Without going into too much detail,,, this is the reaction from
a very small group, three to be exact, sufficient to say no laws were broken and we will see you there again soon, assuming you want to come back?
Noise and dust. Ha.
Noise? People will complain about noise ANYWHERE.
We used to hold Auto-X's at the old County Airport (read that, know that). It had been closed for around a year before we were allowed by the property owner to race on the runway surface. About half-way through the first season of racing, we caught wind that there were complaints filed about the NOISE.
"Hello? Yes, this is reality calling. WAKE UP AND LOOK AROUND! YOU LIVE BY AN AIRPORT!!"
Thats some impressive journalism there: "However, an online search conducted by The Daily Mail revealed that several Internet web sites have photos or reference the event, including rallyplanet.com, onalimbracing.com, nasaforums.com, plaftaphoto.com, ncsubaru.com and ncrally.com, which lists the race results and every competitor."
Yet they didn't contact anyone for comment? What a joke. Even the freshmen in my high school paper that was horrible did better reporting than this.
Besides was this held on private property or were there road permits? The town council seems to be very much so in the dark....
What's not clear from the original article is whether the zoning did or did not allow using the property for autosport purposes. Most zoning codes are written in a way that allowed uses are clearly specified. If a use is not identified as being allowed it is generally deemed to be prohibited. People (neighbors, etc.)have the right to complain if there is an actual zoning violation occuring. Thats one of the purposes of zoning...to protect property owners for incompatible uses.
Here in Colorado we were using a property for rallycross purposes (even a rally sprint which i was a co-chair of). It was in a semi rural area and right next to an interstate. Looked perfect for our initial purposes. It turned out to be a residentially zoned property. Fortunately, nobody complained of our use, but it was only a matter of time before someone did. What's worse is that I should have known better.
For those considering using private property, don't assume you can until you've completely checked it out regardless of whether you have the property owners permission, whether its ten acres or 1000 acres, or whether you are charging entry fees or not. None of those things matter if the use is not allowed. It would be really embarassing to spend thousands of dollars for an event to have it shut down by a local zoning inspector. (from a city planner and a ex zoning administrator who is a die hard rallyist)
Ugh......Of course they do not bother to try and find any manner of story from those who may have been enjoying themselves. It is always only about the poor pitiful victims of the horrible noisy stinky dusty (looking down the hooked nose) drivers of those damned cars!! Give me a break!!
>>Still bad reporting IMO.....
>Isn't funny how press can be writen any way they want.
>I like the part about insurance etc.
>It is pretty stupid.
The best part is that they openly admitted to not actually talking to anyone with the event. A journalist is supposed to be objective, atleast objective enough to contact the pertenant parties for comment. They teach that in journalism 1000 fer christ sakes.
To bad its always easier to write bad press then do some real reporting.
Bernie, that's very possible but the article quoted a complaintant that it was not in compliance with zoning so I gave them the benefit of doubt. The main point is that any potential event organizers are obligated to check whether the use of the property is legal or not. As much as I hate saying it, we deserve what we get if we ignore local regulations. The black mark on our reputation becomes hard to erase and reflects badly on us.
I understand all of that. I do not live all that far away and have seen people new (read city people who move to a rural area and think it's all about their peace and quiet) to the community believe that there was zoning when there was not. It's like the new person in town who complains about the use of a manure speader on the picturesque farm next door even if it was only once a year.
I was also trying to point out that quite a bit of NY State is still operating based on the codification of the early 1970's. For example in some places use of agricultrural properties includes entertainment. The Woodstock 94 property was used under this concept in nearby Saugerties NY. (It also allows roadside farmstands that look like mini amusement parks and are not considered commercial/retail/light industry which in my eyes they surely are.) I DO NOT know anything about the local zoning as it applies to this complaint. But it smacks of the typical newcomer who wants to live in a fairytale little town on the weekends.
There was a local case a few years ago in nearby Accord NY where a 1/4 mile dirt track that was in operation back into the 50's went dark for a season and ownership was transfered. He reopened and added karts on a seperate night. He had to fight for about 2-3 years till he proved the use was consistant. If as the article infered there was a known use for ATV recreation the case can and I'm sure will be made that this use is consistant.