Advertisement

Archive for Friday, September 9, 2011

Acres of trees removed in rural Douglas County; questions raised over whether potential for new regulations played a role

September 9, 2011

Advertisement

A once heavily wooded 160-acre site at E 850 and N 1850 roads is largely barren after bulldozers cleared many of the trees from the property. The site is owned by Lawrence builder Mike Stultz, but information on what the property may be used for hasn't been made available.

A once heavily wooded 160-acre site at E 850 and N 1850 roads is largely barren after bulldozers cleared many of the trees from the property. The site is owned by Lawrence builder Mike Stultz, but information on what the property may be used for hasn't been made available.

Recently-felled timber smolders in a pile at a 160 acre site E 850 and N 1850 roads in northwest Douglas County. The once heavily wooded site was cleared by bulldozers.

Recently-felled timber smolders in a pile at a 160 acre site E 850 and N 1850 roads in northwest Douglas County. The once heavily wooded site was cleared by bulldozers.

Bulldozers and bonfires have been busy in a pair of rural Douglas County woodlands owned by a Lawrence developer.

The Journal-World received multiple inquires about bulldozers that have been clearing acres of trees on 75 acres just north of the ranger station at Clinton Lake State Park and on 160 acres about one-half mile north of the Lecompton interchange on the Kansas Turnpike.

Lawrence developer Mike Stultz owns both pieces of property, according to county records, but multiple attempts to reach Stultz for comment were unsuccessful.

Lawrence-Douglas County planners said there have not been any development plans filed for either piece of property. But the clear-cutting comes at a time when new regulations limiting large scale-tree cutting are on the horizon.

City commissioners and county commissioners both narrowly passed a new environmental chapter that was added to the city’s planning documents. That chapter has directed planning staff members to create new regulations that would “preserve and sustain woodlands within Douglas County.”

“If they are clear-cutting and diluting the land to avoid whatever changes might come, that is unfortunate,” said Douglas County Commissioner Nancy Thellman, who wasn’t aware of the cutting operations. “I don’t think we’re going to set unreasonable expectations. We’re not about stopping growth and development.”

Currently, the county does not have any prohibitions on large-scale tree removal on agricultural land, especially if no development plans have been filed, said Sheila Stogsdill, assistant director of planning.

The city and county have not set a timeline for creating the new regulations called for in the environmental chapter. The situation has created uncertainty about what type of regulations will be governing rural development in the future.

“I think in the rural area there is quite a concern among landowners,” said County Commissioner Jim Flory, who opposed passage of the environmental chapter because he said it hadn’t been adequately discussed with rural residents. “Their concerns are what many people’s concerns are — more government, more government. There is an uncertainty that all of a sudden the government is going to be dictating every move they make on their properties.”

In addition to calling for more regulations related to woodland protection, the environmental chapter also calls for codes that would limit the type of development could occur near streams, local protections for wetlands, ordinances to protect undeveloped pieces of plant and wildlife habitat and others.

At both of the sites, most of the tree removal is complete. The northwest Douglas County site is at the intersection of East 850 and North 1850 roads. The site near the state park is just north of East 800 Road and North 1415 Road. Both sites have large amounts of bare ground that once was heavily covered by trees.

Jerry Schecher, park manager at Clinton Lake State Park, said he was concerned about erosion, drainage issues, and the impact the cutting has had on wildlife habitat next to the park.

“As a steward of the environment, I am concerned about the practice of clear-cutting and burning old standing timber,” Schecher said.

Comments

cheeseburger 3 years, 1 month ago

I'm not a big Stultz fan, but this one is on Thellman and Gaughan, and their incessant desire for onerous environmental regulations.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 1 month ago

So you saw them out there with chainsaws?

0

Horace 3 years, 1 month ago

Are you mocking Gaughan for never having had a real job?

