will change...cept well get a few more jobs up here.
Buggy_Tim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2007, 08:26 PM   #5
Buggy_Tim
(513) 891-8372
 
Buggy_Tim's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Sault Sainte Marie
Posts: 11,699
iTrader: (12)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amc78cj7 View Post
So what does 62 acres of land cost up there, something like $5k?
Well that's just retarded.

$80,600
Buggy_Tim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 9th, 2007, 09:57 PM   #6
Fullsize4life
Kicking Cancers ASS
 
Fullsize4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-25-06
Location: Hart, Mi (next to silver lake)
Posts: 18,757
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

I would not give 2 shits for a walmart. They are the down fall of our ecomony.
Fullsize4life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2007, 08:07 AM   #7
84Scrambler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 11-07-05
Location: Lansing
Posts: 5,943
iTrader: (8)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to 84Scrambler
Default

I never knew we had so many economists on this board. If you actually believe that Wal-Mart is the downfall of our economy, we truly are doomed.

Last edited by 84Scrambler; June 10th, 2007 at 08:23 AM.
84Scrambler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2007, 08:22 AM   #8
bigcountrysg
Countryboy
 
bigcountrysg's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05-07-07
Location: Willis Michigan
Posts: 1,599
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Federal Law requires that if you destroy or change a wetland area. You must either repair and rehabilitate that area, or provide another area with in the a mile radius to replace the one that was destroyed or damage.

Walmart is not doing this to be nice they are doing it because they have to unless they want to face big fines that would hurt the company.
bigcountrysg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2007, 08:28 AM   #9
C.K.
Dont Feed the Cyco
 
C.K.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: 48386
Posts: 17,301
iTrader: (21)
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fullsize4life View Post
I would not give 2 shits for a walmart. They are the down fall of our economy.
Really? I thought that illegal immigrants were.
C.K. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2007, 10:17 AM   #10
Buggy_Tim
(513) 891-8372
 
Buggy_Tim's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Sault Sainte Marie
Posts: 11,699
iTrader: (12)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigcountrysg View Post
Federal Law requires that if you destroy or change a wetland area. You must either repair and rehabilitate that area, or provide another area with in the a mile radius to replace the one that was destroyed or damage.

Walmart is not doing this to be nice they are doing it because they have to unless they want to face big fines that would hurt the company.
I know you think you are an expert on everything on this planet...and others...but you need to re-read the original post and then go away and shut the fukc up.

The process of creating new wetlands to replace one that you are filling is called mitigation by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency, which administer wetlands laws.

Notice....in my original post I said:

and do not include the cost of purchasing and development of an additional 30-40 acres that will be turned into a wetland to replace the wet area that will be filled by the building of the new Wal-Mart grounds.

There are several types of wetland mitigation and different ratio's of how many acres have to be involved. And there is no requirement for the mitigated area to be "with in the a mile radius"....you need to quit posting about things you have no knowledge of. Having no requirement for placement of the new wetland has been one of the main criticisms for the mitigation process since it was put in place.

Mitigation must be accomplished based on the following ratios:
restoration 1:1
creation 1.5:1
enhancement 2:1
preservation 5:1

There is also another set of rules to follow if the wetland you want to fill is next to a stream.

Like I said, the stuff Wal-Mart is doing is above what the law requires....are they doing it to be nice? No. Is the city basicly making it a requirement to do these things in exchange for Wal-Mart being able to build? Sure, and good for the city. Finally a city not being pushed around by Wal-Mart.
Buggy_Tim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2007, 10:28 AM   #11
pizzaman
Senior Member
 
pizzaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Independence Twsp, North Oakland County
Posts: 930
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 84Scrambler View Post
I never knew we had so many economists on this board. If you actually believe that Wal-Mart is the downfall of our economy, we truly are doomed.
Agreed.
pizzaman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2007, 10:32 AM   #12
bigcountrysg
Countryboy
 
bigcountrysg's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05-07-07
Location: Willis Michigan
Posts: 1,599
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Hey Muddy Paws I never claimed to be an expert at anything. I will tell you right now I have a reading Disorder. I did not see that statement in your post. Ok, if I did I would not have made the statement I made.
bigcountrysg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2007, 10:46 AM   #13
GreaseMonkey
Senior Member
 
GreaseMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-04-05
Location: Washington, MI
Posts: 17,937
iTrader: (22)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigcountrysg View Post
Hey Muddy Paws I never claimed to be an expert at anything. I will tell you right now I have a reading Disorder. I did not see that statement in your post. Ok, if I did I would not have made the statement I made.
Ask for clarification then.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryann View Post
I am not a lesbian but if I was I would do her.
GreaseMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2007, 10:55 AM   #14
bigcountrysg
Countryboy
 
bigcountrysg's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05-07-07
Location: Willis Michigan
Posts: 1,599
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

I missed a statement in his orginal posting. What clarification do I need. He already provided the clarification.
bigcountrysg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2007, 10:55 AM   #15
Buggy_Tim
(513) 891-8372
 
Buggy_Tim's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Sault Sainte Marie
Posts: 11,699
iTrader: (12)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigcountrysg View Post
Hey Muddy Paws I never claimed to be an expert at anything. I will tell you right now I have a reading Disorder. I did not see that statement in your post. Ok, if I did I would not have made the statement I made.
Well then, I am left to assume that you have never read the wetland mitigation laws since it is a long read.

If that is true, I am then left at a loss as to why you would comment on something you don't have a clue on and make it SEEM you do.

I, on the other hand, have read the laws regarding this, and understand them quite well. I have a piece of land down state that I was going to build on and I filed for wetland mitigation. After several hearings and studies and meetings and paperwork and money spent, my application was denied.

The reason? You have to show that you have no other feasible option on your building site and simply already owning the land does not count. They said I could sell the land and buy a different piece of land that was more suited to build on.

Am I an expert on the laws, no, do I think I am qualified to comment on them, yea sorta since I went through the application process and have actually read them.
Buggy_Tim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2007, 11:03 AM   #16
bigcountrysg
Countryboy
 
bigcountrysg's Avatar
 
Join Date: 05-07-07
Location: Willis Michigan
Posts: 1,599
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

did I state I was an expert on the law. No I did not. Do I know that there is a law that exsists to protect wetlands yes. Do I know it is not a state law but a federal law yes. Is there a state law that protects wetlands yes. Is the state law more strict then the federal law yes, why is that because state law can not be more leanient then federal law.

Do cities, villages, townships have laws that may protect wetlands no, they have ordances, cities, villages, townships do not have the capability to make laws, they can only make ordances, which make state laws more strict.

Did I state that I knew how the mitigation process worked no I did not. I missed one little statement out of your whole orginal posting. So you want to bash me for it.
bigcountrysg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2007, 11:44 AM   #17
Motor Slut
I put the Ick in Dick.
 
Motor Slut's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-10-05
Location: 49963
Posts: 2,411
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuddyPaws View Post
I know you think you are an expert on everything on this planet...and others...but you need to re-read the original post and then go away and shut the fukc up.

The process of creating new wetlands to replace one that you are filling is called mitigation by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency, which administer wetlands laws.

Notice....in my original post I said:

and do not include the cost of purchasing and development of an additional 30-40 acres that will be turned into a wetland to replace the wet area that will be filled by the building of the new Wal-Mart grounds.

There are several types of wetland mitigation and different ratio's of how many acres have to be involved. And there is no requirement for the mitigated area to be "with in the a mile radius"....you need to quit posting about things you have no knowledge of. Having no requirement for placement of the new wetland has been one of the main criticisms for the mitigation process since it was put in place.

Mitigation must be accomplished based on the following ratios:
restoration 1:1
creation 1.5:1
enhancement 2:1
preservation 5:1

There is also another set of rules to follow if the wetland you want to fill is next to a stream.

