Petition to Board of County Commissioners, Manatee County
Save wildlife and nature from excessive development!!
To purchase for conservation and prevent the development of certain wetland property situated between the Braden River and Braden Woods subdivision and identified as Manatee County Property Parcels 583900006, 583910104, and 583910054 (6804 99th Street East, Bradenton). Whereas, the aforementioned parcels are adjacent to the Braden River, a water supply for the City of Bradenton and Whereas, these parcels are home to various indigenous flora and fauna, some of which may be protected species and Whereas, proposed development will destroy natural habitats and increase the risk of damage to the water supply and adjacent residential properties and Whereas, proposed development is inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhoods, We, the undersigned, petition Manatee County to purchase the aforementioned parcels for conservation as a nature preserve and to take the necessary actions to preserve and protect this land from future development and unnecessary human activity. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BACKGROUND: A new development is being proposed near Braden Woods and River Club in Manatee County. Rezoning must be approved before construction can begin. The land is located at 6804 99th Street East in Bradenton (Parcel IDs 583900006, 583910104, 583910054). The proposed subdivision will be a gated community of 32 luxury homes situated on sensitive land that borders the Braden River, source of Bradenton's water supply. The homes will be constructed on lots that will be cleared of existing trees and vegetation. While a few areas will be designated "wetlands" they will be small, non-contiguous patches of nature, limiting the amount of wildlife that will be able to remain on this land. We believe that too much of the "real Florida" is being devastated by over-development of sensitive areas and that more natural habitats must be preserved. Concerned citizens are petitioning Manatee County to purchase this tract and preserve it from future development and human activity. For more information visit http://www.keepwoods.com/
Petition to Village of Grayslake
OPPOSE plan for 24 HR GAS STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE/CAR WASH on corner of LAKE ST & Rt 83
STOP the current plan to build a 24 HR GAS STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE/CAR WASH on the corner of Lake St and Rt 83 in Grayslake. This 24 HR GAS STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE/CAR WASH is not needed in this location, and will negatively impact traffic and pedestrian/bicycle safety in this highly traveled area and negatively impact the environment. This plan will INCREASE: Traffic congestion Risk of traffic accidents Risk of toxic chemical exposure (gas/gas tanks/car wash) Noise and light pollution This plan will DECREASE: Pedestrian and biker safety The Village of Grayslake's progress towards being a "Green Town" The benefits do not outweigh the risks. This plan does not provide enough tax revenue to warrant the negative impact to our neighborhood and possible decrease to nearby home values. Please sign this petition to OPPOSE the plan.
Petition to Aaron Bean, Dennis Baxley, Elizabeth Porter, Daniel Raulerson, Herschel Vinyard, Albert Gregory, Rick Scott, Lewis Scruggs
Stop the "Special" Monument at Olustee
In 1912 a Monument commemorating the Battle and Forces of BOTH sides was erected by a Monument Commission established by State of Florida. Current ‘balanced’ text on the current Federal/Confederate/Battle Monument erected in 1912 by the Commission established by Florida Law: “The Battle of Olustee was Fought on this Ground February 20th 1864 Between 5,000 Confederate Troops Commanded by General Joseph E. Finegan and 6,000 Federal Troops under General Truman Seymour. The Federals were defeated with a loss of 2,000 men. The Confederate loss was less than 1,000.” Now, on the 150th anniversary, the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War feels a special monument is justified, claiming that there is no monument to Federal forces on the site. Visitors to the site know that a large monument only to Federal Forces was dedicated in 1962 - the Centennial of the Battle by the same group, making this a disingenuous claim. The land the monument sits on was procured by the United Daughters of the Confederacy and eventually donated to the State of Florida for this re-unification monument. Some modest additions have been made over the years, but the balanced text is the prominent feature. There are many reasons to object to this Special monument: 1. disruption of hallowed ground, 2. if one 'special' monument is allowed, how many more 'special' monuments must then in fairness be approved, possibly creating a checkerboard of monuments on the site, and many more. Appeals have been made to the Park Service but they seem to be dead set, so its is time for the citizens voice to be heard. Please sign this petition, and then share it with you likeminded friends and family.
