To the editor:
Concerning your Sunday, July 31, article "Developers floating idea of lakeside properties," I would like to offer my opinion that this proposal is completely against the spirit of public state lakes. If "upper income families" want a second home so zealously, they should build one on a private lake, not on public lakes.
Kansas has no national parks, and any outdoor enthusiast who wants to enjoy hunting, fishing, biking or bird watching can find miles of wilderness around federal reservoirs, like Clinton and Perry. Of course, developers will argue that these areas will still exist. But, what about the miles of shoreline lost to privileged developers, who insist on help in subsidizing these dream home environments from local officials. What is the effect of the development, lawn chemicals and construction residues on the aquatic environment?
Eric Davis,
Lawrence
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
bjohanning (anonymous) says…
The development of our public state lakes as private retreats for the rich is another form of expense for the taxpayer. We should never allow the development of our public lakes, keep them public not private.