PDA

View Full Version : 2nd Channel Bridge ?



sdpm
07-27-2007, 02:38 PM
Are they still going to build a 2nd bridge over the channel? I had thought the new homes on the island were not going to begin until a 2nd bridge was put in. Anyone know anything and if so where is it going to be?

Havasu_Dreamin
07-27-2007, 02:45 PM
Supposed to be at the North end of the channel. The city is looking into various options, one of which is a tool to go over the vbridge and require that all trailered traffic use it leaving the London Bridge to non-trailered traffic. City Guy can probably shed additional light on the subject.....

sdpm
07-27-2007, 03:06 PM
Last week just outside the fence of Crazyhorse I saw a survey crew and some markers and it looked like they were taking down a section of fence. I wonder if this might have anything to do with it? Facing Crazyhorse it was just to the right.

Keith E. Sayre
07-27-2007, 03:14 PM
I've got $100 that says that it doesn't happen until all of the big time developers and home builders have come, built their homes, sold them
and then left town, oh I forgot to include and put serious damage on
the London Bridge with their super heavy trucks and equipment.
Then we'll get to pay not only for the damage to the London Bridge but also for the new bridge. That's the way that it works here in Havasu. At least we got a seawall and a billion dollar
sewer sytem to pay for! I remember the people in town begging for these items!

sdpm
07-27-2007, 03:23 PM
I've got $100 that says that it doesn't happen until all of the big time developers and home builders have come, built their homes, sold them
and then left town, oh I forgot to include and put serious damage on
the London Bridge with their super heavy trucks and equipment.
Then we'll get to pay not only for the damage to the London Bridge but also for the new bridge. That's the way that it works here in Havasu.
Keith Sayre
Hi Keith, I hear ya on the Big developers with BIG deep pockets. Ya know something that I don't understand, is why hasn't one of those Big developers hooked up with the Indians on the Calif side and done something over there? There is some beautiful waterfront property just dieing to be built on. There must be something holding them back. I look over there and see nothing but BIG $$$$$$ !:jawdrop:

Havasu Carrera
07-27-2007, 03:36 PM
Hi Keith, I hear ya on the Big developers with BIG deep pockets. Ya know something that I don't understand, is why hasn't one of those Big developers hooked up with the Indians on the Calif side and done something over there? There is some beautiful waterfront property just dieing to be built on. There must be something holding them back. I look over there and see nothing but BIG $$$$$$ !:jawdrop:
Try gambling or just parking in their slips over yonder and you will understand why no one of worth is buying/building/investing there.

sdpm
07-27-2007, 03:52 PM
I know Havasu Landing is a sh$t house, but look at the potential of it and the surrounding area. Who is the Chief of that tribe anyways. I think I will go have a little talk with him and bring my peace pipe and a little fire water.

sdpm
07-27-2007, 03:54 PM
Has that property always belonged to the Indians or was it given to them. If so does anyone know how long ago it was done? Just courious??:idea:

Ion
07-27-2007, 03:59 PM
Ya know something that I don't understand, is why hasn't one of those Big developers hooked up with the Indians on the Calif side and done something over there? ... There must be something holding them back. I look over there and see nothing but BIG $$$$$$ !:jawdrop:
Here's what's holding them back...leased land. It snot for sale...tribe owns it.

Keith E. Sayre
07-27-2007, 04:11 PM
I think Ion is right, something about you can only lease it but never own it and the day comes that they have a change of heart, they can kick you off
of their leased land anytime they want.
Geting back to the bridge concept, I might add that I have no problem with
a second bridge as long as those that cause it's "need" pay for it. My theory
is simple. If we don't develop the island, we can get by with only one bridge.
Therefore the people of Havasu shouldn't have to pay for a 2nd bridge. Make
the developers and future occupiers of the island pay for the bridge that they
will cause us to need.
Keith Sayre

sdpm
07-27-2007, 04:14 PM
Here's what's holding them back...leased land. It snot for sale...tribe owns it.
I understand that. But what I don't understand is why don't they do something with it? It's not like they don't have the money and even if they don't, it wouldn't be very hard to get for development. Can't Indians sell land if they wanted to?

BoatFloating
07-27-2007, 04:19 PM
Here's what's holding them back...leased land. It snot for sale...tribe owns it.
The land on the Island isn't owned by Indians. BLM land if I recall...

Boatcop
07-27-2007, 04:28 PM
Has that property always belonged to the Indians or was it given to them. If so does anyone know how long ago it was done? Just courious??:idea:
The property at Havasu Landing was the original Reservation for the Chemehuevi Tribe. They are believed to be an offshoot of the Paiute (an offshoot of the Shoshone) that settled along the Colorado River centuries ago.
When the Parker Dam was completed, it was thought that the entire Reservation would be innundated by the waters of Lake Havasu. They were ordered off the Reservation by Congress, and given land on the CRIT Reservation near Parker, and made eligible for Membership in the CRIT Tribe, along with Mohave, Navajo and Hopi.
After the Lake reached it's full level, it was discovered that several hundred acres of land was still above water. A group of Chemehuevi members went back to the land and reclaimed it for the Tribe. They have since had it officially restored by Congress.
It's true, that you cannot own land on the Reservation. Developers do not want to put stick-built homes on leased land, since once a structure is permanently affixed to any leased federal land (Indian Reservations included) it becomes property of the the entity holding control (ownership) of the land.
That's why when there are any resorts leased from the Government (Havasu Springs, Echo Lodge, Big Bend, etc) for recreational or vacation purposes, the homes are all manufactured homes that can be put back on wheels and dragged away.

Boatcop
07-27-2007, 04:30 PM
I understand that. But what I don't understand is why don't they do something with it? It's not like they don't have the money and even if they don't, it wouldn't be very hard to get for development. Can't Indians sell land if they wanted to?
They can't sell it. The Indians don't actually "own" the land. Reservations are Federal land, held in trust for the Indians of the Tribe the land is set aside for.

phebus
07-27-2007, 04:40 PM
If the Indians did actually own the land, I bet most of it would have been sold off a long time ago.

phebus
07-27-2007, 04:45 PM
If the developers dont build a second bridge, I say we wait until the entire island is occupied, and then take out the existing bridge.
Maroon the poor bastards. :idea:

Not So Fast
07-27-2007, 05:07 PM
I've got $100 that says that it doesn't happen until all of the big time developers and home builders have come, built their homes, sold them
and then left town, oh I forgot to include and put serious damage on
the London Bridge with their super heavy trucks and equipment.
Then we'll get to pay not only for the damage to the London Bridge but also for the new bridge. That's the way that it works here in Havasu. At least we got a seawall and a billion dollar
sewer sytem to pay for! I remember the people in town begging for these items!
Dont forget Keith that the "Quick Fix" done to the bridge last year was just that; according to the city because to really "Fix" the bridge was going to be very costly (because of traffic control as I remember) and disrupt traffic for a long time so they opted to do the quickie fix until the new bridge was built then the repairs can be performed properly. NSF