0

GovJunkie 3 years, 1 month ago

Developers exercising their rights before others try to take them away without just compensation. Ordinances like those referenced in the article and related efforts (e.g., Lawrence Traffic Dead-end) probably explain why the LJW doesn't have a "Busness" section on their website - not enough business to write about. Gj

0

Clinton Laing 3 years, 1 month ago

Amen: this government creates unnecessary uncertainty, and that is what drives this kind of action. Consider the ineptitude in her own words! "Nancy Thellman, who wasn’t aware of the cutting operations. 'I don’t think we’re going to set unreasonable expectations.'" Not even, "we have no plan that would set any unreasonable expectation," as if she isn't sure they would do so or not! What would any intelligent landholder assume? We need to get these hacks out of their positions!

0

scott3460 3 years, 1 month ago

The right to be a selfish ass is best not exercised.

What a disgusting "human being" to want to exercise the right to wantonly destroy so that someone else might not someday interfere with it. And how sick too are those who support such actions.

0

nordicson 3 years, 1 month ago

I'm with you 100%... lets destroy the land to raise more buildings because as we all know, Lawrence is short on vacant buildings, apartments and housing.

Its a shame that bank loans aren't called in on some of these developers...

0

John Hamm 3 years, 1 month ago

well, it's legal but I sure hope it comes back to bite him. Hard!

0

gl0ck0wn3r 3 years, 1 month ago

“I don’t think we’re going to set unreasonable expectations. We’re not about stopping growth and development.”

Riiiiiiiight.

0

scott3460 3 years, 1 month ago

Yes, there has been so much growth stopped as Lawrence has mushroomed in the last 20 years! (eyes rolling)

0

George_Braziller 3 years, 1 month ago

I hope your neighbor never decides to put in a cattle lot next door to you.

"It is his land, and the last time I checked, you can do what you want with it."

0

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

"I get so tired about people worrying about everything and everyone but themselves." I vigorously concur, but wonder if this attitude holds true when it comes to subjects of contention such as abortion and gay marriage... What say you?

0

scott3460 3 years, 1 month ago

Where do you suppose the sediment no longer held to the land will go, oletimer? And who will have to pay for the dredging at Clinton Lake that will have to be done as a result?

0

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

FYI: If he's disturbed more than one acre of land they he's required by law to develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention plan. http://www.kdheks.gov/stormwater/index.html#construct

(Dang government getting in the way of progress)

0

jbond 3 years, 1 month ago

I agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

0

scott3460 3 years, 1 month ago

My comment had nothing to do with liking or not liking the lake, but, instead, was an attempt to point out that what this land owner does on his land does have an impact that others have legitimate concerns about. I would rather not have to eventually pay for the redredging of Clinton Lake because this idiot wets his pants at some imagined future restriction.

0

funkdog1 3 years, 1 month ago

Uh, it's secondary function is flood control. It's primary function is to provide water for the City of Lawrence. Clinton Reservoir is where approximately half our water comes from.

0

LivedinLawrence4Life 3 years, 1 month ago

If someone wants to save trees on land owned by someone else, they should raise the money to buy the land. The same goes for land with topsoil too good to allow development. If homes and businesses can't be built among trees or good topsoil or near any wetlands then that leaves us rocky barren high ground to build homes?

0

redfred 3 years, 1 month ago

  • If the county is so interested in saving woodlands they should be getting into the parks business instead of trying to get out of the parks business.
0

blindrabbit 3 years, 1 month ago

Guy has been shaky since his high school days! Alternate of generations, his father was such a nice guy.

0

crackers 3 years, 1 month ago

Who is Guy? Is he responsibile for the tree removal? I like nice guys but if he is responsible for this clear cutting of timber at 850 road than I think he is a moron.

0

somebodynew 3 years, 1 month ago

If you look at the pictures (I think in this article, but maybe the other one) or drive past the locations, you will see this is not your ordinary clearing of trees. This is a complete curb to curb bulldozing of anything that might accidently look green.

I am not a tree hugger and if I have a purpose, I will take out a few trees. But to just utterly destroy everything standing for no reason other than 'because I can' is just wrong. I have heard stories about this guy in the past and I guess he hasn't changed a bit.

