I found this rather difficult logic/reasoning to follow...Lake shore development

[dfv87]

I have been looking for a cabin/lot and I hear several people offer opinions on the "over development" of lakes. Last summer I looked at a cabin from a defunct resort that was being formed into a PUD (Planned Unit Development). As a prospective buyer I stopped to talk with a neighbor of the resort who was out in his yard watching our walk through to find out any juicy info I could get and what I got kinda shocked me. The cold shoulder bordering on RUDE. I couldn't figure out the hostility, but he was upset they were "developing" the resort. I wrote it off as sour grapes or a bad relationship between the seller and him.

Over the winter we looked at another resort that was closing and the possibility of forming it into a PUD for sale as individual units. We met with a lake association that voiced strong opinions against it. They felt the PUD would put additional strain on the lake as another "development". Now here is what confuses me, people it seems would rather have a resort operating with weekly more people coming and going every week rather than people that own their own cabin and most likely want to join the association. The tax base would be greater as each place would pay a combined higher tax than the resort did. I also found it almost funny that people would insist on stopping development/"destruction" of lakeshore when they have a lakehome with the fertilzed lawn and 25 year old septic system. Now I know I may be making a generalization here but it seems that some of the most vigorous objections to lakeshore development come from people that own developed lake shore. Now if it is that much of a concern why wouldn't you offer to remove you cabin and septic and let the land become wild again also. IMO it seems rather unrealistic to say anything about lake shore being over developed when you own lake shore. ie Now that I have my place we need to make sure noone else can have one.

Now I realize some may think I am trying to start a fight/debate, but I was just wondering how this logic worked.

[nofishfisherman]

In my opinion the logic doesn't work.

If the resort is already there and you are just looking at buying one of the already built cabins then how is there a debate about not wanting the land to be developed? Seems to me the land is already developed.

Problem is everyone wants a lake property but they don't want anyone else to have it. Some how they think they are the only ones with the right to own lake property. Lots of self entitlement out there these days.

[King Canada]

It's the density thing. By making it a PUD they can have more units on the property. If they sold it outright there would be 1 or 2 new houses because of current setbacks and lot sizes and septic requirements.

[McGurk]

NIMBYism at its finest. If they (the association) wanted to pick their neighbors, they should have to buy the land themselves and sell it accordingly. Amateurs tooling around on "their" lake by renting one weekend at a time must seem more appealing than respectful owners to them.

Just the opinion of another bitter non-lakeshore owner who is way out-priced into getting some myself. You'd think a Dual-Income-No-Kids (DINK) couple could get it done, but alas, no.

[solbes]

I don't really see a problem replacing a resort with a PUD. I guess if the allowable density would greatly change, that might be a downer for the lake. But still I think you have to give people some respect if they are looking to buy. The owners already there do not own the lake, they just own a piece of the shore.

We bought into a lot on a smaller Park Rapids lake a few years ago. It was subdivided from a very large lot and I'm sure some of the neighbors were not real pleased to see 4 new docks/lifts on the lake. I enjoy talking to the resort owner a 1/4 mile down the road, and understandably he is not ecstatic about new developments. But he is at least respectable.

I don't have a problem with new developments (provided it was an older resort, or if subdivided that it's 150'+). But I'm not really pleased with people clearing out 75'+ all the way to the water and then fertilizing the lawn. IMO, it looks like crap and it really adds fertility to the lake. The best places I usually see are woodsy with a few paths cut through the trees for lake viewing. I'm trying to add trees back to our lot.

And McGurk, keep looking! I thought the same thing, but talked to a few realtors and told them what we were looking for and at what price. We eventually got a call and were the first people to view the lot. We bought before the owner realized he was too low.

[McGurk]

Thanks for the encouragement, solbes, and we have decided against the lakeshore idea anyway. I wholeheartedly agree about the "wild" looking lakeshore which is becoming all too scarce, and we value as high on the list of desirable land. Now we have shifted our gaze to 40/80 acres of "hunting" land. It's nice to get to the lake, but we both agreed that we want a little more seclusion, and anymore that does not mean getting lakeshore. Hunting land is not going cheaply anymore, either, but we are keeping our eyes open. Just the hermit in me, I guess.