Like I said, the stuff Wal-Mart is doing is above what the law requires....are they doing it to be nice? No. Is the city basicly making it a requirement to do these things in exchange for Wal-Mart being able to build? Sure, and good for the city. Finally a city not being pushed around by Wal-Mart.

All of which is bullshit because you are destroying natural wetlands and then destroying another natural area to make it into a wetland. So basically they are saying that two wrongs make a right. So why can't we as wheelers destroy a wetlands and then go flood another area to make a wetlands to make it all better?

Tim your walmart news is old since they had to do the same thing up here 3 years ago when they expanded into a SuperWalmart that encroached on wetlands. They bought land somewhere else in the Keweenaw and made a wetlands that was 5 times larger than the land they destroyed.
Motor Slut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2007, 12:06 PM   #18
thrca
UberGeek
 
thrca's Avatar
 
Join Date: 06-04-07
Location: Big Rapids, MI
Posts: 569
iTrader: (8)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Our walmart bought 30 acres of coast to donate to the city park... Down here that amount of property adds up to a few million bucks.
thrca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2007, 01:32 PM   #19
Miffy
Senior Member
 
Miffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: My home
Posts: 5,826
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Send a message via Yahoo to Miffy
Default

OMG........

You people in the South do not understand that a Lg Business moving up North is a good thing. It brings Money into the area. and things to people for less money.

as far as the wet lands go the Cities were all built on Wet land at one time also. Just because your living in a area that has none you want to make sure that anyone that lives near one not change it :chiefwoohaw: :chiefwoohaw: :chiefwoohaw:

The Cities Kill Bugs, and animal life so they can have there nice clean streets etc.

I say this is our land up here the same as you have yours down there.
Miffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2007, 03:37 PM   #20
ScOoTeR
hoo dat. wat.
 
ScOoTeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Howell
Posts: 21,383
iTrader: (35)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuddyPaws View Post
I know you think you are an expert on everything on this planet...and others...but you need to re-read the original post and then go away and shut the fukc up.

The process of creating new wetlands to replace one that you are filling is called mitigation by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency, which administer wetlands laws.

Notice....in my original post I said:

and do not include the cost of purchasing and development of an additional 30-40 acres that will be turned into a wetland to replace the wet area that will be filled by the building of the new Wal-Mart grounds.

There are several types of wetland mitigation and different ratio's of how many acres have to be involved. And there is no requirement for the mitigated area to be "with in the a mile radius"....you need to quit posting about things you have no knowledge of. Having no requirement for placement of the new wetland has been one of the main criticisms for the mitigation process since it was put in place.

Mitigation must be accomplished based on the following ratios:
restoration 1:1
creation 1.5:1
enhancement 2:1
preservation 5:1

There is also another set of rules to follow if the wetland you want to fill is next to a stream.

Like I said, the stuff Wal-Mart is doing is above what the law requires....are they doing it to be nice? No. Is the city basicly making it a requirement to do these things in exchange for Wal-Mart being able to build? Sure, and good for the city. Finally a city not being pushed around by Wal-Mart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuddyPaws View Post
Well then, I am left to assume that you have never read the wetland mitigation laws since it is a long read.

If that is true, I am then left at a loss as to why you would comment on something you don't have a clue on and make it SEEM you do.

I, on the other hand, have read the laws regarding this, and understand them quite well. I have a piece of land down state that I was going to build on and I filed for wetland mitigation. After several hearings and studies and meetings and paperwork and money spent, my application was denied.

The reason? You have to show that you have no other feasible option on your building site and simply already owning the land does not count. They said I could sell the land and buy a different piece of land that was more suited to build on.

Am I an expert on the laws, no, do I think I am qualified to comment on them, yea sorta since I went through the application process and have actually read them.
WOW TIM MUDYPAWS U 2TALY HAEV DA HUGEST WETLANDS E-PENIS I HAEV 3VER SAW!1!1!111 WTF
__________________
@clarkstoncracker
ScOoTeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > The Pub
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:17 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Cracker Enterprises - Powered by Linux
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=
Page generated in 0.25357 seconds with 50 queries