What about Moon Camp Exception & Other Development in Fawnskin?

How could I forget to include this topic…

Hey, let’s make yet another exception to the rules! If you didn’t hear about the proposed exception for Moon Camp–to not count the development in the water connection totals–read more here.

When I moved into Fawnskin, the land below me was said to be part of the easement, and so, was not to be developed. Guess what? Some how, after the lots were sold, one of the adjacent lot owners was able to “slide in” and get permission to develop. Thanks goodness the rest have not, or at least they have been delayed, but how does this kind of thing keep happening around these parts?

Having said that, water is pretty important–is that an understatement? If all the empty second homes were filled we would be in deep sh**. I remember living in Big Bear Lake and having my water pressure change during high traffic weekends. They used to ask us to conserve during those times because of the strain on resources.


So what a good idea, let us develop this area with monsterous homes so that the terrain becomes filled with man made structures instead of the natural terrain that attracts commerce up here. The important thing is to provide work for locals, and who cares if it blocks the views to and access to the lake–and don’t worry about water–just make sure you conserve.

I ask you, just how much money do second home owners really spend up here? Do they really have a positive impact over all? Has anyone studied that? I keep seeing all this land going up for sale and just cringe.

Don’t get me wrong, I like my part-time neighbors but it bugs me that people build these huge homes and they sit empty except for a few days a year. What is up with that?

Local realtors have said that the turn over around here has averaged two years–meaning that someone buys a home and then sells it two years later. Grrrreat.

What about this housing market? Good time to build new stuff, right?

In the Story of Stuff the claim is that we have less than 4% of our original forests left (not sure how correct that is because it relates to logging–and it also says that 40% of our water is undrinkable). Check out the fact sheet here and the 20 minute Story of Stuff movie here.

Development happens. However, the economy here is based on tourism–so is it to our benefit to be similar to towns everywhere else? If the area over develops does that mean we are going to lose more touristas?

I am sure you have seen the survey markers related to the property development in that large area that I mistakenly thought was forestry property behind the Post Office…

So, I took a look and found an old (1997) US Forest Facts analysis in PDF and a PDF of a Forest Resources Summary from 2002. Interesting what you find on the net. How enthused am I about the government’s conservation these days? NOT.

AND if you have been around this valley long enough you might remember when the Castle Glen development area used to be eagle habitat, or at least it had the sign stating that. I heard the forestry traded the land.

Trading with developers, ain’t it grand? Don’t get me started on forest management issues–we all enjoy those forest fires right?

This is from the US Census Bureau–a census on the forest?

Below are snaps from one of my recent hikes. They are from another area slated for development above Cedar Dell and Brookside. (I forget what it is called.) Just wondering if a permit was pulled to cut all the trees? These are only a few snaps of about a dozen piles (or more) we came across!

Any thoughts on this whole issue?

Thank you for reading this post. You can now Leave A Comment (0) or Leave A Trackback.

Post Info

This entry was posted on Monday, December 17th, 2007 and is filed under Uncategorized.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the Comments Feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Previous Post: »
Next Post: »

Read More

Related Reading:

Comments are closed.