I hope that I'm not drawing any parallels to the lake association and my opinion of land, but if you want to minimize your neighbors, get land on an environmentally classified lake. Otherwise, be prepared to have as many people buying lakeshore as there is money being made. It sounds like this is an established recreational lake, and there will be people on it. Frankly, if there are 2 people on a lake it will be too many for someone else who lives on the lake. Let 'em Buy, let 'em build. If anything, it will mean a lot of money for local dock/lift builders, boat builders, cabin/house builders, local restaurants and bars, and so on. And how many of us really have really bad neighbors at the lake, anyway? Less than at home, I'm sure. $0.02

[FlyingV]

Do you know the difference between a "developer" and a "conservationist"?

The conservationist already has his lake cabin.

[dfv87]

Quote:

---

Do you know the difference between a "developer" and a "conservationist"?

The conservationist already has his lake cabin.

---

OUCH!

A little harsher than I would be but accurate in concept.

[McGurk]

FlyingV, that is classic. Sharp, to the point, and pretty true.

[Ely Lake Expert]

Alright here is what I think, around here most of the people that own lakeshore are in there late 40's, 50's or 60's and most or the people looking to buy land have good paying jobs in the big cities and are in their 20's 30's and early 40's. I have noticed most of the people who have posted on this topic so far are either in the cities or at least southern MN. IMO if you where not raised around here you don't fully understand how most of the older generations think. People with the lakeshore already either inherited it or bought it when you could buy lakeshore with a 60K a year job. Back to how people think, older people that have had the property for a long time are comfortable there and for the most part don't like change. Everyone has heard the phrase "if it aint broken don't fix it" Alot of older (and some younger) people feel the same way about a change in surroundings. If they are comfortable how it is, they are not open to new things. I don't support overdevelopment by any means and I really like the woods, but for some people saying that "their" lake is getting overdeveloped is just their way of saying "I like it how it is, leave me alone"

Something was also said about why the neighbors of resorts would rather have new people every week than have someone just buy the cabin. I think it is still all about keeping things as is. If someone rents a cabin for the week and the neighbor doesn't like them, they are gone in a week. No big deal. If some young hotshot businessman buys the preexisting cabin and the retired neighbor doesn't like him, the retired neighbor level of living comfortable just went way down and I just think some people are already negative minded and they think everyone that looks at it is the young hotshot who they won't like. Another thing is alot of the young people looking to buy have young kids and some of the retired generation looks at having young kids around as a negative thing and sees teenagers as a even more negative thing. I think, especially for those from the big city, when looking at property up north right away you just need to politely introduce themselves to the neighbors right away in efforts to strike up a friendship and that way things would run much more smoothly and you would possibly even have their support. All in all, I don't think that anyone is completely right in their point of view on this subject. All I know is change is going to happen people as a whole have to learn to deal with it.

Ryan

[deepportage01]

Very well put Lake Ely ex, Every lake shore owner should read this!Thank you for the insite.

[dfv87]

Quote:

---

It's the density thing. By making it a PUD they can have more units on the property. If they sold it outright there would be 1 or 2 new houses because of current setbacks and lot sizes and septic requirements.

---

I guess my point is that the existing resort has the same number of cabins as the PUD would have so no difference would happen in existing density. With the rezone to PUD the septic would have to be compliant and joint so it would probably be better than older individual ones operating on most lakes.

[nofishfisherman]

I understand the idea of not wanting things to change but how is a new neighbor moving in up north and different then a new neighbor moving in in the ciites.

If someone buys the house next door to me in St. Paul I don't have any right to say anything about his choice to move in. The only thing I can do is accept it.

If there are groups of people that are trying to block people from buying land around a lake or from buying a part of an old resort I don't think they have any right to do so. They shouldn't be able obstruct people who are wanting to buy the land any more then I have the right to choose who buys the house next door.

I totally agree that if you buy a lake cabin you need to be polite to your new neighbors but the same holds true no matter where you buy a house.

Your neighbors may not like that you moved in but they have nothing that they can say about it becuase its apart of life in every single city or town in the country. This concept is not some sort of special northwoods exception.

[dfv87]

Quote:

---

I understand the idea of not wanting things to change but how is a new neighbor moving in up north and different then a new neighbor moving in in the ciites.

If someone buys the house next door to me in St. Paul I don't have any right to say anything about his choice to move in. The only thing I can do is accept it.

If there are groups of people that are trying to block people from buying land around a lake or from buying a part of an old resort I don't think they have any right to do so. They shouldn't be able obstruct people who are wanting to buy the land any more then I have the right to choose who buys the house next door.

I totally agree that if you buy a lake cabin you need to be polite to your new neighbors but the same holds true no matter where you buy a house.

Your neighbors may not like that you moved in but they have nothing that they can say about it becuase its apart of life in every single city or town in the country. This concept is not some sort of special northwoods exception.

