A wake-up call

To the Editor:

Expanding on Thursday’s vegetation ordinance story:

I pay for you to achieve defensible space on land you do not own.

Despite being perhaps one of the most unamerican concepts and bordering on outright socialism, it is ruinous to a landowner being imposed on while those around him enjoy “free stuff.”

Using 100 feet as the measurement minimizes the true impact and cost. Staff’s presentation shows a parcel surrounded by four inhabited structures. One person subsidizing four landowners for their sole benefit.

No discussion of who allowed the setback of less than 100 feet? The county did. Pitting neighbor against neighbor. Have an issue? Don’t like them? Call the county prevention bureau and complain. Been there, done that.

A developer purchases a 100-acre parcel next to your 100-acre parcel you’ve held in your family for generations. The county approves hundreds of one-tenth-acre lots along the boundary, with less than 100-foot setbacks. You are now on the hook annually to provide defensible space to these homes, many of which were surely purchased to take advantage of your “open spaces” and views you afford them. Does that even seem logical in any respect? Of course not.

A wealthy couple from San Francisco built a second home next to your property line. The county approved their less than 100-foot setback due to terrain. You are on a fixed income, struggling to get by. You get a visit from your friendly fire prevention inspector who received a complaint from your neighbors who don’t like your brush and grass next to their new home. Under this ordinance, you must now pay to clear for their benefit. So much for private-property rights.

Going forward, does this county intend to limit setbacks to 100 feet or greater?

Wake up, Tuolumne County landowners. Barry Rudolph

Columbia