Roads are considered public spaces, setaside from any opportunity of development or ownership. Any new large development must perform a traffic impact study to ensure that their plan for access and egress, as well as the trips generated and attracted by the developmennt can be handled by the existing road. If the existing road cannot handle the load placed on it by this new development, the developer must work with the government to either change the size of the development, arrangement of parking or size of the road.
Why not establish river and creek corridors as public goods with similar prohibition of development and impact analysis. While there is already a regulatory apparatus for this, it is not direct enough to address the concerns of landowners and developers who see waterways on their property as on their property.
I agree
No opinion
I disagree![[SPAM]](http://www.whynot.net/images/flagasspam.png)
Flag as spam
Add your comment
I don't see what roads have to do with this, but yes, one should not develop close to watersheds.
My experience with a creek that traverses my parent's place leads me to disagree with most of this supposition.
I know that navigable waterways are a public 'good' or at least 'concern' but when a creek that isn't normally able to be traversed by watercraft starts to be viewed as 'public' land, it only leads to problems. Fisherman, hunters and gun-plinkers walk up and down the creek-bed, shoot guns, litter beercans and make the residents feel unsafe. They wouldn't do this on a 'real' waterway where someone official could remove them. And even if your children are playing nearby, confronting and convincing a city-guy testing his new 9mm that he shouldn't shoot into 'my' creek can be 'exciting.' I don't know if a clear legal delineation exists regarding the extent of public ownership of waterways--obviously a drainage waterway that only runs when it's raining isn't a public 'good.'
As for the part of 'riparian' that includes ownership of water/fish/water-related resources, I agree that no one owns the fish and the though the water may be useful for local irrigation from a creek, the owner should allow neighbors/ others nearby that don't adjoin to remove water as long as they do it reasonably. Still, that's not 'public.'
As for reinforcing that public waterways are public, this indicates that the governing bodies will be required to spend money for litter-clean-up and take-on responsibility for accidents/ snake-bites, etc. I don't think the governments want these duties and risks.