---

+1

Just because I have a metro address may not mean I am a complete jerk. Probably 50-75% jerk but not 100%!

[nofishfisherman]

On my last check up I was down to 37% jerk. So, the meds are working.

[Fishin4Life]

Quote:

---

+1

Just because I have a metro address may not mean I am a complete jerk. Probably 50-75% jerk but not 100%!

---

Becker is in the Metro? , hehe LOL, that be up nort from my neck of de woods

[McGurk]

I moved down here with less than a 25% Jerk Factor (JF), but it has steadily risen the closer I get to taller buildings. Funny, it seems to drop the further I get from those same buildings. Maybe that's why it's so desirable up north; Lake Iwanttobethere seems pretty calm (on and off the lake)!

[blakjack23]

I'll just say that it CAN suck when you have some yahoo screw up the lake you are on (Not that original poster was going to screw up the lake). There was a resort on the lake I am on out of Pine River that was bought a year or two ago. I guess it was a whole family of brothers or something that bought it. Anyway, it use to be a nice quiet resort that people would come to and relax. Now there is no less then 25 people there every weekend with jetskies, ski boats, loud kids and dogs..etc. This is only a 85 acre lake. They just turned this once peaceful lake into a "mini Lake Minnetonka". Now instead of going up and relaxing in the pontoon we curse the jetski's as they constantly fly by us. It might be time to do a little handyman work on that jetski in the middle of the night Also, we use to be able to look out the window across the bay and see forest and wildlife. But a couple years ago a realtor bought the one cabin that was over there, split up the lots and then sold them. Now there are old trailers and campers parked in the lots where the tree's were cleared out of. I guess its developement and there is nothing you can do...

[Ely Lake Expert]

Thanks Deepportage.

Nofish,

I hope you didn't misunderstand my post. I agree with what you have to say. If lakehome owners want to defend their specific rights within the law that is fine with me, but for them to stop it just to avoid change/new people is wrong.

dfv87,

That 50-75% jerk you claim to be must be from rush hour traffic jams. (It would drive me crazy/angry too) Thats a different subject for a different time.

[waskawood]

As a lake home owner I know exactly where you are coming from. I was fortunate to have grandparents who had the wisdon to buy a lake lot in the mid 40's. Luckily I ended up with the property after my parents died. The lake I am on is fairly large and can handle all the boat traffic that it sees. There has been much interest in second tier development around the lake and many owners try to stop it without taking into consideration weather or not the lake can handle more boat traffic. It is a case of "my lake"itis!! I do not have a problem with planned well thought out development of any property. Wheather it be metro, rural, or recreational property. What we do need to do is make sure that it is done with our enviorment in mind. We need to treat our sewage properly. We need to preserve our aquatic plants. We do need limit the neutriants that find its way into our waters. I see no problem with the puc's mentioned. Contrary to what most think, many lake home owners and lake associations do care about the body of water that they live on and don't use needless chemicals and fertilizers. Many of us do not rip out the weeds so we have a clean swimming beach. I think we are like fisherman and hunters. We have the good as well as the bad among us. Good luck in your quest for a nice lake place.

Waska

[solbes]

Good post. I agree that it's not necessarily the number of people that matters, but how the people manage their land. The demand for lakeshore will always be strong, so there will always be new lots created as prices go up.

But things like minimizing fertilizer usage, shoreline modification, having an adequate buffer zone all seem like good ideas to me. Anyone on top of the DNR's Clean Water Initiative? I guess they are talking about changes to how 5 of the Lakes counties manage their shoreline policies.

[dfv87]

Quote:

---

As a lake home owner I know exactly where you are coming from. I was fortunate to have grandparents who had the wisdon to buy a lake lot in the mid 40's. Luckily I ended up with the property after my parents died. The lake I am on is fairly large and can handle all the boat traffic that it sees. There has been much interest in second tier development around the lake and many owners try to stop it without taking into consideration weather or not the lake can handle more boat traffic. It is a case of "my lake"itis!! I do not have a problem with planned well thought out development of any property. Wheather it be metro, rural, or recreational property. What we do need to do is make sure that it is done with our enviorment in mind. We need to treat our sewage properly. We need to preserve our aquatic plants. We do need limit the neutriants that find its way into our waters. I see no problem with the puc's mentioned. Contrary to what most think, many lake home owners and lake associations do care about the body of water that they live on and don't use needless chemicals and fertilizers. Many of us do not rip out the weeds so we have a clean swimming beach. I think we are like fisherman and hunters. We have the good as well as the bad among us. Good luck in your quest for a nice lake place.