0

kernal 3 years, 1 month ago

Just like a petulant child.

0

blindrabbit 3 years, 1 month ago

crackers My use of "guy"was substitute for "owner". I'm sure neighbors are thrilled, but I doubt that he cares. A 65 year old individual who has had a successful career in the building trades; why would he want/need to pull a couple of fast ones. No concern about protecting the environment or his legacy.

0

tomatogrower 3 years, 1 month ago

Not much of a business man, is he. If you were going to put a housing development in there, then leaving some of the older trees would sell the houses faster. People like woodsy settings. So he just screwed up his land to show up the environmentalists?

And as for those who think his actions are ok, because it's his land - do you agree that property owners next to him can sue him for the run off that comes from the erosion? If he can keep erosion from entering a stream that travels to the next property, then fine. But if it pollutes the water in adjacent properties, he is responsible, and I hope they sue him into poverty. Got your lawyers ready, Stultz?

0

devobrun 3 years, 1 month ago

tomato, people like trees and woods, but they won't pay for them. It is costly to leave trees when developing. It is cheaper and easier to bulldoze everything, put in the sewer, power, cable, gas, water, and streets when there is nothing there.

The amount of time and effort needed to avoid trees does not pay for the developer. Especially in these times, housing must be very affordable. Stultz is well knowm for building cheap housing and apartments. This land won't be developed into 5 acre lots with trees, ponds, and rock walls. It will be developed into cheap housing and he can't afford to be limited by regulations regarding the clearing of trees.

All he has to do now is plant some grass seed. This is the best time of the year to do so. If it rains, he has a stand of grass, he develops when and when and how he wants to. It is a long term investment.

You may not like it, but it probably does make economic sense for him to do what he did.

0

kansanbygrace 3 years, 1 month ago

No, devobrun, your statements above are incorrect. I've built for as long as you've worked in your field, and in my experience, it is far superior to plan your site and work around existing assets.
In the context of "is it cheaper" then, for the developer, yes, it is cheaper, but for everyone else, to establish a sustainable quality planting is much, much more expensive and takes years.
Protection for the neighbors and for the future owners, those who will eventually pay for this work in the inflated cost of their purchase and the inflated cost to landscape is definitely the responsibility of the county regulators.

0

devobrun 3 years, 1 month ago

But when you build duplexes and cram them together like on Overland drive, or build single family postage stamps like on Eldridge, then you cannot charge people the extra for saving their hedge trees.

Mike Stultz, Highland Construction (his son), and Cheri Drake, (his daughter) can build and sell 75 acres of such abodes in 2 years. 20 years ago, he did just that between 6th and Trail and west of Monterey Way. He bulldozed the whole place, built a bunch of homes, retired and moved to Arizona .He got into hot water because of the "barracks" along Overland before HyVee blocked the view.

This is what he builds. Not what you build. His method is cheaper because the people who move into his dublexes don't bother planting anything when they move in. They stay for 2 years and move on. Drive down Overland midday Tuesday and you will see few trees, or grass. Drive down Overland Sunday morning and you can't see anything except cars. The cars, trucks, boats, etc fill every paved space. Driveways, streets.......you can hardly make it down the street. Welcome to Stultzville.

0

devobrun 3 years, 1 month ago

Hey kansasby.....remember when ole Fred Pence would go into an area (usually on the west side of town) and pull trees with his big spade? He'd lay them in for a year or so while the buldozed area was utilitized. Then after the homes were built....he'd sell the trees back to the homeowner. What a deal.

0

sunny 3 years, 1 month ago

That is exactly what Lawrence needs is 'more regulations'! haha

0

pizzapete 3 years, 1 month ago

I was expecting a different name when I read the words local developer linked iwith bulldozers and bonfires.

0

redmoonrising 3 years, 1 month ago

Then again, seeing this name didn't surprise me.