Petition to Michael LoGrande (Director, L.A. City Planning), Mike Bonin, Eric Garcetti, VNC Board, LUPC , Tricia Keane, Kevin Jones
CALLING FOR A MORATORIUM ON MANSIONIZATION & SMALL LOT SUBDIVISIONS IN VENICE, CA
We the undersigned call for the following: - an immediate moratorium on the 'McMansionization' of VENICE - an immediate moratorium on Small Lot Subdivisions (SLS) in VENICE - a denial of all Small Lot Subdivisions currently pending for VENICE - no building permits to be issued for Small Lot Subdivisions prior to recordation of final map In VENICE - FULL public notification and participation, as set forth by Federal, State, and Local Law, in any and all proposed developments in VENICE. Additionally, we the undersigned call for full enforcement of the California Coastal Act, the Mello Act, and the Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan, because the cumulative effect of recent development in VENICE is diminishing the quality of life for it’s residents, and negating the purpose of said protections put in place to preserve the Coastal Zone. Here are 3 consistent and repeated ways that the City is ignoring and violating Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan (VCZSP):1. City Planning is interpreting the Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance (SLSO) to trump the Specific Plan, although the law says that specific plans always trump ordinances. The City is interpreting the Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance to allow more units on lots than the Specific Plan allows, and is not requiring any guest parking at all, and is allowing tandem parking that people often don't use, rather than side-by-side parking.2. Allowing buildings to be constructed to the maximum possible size even when the proposed building is totally out of scale with the neighborhood i.e. three story buildings that block all of the neighbors' sunlight in a one-story or two-story neighborhood. The Specific Plan requires an evaluation of the compatibility of the mass and scale of the proposed building with the other buildings in the neighborhood. The Planning Department does not do this, and they have set up a process where there is no appeal. If the Planning Department continues to get away with this, soon Venice will be all 3-story compounds with very little sun or air between the buildings. 3. The Planning Department is issuing illegal DIRs that blatantly violate the Specific Plan. Then the City says that there's no appeal because the 14-day deadline has passed. The community has no real notice and no opportunity to respond. The City refuses to email citizens a .pdf of the DIRs as they are issued, they only send a mailed copy.Whereas per The CA Coastal Act. Section 30116 Sensitive Coastal Resource Areas – Venice has the following characteristics:b. areas possessing significant recreational value.c. Special communities or neighborhoods which are significant visitor designation areas.Areas that provide existing coastal housing or recreational opportunities for low- and moderate income-persons.The public has a right to fully participate in decisions affecting coastal planning, conservation and development.From Section 30250 Location; existing developed area:“In addition, land divisions, other than leases for agricultural uses, outside existing developed areas shall be permitted only where 50 percent of the usable parcels in the area have been developed and the created parcels would be no smaller than the average size of surrounding parcels.”Section 30251 Scenic and visual qualities:“Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas. Section 30252 (e) and enhancement of public access:Where appropriate, protect special communities and neighborhoods that, because of their unique characteristics, are popular visitor destination points for recreational uses.”
Petition to Steven R. Schuh, Rick Anthony
PROTECT BEVERLY-TRITON BEACH - NO DESTRUCTION OF HABITAT, NO MORE DEVELOPMENT, NO PAVING!
The Anne Arundel County Department of Recreation and Parks, in conjunction with the Anne Arundel County Department of Public Works, have proposed to create an approximately 3.3 acre swimming beach along a fragile and eroding shoreline of the Chesapeake Bay, construct restrooms/changing rooms/septic drain field for 400 people/per day, and pave 1.3 acres of the 4.7 acres of developable park land to create approximately 152 parking spaces on the Park. Recognizing the fragile and environmentally sensitive nature of the Beverly-Triton Beach Park, the County originally programmed this Park for passive uses that would work with the environment while preserving the Bay shoreline and natural areas for significant wildlife and vegetation. The County specifically did not recommend swimming and sought to minimize uses that would require disturbing and clearing the natural vegetation and forest. Creating a swimming beach along a fragile and eroding shoreline of the Chesapeake Bay, constructing restrooms/changing rooms/septic drain field for 400 people/per day, and paving 1.3 acres to create approximately 152 parking spaces on the Park will be destructive to this environmental gem of Anne Arundel County and probably the largest remaining undisturbed shoreline along the western Chesapeake Bay. We believe that there is no need to create a swimming beach, bathing facilities and parking at this Park when those very same facilities exist at the Mayo Beach Park less than 1 mile away and are open to the Public for swimming. We ask AACO County Executive Steven R. Schuh to instruct the Department of Recreation and Parks and the Department of Public Works to withdraw the plan to create a swimming beach, bathing facilities and parking at this Park. In essence: PROTECT BEVERLY-TRITON BEACH - NO DESTRUCTION OF HABITAT, NO MORE DEVELOPMENT, NO PAVING!