- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Wetlands JD interpretation help requested
Posted on 3/14/24 at 6:04 pm to Cowboyfan89
Posted on 3/14/24 at 6:04 pm to Cowboyfan89
I just read about the Sackett ruling. It seems to suggest that less mitigation and permitting will be required. Would you care to speculate how it would affect the property value potentially for sale to an industrial developer? FWIW the parcel located south of Maplewood/Sulphur.
4
Posted on 3/14/24 at 8:40 pm to CharleyLake
From what we’re hearing it’s not changing much as most had hoped.
Even if it’s less wetlands and able to be built upon, building on wet ground is still more expensive because of having to raise above the flood plain.
We’ve run into instances where the land could be given away and it would still be too expensive to build on because of the dirt need to bring it up.
Even if it’s less wetlands and able to be built upon, building on wet ground is still more expensive because of having to raise above the flood plain.
We’ve run into instances where the land could be given away and it would still be too expensive to build on because of the dirt need to bring it up.
Posted on 3/15/24 at 7:50 am to CharleyLake
quote:
Would you care to speculate how it would affect the property value potentially for sale to an industrial developer?
I'd be lying if I told you either way.
From a permitting standpoint, it theoretically should mean there is a lesser need, which will reduce costs and potentially make a property more appealing. But if it's forested land that has to be cleared, or needs alot of dirt work as piebald said, it probably wouldn't result in much of a change in property value beyond the reduced permitting needs.
But, even that seems debatable at this point, because the MVN apparently hasn't changed much about what they are doing with jurisdictional calls from what I've been told.
Posted on 3/15/24 at 8:58 am to CharleyLake
quote:I doubt the ruling will mean much. These dirt eating Corpse and EPA clowns are accountable to no one.
I just read about the Sackett ruling. It seems to suggest that less mitigation and permitting will be required. Would you care to speculate how it would affect the property value potentially for sale to an industrial developer?
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News