0

blindrabbit 3 years, 1 month ago

Another 2 examples of clandestine demolition conducted by Midnight Bulldozer Rip and Shred. Lawrence/Douglas County has a history of this kind of action performed by arrogant landowners to the detriment of the public, i.e.:

Overnight destruction of Elkin Prairie Douglas County Bank demolition of many houses between 8th&9th Tenn. & Kentucky K.U. bullying in the Oread Neighborhood. Frat. Fire on Tennessee Street

0

overthemoon 3 years, 1 month ago

The State Champion Bald Cyprus at the corner of Harper and 23rd.

0

Richard Heckler 3 years, 1 month ago

Laissez Faire development is a high tax dollar venture for taxpayers. Once developers begin they expect taxpayers to help them develop large profits.

How?

Road Care Traffic Control Fire Protection All types of infrastructure maintenance Schools Law Enforcement Snow Plows Resurfacing Ambulance Tax abatements Tax Rebates Special sales taxes Tax Increment Financing and the list goes on

All of the above are tax dollar expenses laid on the majority of taxpayers.

Mr Flory is not about protecting tax dollars let's not kid ourselves. Neither are most city commissioners.

Growth plans were designed for a reason. To grow at a slow fiscally responsible rate NOT at a fast pace wreckanomic builders rate.

Mr Flory is wrong. Government should be protecting the majority of taxpayers from the real estate tax dollar moochers. Mr Flory is all about big government working for big developer earmarks aka pork barrel money.

0

Richard Heckler 3 years, 1 month ago

Specific projects should be accompanied with independent Retail Impact Studies, Economic Impact studies,Traffic Impact Studies etc etc. Why? To determine whether or not the market can generate maximum new sales,maximize employment and protect taxpayers from unexpected tax increases.

Just because speculators purchase property does not guarantee that construction will be allowed for it is NOT the duty of the taxpayer or local government to maximize profits for speculators. Speculating=gambling. Land speculators know these things.

New retail is suppose to create NEW ADDITIONAL revenue and NEW ADDITIONAL employment for a community NOT merely spread current retail dollars to the point where nothing NEW or ADDITIONAL is realized.

Certainly it is not to replace existing retail for nothing is gained. Otherwise taxpayers realize TAX INCREASES to cover the cost of additional demand on community services.

Taxpayers get stuck with paying for maintenance of all new infrastructure which is why new housing does not cover the cost of community services. Each new home adds to the cost of community services = more taxes for homeowners. Over built residential drives down the value of homes which is happening as we speak which could increase taxes.

Over built retail does not generate revenue enough to cover the cost of community services nor does it generate the level of sales tax projected/necessary. The only industry that makes money is the real estate industry.

Over built retail means spaces sit empty not generating revenue or jobs and comes back on the taxpayer. Every community needs each retail space to generate maximum revenue.

0

kansanbygrace 3 years, 1 month ago

Thanks for a sane and intelligent response.

0

evilpenguin 3 years, 1 month ago

Wow, way to show everyone how much of a moron you are.

0

matahari 3 years, 1 month ago

Many of the trees in this area are/were not indigenous. A lot that were planted for wind breaks for agricultural advantages didn't just spring up. When "white man" first arrived to this area the number of trees was far fewer. True?

0

hujiko 3 years, 1 month ago

True. NE Kansas is an ecotone between the Ozarks and the Tallgrass Prairie. The woodlands before Anglo settlement were primarily along rivers and streams, leaving much of the higher cuestas covered mostly with grasses. It wasn't really until Kansas became a state that it started to become more densely forested.

That still doesn't pardon irresponsible removal of covering vegetation. The forest areas that have been clear cut were well established, and now that most of the growing season is over there won't be much vegetation on the land come winter. In the spring when everything is thawed there will be considerable erosion and runoff into neighboring streams and parcels, not to mention into our already silt-filled reservoirs.

This was a selfish endeavor without much forethought.