Waska

---

Point taken, it was not my intention to generalize about all lakeshore owners negatively, just to state that the same generalizations shouldn't be made about people that want to get lakeshore property and may have to "develop" property to get it.

And YES the traffic probably is the major cause of the 50-75% jerk level I normally run under.

Becker is more Metro than you think! (and I work in the Metro... Well kinda work.)

[VMS]

I guess with the ideas of the PUD's, I would think it could benefit the lake rather than a resort... I have not seen it mentioned here yet, but if the people who buy those PUD's become part of the lakes association, and want to preserve the environment, they can let the buffer zone grow. My biggest positive about the buy-out of a resort and sold as individual cabins is the LACK of fish being taken from the waters.

Think about it for a moment... you get resort guests day in and day out, week after week for the entire summer, many fishing and keeping what they catch. Doesn't take long to rape a lake of good fish if this type of fishing takes place. I know on our lakes we have 2 resorts and the resort boats always have that stringer hanging over the side. It's not that keeping a few fish for dinner is bad, I do it too once in a while, but when it happens each day of the summer season, it becomes a concern.... It's not just 1 or 2 limits per household...it can potentially be hundreds of limits taken by resort guests. Major difference in lake impact.

Steve

[dfv87]

Quote:

---

I guess with the ideas of the PUD's, I would think it could benefit the lake rather than a resort... I have not seen it mentioned here yet, but if the people who buy those PUD's become part of the lakes association, and want to preserve the environment, they can let the buffer zone grow. My biggest positive about the buy-out of a resort and sold as individual cabins is the LACK of fish being taken from the waters.

Think about it for a moment... you get resort guests day in and day out, week after week for the entire summer, many fishing and keeping what they catch. Doesn't take long to rape a lake of good fish if this type of fishing takes place. I know on our lakes we have 2 resorts and the resort boats always have that stringer hanging over the side. It's not that keeping a few fish for dinner is bad, I do it too once in a while, but when it happens each day of the summer season, it becomes a concern.... It's not just 1 or 2 limits per household...it can potentially be hundreds of limits taken by resort guests. Major difference in lake impact.

Steve

---

Steve not to create an issue and I whole heartedly agree that resorts take many more fish than a PUD group would. But the lake association could also ask all its current members to allow their buffer zone to grow back also. While not trying to be the complete jerk and maintain the 50-75% jerk level asking anything beyond what is asked of any other members of the lake association I would find offensive. Now I assume you meant it as a suggestion to use as a possible enticement offering by the PUD to the association, and depending on the situation could very well be a point to look at in this situation. Now if they were to "require" (as an association they only could not allow us to join the them) us to do something other members were not I think they would be using more logic I couldn't follow. Again Steve I am not trying to disect your post as you seemed to agree with me so if you feel like that, it was not intended that way.

[VMS]

I would say we are in agreement. I could also see how some home owners (even those that are a part of the lakes association) would not want more development (I am one of them...I like the seclusion aspect, but the more homes/cottages, the less seclusion you have) but the resort is already there, so if it sold, and one or two more little cottages go up, I see that as no big deal.

Why won't the lakes association let you join (if I understood that correctly)? Just because it was a resort sold as a PUD?

Steve

[not_nuf_time]

The way i look at the difference of resorters and cabin owners is this. The resorters are there for a week, and go he!!s bells all week long. Jet skis flying, fishing, water skiing, racing around, hitting the water all week. Cause they want to use the time having fun on vacay.

The cabin owner, although would use the lake hard till the novelty wore off, has to come and do lawn, clean cabin, garage do repairs and just lay around having a sauce, cause he's got the whole summer to use the water. In short cabin owners tend to be busier putzing and doing other up north interest, so would logically use the lake less and create less activity on the water than the resorters would throughout the summer.

I would rather live next to an owner than a resort. NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT(RESORTS).

[solbes]

I agree that full time owners will have less of a lake impact than a resort. But it's change, and most people fight it internally. That resort's been there for years...

Our property is about 1/4 mile away from a nice resort. Although I get frustrated with the traffic sometimes, I do enjoy watching the kids and adults their fun.

Homes and cottages are always going to increase. We can put some restrictions on minimum lot sizes. Another thing we can do is to lessen the aesthetic impact of more homes by allowing the buffer zone of trees and natural grasses to increase.

But everyone will have their own opinion of what lakeshore property should be. Some people will always want the rock wall, grass to the lake, and removal of every view obstructing tree.