Deseret News | Reader comments: A reversal in Mapleton

Reader comments
A reversal in Mapleton

Terrible | 8:19 a.m. Dec. 20, 2007

Shame on Mapleton city and over-privileged residents who feel they can inflict such injury on a PRIVATE PROPERTY owner. This is just disgusting. If the city or other concerned citizen groups feel a need to preserve what is currently privately held then they need to purchase that property at fair market value (assuming fair value to be what the current zoning will allow and NOT what they perceive the value to be). Either issue the permits or buy the property from him and quit wasting time and money!!! The best scenario would be to quit bothering a property owner and let him use the property he OWNS. I'm terribly glad I DON'T live in Mapleton, what a joke!!!

also glad | 8:57 a.m. Dec. 20, 2007

I am also glad you do not live in Mapleton. Come look at the mountain he tore up before you cast you self-righteous stones.

His mountains | 9:24 a.m. Dec. 20, 2007

Also glad:

I hate it when a property owner tears up his mountains so we have to look at it. We have enjoyed his mountains for so long! We don't want to buy it, we just want him to leave it alone so we can enjoy it.

Comments continue below

To Terrible | 9:50 a.m. Dec. 20, 2007

Terrible,

Have you actually seen the property that Gibby wants to develop? The article prints the address--I would suggest you go by and actually look at it. It would be utter insanity for the city to allow his proposed development. The homes would slide right off the mountain side. Then, the owners would sue the city of Mapleton for "allowing" them to build on land that was never meant for development.

You seem to think that owners of private property are free from any kind of reasonable and practical rules and regulations. You are mistaken.

You're right | 11:29 a.m. Dec. 20, 2007

Mapleton is a joke, but's because it's become a town of people who think only what they want matters. It's very sad that a town founded and based for decades on down-to-earth agricultural families has turned into a hive of California move-in snobs.

The only thing worse... | 4:31 p.m. Dec. 20, 2007

than having to deal with this as a Mapleton resident is to have to hear about it ad nauseum as a non-Mapleton resident.

This little feud between a stubborn property owner, a stuborn city counsel, and a stubborn citizen's group has garnered WAY too much ink. Please, DNews.. save your paper space for real news and spare us the village drama. Nobody cares.

KingM | 4:43 p.m. Dec. 20, 2007

And people will be living with that decision for the next hundred years. Let's not all worship at the altar of private property rights.

Cliff living has been a common.. | 8:55 p.m. Dec. 20, 2007

..housing model in this country for thousands of years. Mesa Verde, Canyon de Chelly and of course California.

"Someone" in Mapleton who apparently isn't attracted to cliff dwelling wants to exercise unrighteous dominion on others who seem to need the cliff view, or in this case the view from the hill.

So, are the motives of Mr. L and the other "someones" driven by concern for the view FROM the hill or the view OF the hill?

Those who choose to live on the hill can worry about landslides. They don't need this unsolicited assistance.

If its a view you want, go buy one. Or better yet, buy this one, at fair market value. Oh, so you want someone else to make that sacrifice for you?

Cliff living has been a common | 8:59 p.m. Dec. 20, 2007

housing model in this country for thousands of years. Mesa Verde, Canyon de Chelly and of course California.

"Someone" in Mapleton who apparently isn't attracted to cliff dwelling wants to exercise unrighteous dominion on others who seem to need the cliff view, or in this case the view from the hill.

So, are the motives of Mr. L and the other "someones" driven by concern for the view FROM the hill or the view OF the hill?

Those who choose to live on the hill can worry about landslides. They don't need this unsolicited assistance.

If its a view you want, go buy one. Or better yet, buy this one, at fair market value. Oh, so you want someone else to make that sacrifice for you? No, no!

Too many lawyers | 11:52 a.m. Dec. 21, 2007

Your right about the cliff dwelling, only difference is that now there are too many lawyers who will sue all the residents of Mapleton (via the City) when their road slides off the mountain or when the bus can't get up there to take their kids to school, or for any other insane reason. Gibby's development company (that actually owns the property) will have taken their profits and be long gone.

I will keep raising my crops in Mapleton regardless and simply hope that we can have the right to try to prevent any more lawyers from suing us in the future.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.