0

Hudson Luce 3 years, 1 month ago

Well, to prevent erosion, I suggest planting some species which will quickly establish themselves and have good root systems, such as musk thistle.

0

hujiko 3 years, 1 month ago

Calling me a racist? For Anglo? My pardons. I didn't know you felt so oppressed.

0

Joe Hyde 3 years, 1 month ago

That is my understanding also, matahari. Far fewer trees. You can see it in old photographs taken during early statehood times. Most of the hills surrounding Lawrence were practically devoid of trees. One reason being that the plains tribes that lived in what is now the central United States deliberately managed the area to be a huge expanse of grass. They essentially created a game park in which they could hunt free-ranging big game animals. Worked real good, too.

0

phoggyjay 3 years, 1 month ago

Feck the trees... we don't need to breathe.

0

scaramouchepart2 3 years, 1 month ago

Mr. Stultz graze cattle? Where have you been?

0

devobrun 3 years, 1 month ago

He grazed cattle on our adjoining property for years, and then he developed it. Where have you been?

0

scaramouchepart2 3 years, 1 month ago

To clear cut in this manner shows that Mr. Stultz's greed since the environmental chapter does not tell a landowner that he cannot develop only proves his stupidity. If developers had taken care of the land and their communities there would be no need to set so many regulations. No one has the right to do whatever they want with their property. No auto centers in single family zoned area, for example.

Maybe Mr.Stultz clear cut for a couple of big box stores or more apartments or he has nightmares about rabbits.

0

Casey_Jones 3 years, 1 month ago

"No one has the right to do whatever they want with their property."

You can't be serious... You realize that goes against the core values this country was founded on? "Life, liberty and property." If we don't have the most basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution, what rights DO we have?

I wish he wouldn't have clear cut the entire area. North of the state park used to be a nice little private hunting area, but he didn't break any laws. To imply that he didn't have the right to do what he did is absurd.

0

jafs 3 years, 1 month ago

Originally, that was life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Also, all of our rights are not absolute - our freedom of speech, for example, can be and is limited when the exercise of it harms others.

Similarly, doing "whatever you want" with your property may affect/harm others, in which case it seems reasonable to regulate it.

0

devobrun 3 years, 1 month ago

If his actions harm others, sue him for damages. This would be a lot simpler solution than passing an ordinance.

Probably more effective too. Hit him where it hurts, if he does damage to you. A few hundred (or even thousand) dollars is chicken feed to M.S. A fine? Big deal. Now a 5 figure judgment for damages will get his attention. And it will get the attention of other developers as well.

0

blindrabbit 3 years, 1 month ago

His nightmares occurred on South Haskell Avenue many years ago!

0

Sparko 3 years, 1 month ago

I am sorely tired of right wing apologists. Always the victims. God, can't have the government protect the environment and preserve the precious resources of Kansas or anything. That would be wrong.

0

Sigmund 3 years, 1 month ago

It is apparent that this clear cutting would not have occurred without County and City leaders desire to protect trees by further limiting private property rights. Although I am certain that they think they know best how everyone should use their property, it is good to see that The Law of Unintended Consequences is still alive and well.

0

JustNoticed 3 years, 1 month ago

Yep, and Stultz is still a scumbag.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 1 month ago

This wasn't a "consequence." It was a conscious act by the property owner.

0

scott3460 3 years, 1 month ago

No, brought on by a selfish greed and bad character.

0

kansasredlegs 3 years, 1 month ago

Well at least he didn't have to coax a tree hugging hippie out of a sacred earth healing tree like Compton did before he brought in the bulldozer. btw: Thellman & Gaughan can use that BS tax money it stole from the taxpayers for "farm land green ways". Missed opprtumity for them 2 tax & spenders.

0

tbaker 3 years, 1 month ago

"....that still doesn't pardon irresponsible removal of covering vegetation."

"...has a history of this kind of action performed by arrogant landowners to the detriment of the public."

"To clear cut in this manner shows that Mr. Stultz's greed..."

Tell ya what, I like Blue Grass in it's natural state. How about I have the government come fine you for mowing your yard? Have some of you people ever heard of private property rights? My goodness. Where do people get the idea they have the right to tell their neighbors what to do with their own property? What is the source of this arrogance? Private property rights are the cornerstone of liberty. I love trees as much as the next person and hate to see them go, but I love this person's right to cut them down more.

0

Zachary Stoltenberg 3 years, 1 month ago

It's a pervasive attitude in Lawrence. Call it arrogance, perhaps even stupidity, but people here seem to think they can tell anyone anywhere what they can and can't do on their own property. I think much of it rises out of jealousy, anytime someone is successful or has something they've worked hard to build, there is a line of have-nots there to whine and complain about it. Liberty, in this case, is being impeded by the desire for undeserved equality. You bought the lot, You own the lot, You can do what you want on the lot. It may not have been what I would like to see you do but it's not my property. If I wanted to see my plans for that property come to fruition, I could have BOUGHT it. Only in Lawrence do we have individuals so puffed up and full of self-righteousness that common sense over property rights takes a back seat to harassment. Their sense of self entitlement over what anyone else has and enjoys makes me sick.

0

hedshrinker 3 years, 1 month ago

Just b/c you OWN property doesn't entitle you to do whatever you want. I own city property, but if I want to build, I have to file a plan and get a permit. If I want to burn, I have to get a burn permit. I have to shovel my walks. I have to observe noise ordinances. I can't have junk vehicles all over, or multiple unzoned tepees, trailers, etc. with people occupying them and eliminating at random. I can't keep certain kind of livestock or exotic animals. I can't shoot off firearms or fireworks. And any # of other things, which I hasten to add, does NOT distress me, b/c it means my neighbors can't either, and if they do, I have legal recourse. This is what living in a civil society entails.
And don't get me started on ethical stewardship of the planet and its human AND natural resources. Have you no sense of decency, Sir? Talk about arrogance and a sense of entitlement.

0

hedshrinker 3 years, 1 month ago

Yes, let me be more precise for you: I own land and a house and vehicles and other private property within the city limits; thanks for calling attention to my confusing sentence structure; frequently your mode of argumentation is to belittle and intimidate over trivial points, so I guess you've accomplished yr purpose.

0

TheTalker 3 years, 1 month ago

Totally agree Stoltzy. Unless you live in a neighborhood that has some sort of bylaws or HOA rules of course. There's this corner lot in my area that looks terrible and the guy claims to have experience in landscaping. If I could, I would buy it and make it look nice. Darn self -righteous people.

0

Sneaky_Beaver 3 years, 1 month ago

But that only works if the bylaws and rules are followed and applied fairly and consistently. The self-righteous board and former board members in the neighborhood next to my pond don’t even follow their own rules, and got their panties in a bunch when that was pointed out to them. There’s a zoo-cage type fence that was installed directly against the covenants and doesn’t exist according to them, and a ridiculously tacky blue planting pot emporium, but I’m not trying to tell them what to do with their property. The situation here has regressed to the point where even the president of the HOA and the “neighborhood watch” lash out at other homeowners with the impotent flailing of petulant children. But, it’s all very entertaining for me because they don’t see how absurdly they behave.

0

TheTalker 3 years, 1 month ago

No joke? I can relate. There are a few people in my neighborhood who follow people around in their car, flip people off (even children), put nails in driveways, rip off gutters, make monkey noises at neighbors, give lap dances to one another in their driveway... Smart people should distance themselves from them. However, I blame the self-righteous board in my hood for causing them to resort to these absurd behaviors.

0

Sneaky_Beaver 3 years, 1 month ago

Wow Talker, what a dysfunctional neighborhood! It sounds like landscaping is the least of your problems. If I were you, I’d move. A smart person would. Do you have photos or video as proof of this behavior? If so, you should call the police. If not, you should get security cameras. Good ones. Accusing people of doing things without proof gets into dangerous territory. I’m glad I don’t know anyone who does the types of things you described. Well, except for putting nails in the driveway. Interestingly, I have photos of a “respected” homeowner (and former board member) stealing a box of nails from a construction site shortly before nails were placed in driveways around my neighborhood. But, maybe that’s a coincidence. I guess you never know who is really behind a lot of things, and what their motivations are. I also have some amazing pictures and video of lots of juvenile behavior around the neighborhood (beaver-hand-sized cell phones are great!). I’m sure it will come in handy someday soon, but it’s always good for a laugh with friends. Some people get all worked up over teeny-tiny things…

0

TheTalker 3 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Sneaky_Beaver 3 years, 1 month ago

Talker, it’s too bad I didn’t get to read what you wrote before it was removed. You have to be careful and follow the rules. Didn’t you read them? A smart person would. You’ll probably get disappearded if you keep it up.

0

TheTalker 3 years ago

You're grammer is excellent. You'd make a great lawyer.

0

Sigmund 3 years, 1 month ago

scaramouchepart2 (anonymous) says… "To clear cut in this manner shows that Mr. Stultz's greed since the environmental chapter does not tell a landowner that he cannot develop only proves his stupidity. "

Maybe the "Douglas County and City of Lawrence Safe Tree Act of 2011" doesn't, or maybe it does depending on how those regulations are interpreted by future commissions and future regulators decide they mean, but what about the "Douglas County and City of Lawrence Safe Tree Act of 2012. 2013, 2014, 2015?"

scaramouchepart2 (anonymous) says… "If developers had taken care of the land and their communities there would be no need to set so many regulations."

If it wasn't for this regulation, these trees would still be on this land unless and until there more concrete plans for this ground. In the face of increased regulations and uncertainty it is a rational response to remove oneself and ones property from the whims of others who have nothing to lose by their actions.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 1 month ago

"If it wasn't for this regulation, "

Regulations don't cut down trees. People do.

0

Sigmund 3 years, 1 month ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) replies… "Regulations don't cut down trees. People do."

People responding to increased regulation. Without the threat of this and future regulation, those trees would still be standing.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 1 month ago

Sorry, they hired the tree cutters, not the county commission.

Whatever reasons they might claim for what they did, the vast majority of people see it as narrow-minded, short-sighted, driven by pure greed and just plain idiotic. I happen to agree.

0

gl0ck0wn3r 3 years, 1 month ago

Why don't you offer to buy the rest of his land to protect the remaining trees?

0

scott3460 3 years, 1 month ago

Suddenly it is so clear!! Bernie Madoff didn't steal those people's money because he was a greedy bad man, he did it because of the threat of excessive banking regulation.

0

Sigmund 3 years, 1 month ago

For future reference, when the Commission begins to talk seriously of property owners in the City having to get a permit to remove trees from residential property, at least 5 tress on my lot will be removed within the week.

0

scott3460 3 years, 1 month ago

Got it, you of the same ilk as the idiot in this story.

0

Boston_Corbett 3 years, 1 month ago

So many trees, and so little pee.... It's a shame, I tell you. Woof, woof.

0

Lawrence Morgan 3 years, 1 month ago

Why don't a bunch of people go out there and take pictures, pictures, and pictures. Then submit them to the Journal World and see if the Journal-World will publish them as a gallery to what has been done to the land. I'm not in Lawrence right now or I would have done it. Take the pictures! See if the Journal World will put them into a gallery so that everyone can see!

0

papillon 3 years, 1 month ago

I wonder what the environmental impact of this will be on the surrounding area? Who's land will it affect? What run-off issues has he caused? And what is going to end up growing in that space (weeds, etc) now that it's prime weed land?

I'd like to see the County demand an environmental impact study on the land surrounding the clearing and the County Park land.

No one does anything with land without it affecting someone else. And just because you own it doesn't mean your actions won't have consequences for people and land around you. He's an a**hat.

0

lunacydetector 3 years, 1 month ago

what about all the weeds in the city parks that were promised to be pulled?

0

Sigmund 3 years, 1 month ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) replies… "Sorry, they hired the tree cutters, not the county commission."

Sorry, without the regulators no tree cutters would have been hired. The regulators caused the death of all those innocent trees!

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 1 month ago

Your concept of cause and effect is extremely flawed.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 1 month ago

But by your logic, the county commission would be entirely justified in passing the new regulations as quickly as possible, with little or no public input, and as restrictive as possible.

0

Sigmund 3 years, 1 month ago

scott3460 (anonymous) replies… "Got it, you of the same ilk as the idiot in this story."

What ilk is that, those who own property and feel they they know what is best for it?

0

Sigmund 3 years, 1 month ago

papillon (anonymous) says… "And what is going to end up growing in that space (weeds, etc) now that it's prime weed land?"

I hear he is going to plant corn and turn it into ethanol for clean energy and that he has already applied for the government subsidies. Happy now?

0

tomatogrower 3 years, 1 month ago

Ethanol is a stupid ruse by big oil to keep people away from electric cars. It saves no energy and takes as much oil to produce as it supposedly saves. Not to mention the rise in food prices. And guess who is producing it? Yep, big oil. Ethanol is just a way for big oil to keep their huge profits.

0

secrettoalonglife 3 years, 1 month ago

Maybe he will set up a CFA and a corn growing operation. that would be a real treat when you drive into town.

0

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

I don't see any sedimentation fence up around this job site....old dude should have a pollution permit from the state requiring control stormwater/sediment runoff. http://www.kdheks.gov/stormwater/index.html#construct

0

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

That is, unless he's planning on farming the area...maybe he's gonna grow some wheat.

0

devobrun 3 years, 1 month ago

So that an ecologicalarchitect can do the study for the county. Nice gigs, those eco studies. If you deal with M.S., ecologicalarchitect, watch for the deal. Keep your hand open and money will fall into it.

0

lunacydetector 3 years, 1 month ago

if you have a tree to chop, start chopping.....or in the future you'll have to go in front of an enviromentalist group and make a case to cut down your own damn tree.

kudos to stultz for taking the initiative. i know of others who are doing the same, but on a smaller scale. i applaud them.

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 1 month ago

Eco's been a busy little bee on this thread. How long will he stay this time, Jonathan?

0

funkdog1 3 years, 1 month ago

So all of you "personal freedom" hollerers are seriously advocating that landowners should be able to do ANYTHING with their personal property, even if it affects hundreds or thousands of other people? Dump toxic waste? Clear cut and foul the watershed? Let livestock waste or farm chemicals wash into creeks and rivers?

0

Richard Heckler 3 years, 1 month ago

This builder must enjoy soil erosion. Or maybe he is going for a large tax dollar refund after calling this bit of property "agriculture".

0

LivedinLawrence4Life 3 years, 1 month ago

Can someone clarify what process Stultz would have had to go through to cut these trees down after the new environmental regulations take effect?

Would he have to get approval as to which kind or type of trees to cut or how many?

Who makes that decision?

How long will the tree cutting approval process take?

Are we going to have a special committee to review tree cutting plans? If so, who pays that committee and how much do they get paid?

0

KDS0408 3 years, 1 month ago

LivedinLawrence4Life... Kudos

0

KDS0408 3 years, 1 month ago

Not that it's anyone's business, but he doesn't plan to develop the land. I.E.: why there aren't any develpment plans filed with the county. Much of the stuff he removed was underbrush and thatch. In the picture you can see he left some mature trees here and there. Way to jump to conclusions LJW! Typical Chad Lawhorn. If I were him and read all these comments, I'd pour a concrete slab and park my big ole Cadillac on it! Jealous much?

BTW...YES, it was listed for sale when he bought it, so anyone could have bought it.

0

drake 3 years, 1 month ago

That's the way I remember the property too. There were very few mature trees and most of it was plum thickets and cedar trees. Heavily wooded my a**.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.