Save our Valley!!

[vikingshadow]

Doesn't matter in the eyes of a court - homeowners in a residential area will win out, unless that particular spot was zoned for business (can you say property taxes?) As far as the actual game, one person's zen is another's hell...

One gun = not very loud IF the guns are tuned, mid level with certain barrels.
More than one gun = loud. Especially if they're tippys, Spyders without aftermarket barrels, etc.

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for the field staying. I'm just saying it doesn't look good...

[Critical]

I've done a little snooping around on the internet, gotta love the instant gratification of Google! As big a fan of paintball as I am, this one is in the bag for the homeowners. The field is not a regular field, it's an outlaw field that the landowner has applied for a conditional use permit to allow him to host private, non-public games, that he does not charge for. He does own several paintball stores in the immediate vicinity, but this field is not affiliated, according to the articles I read, other than by ownership.

While we can all laugh at the idiocy of people claiming that their horses are being injured, and that paintball is a "deadly sport," like Vike said, in the eyes of the law, people being stupid doesn't matter. All the city has to do is revoke/ not renew the conditional use license and this field is gone.

[marvin-martian]

Originally Posted by vikingshadow

This may be tougher than previously thought. Property owners in residential areas most always win out in cases like this.

there is a naval air station here called oceana. they specifically told developers not to build too close to the base, and drew a line the planes would like to have in case they have to crash or something. the developers basically blew it off and built tons of crap anyway, and now all the people/residents are complaining about jet noise.

now the base is being forced to move because of all the encroachment. theres too much of a likely hood theyll land one in someones house, they cant properly simulate night carrier landings because its too bright, etc. so developers defied oceana, and is now forcing them to move.

[vikingshadow]

Yup - that's what I'm saying. Homeowners rights are a very tricky thing here in America. Basically, if they don't like something or vice versa, that's the way it usually goes.

The only thing that beats homeowners are corporations, like Wal-Mart. Since the revenue from a business such as that will trump the taxes homeowners pay every year, they tend to win disputes such as this.

Critical is absolutely right in his reasoning. Since it's a non-established business, then the property owners can bother the city until the license is revoked. Let's face it, we all think it's crap, but the rap paintball has and decides to show to the public is going to hurt us more than help us. Until we as a sport decides to "clean up" our image, we can expect this to happen.

[marvin-martian]

Originally Posted by vikingshadow

Until we as a sport decides to "clean up" our image, we can expect this to happen.

that wont even matter. people and their ignorance will only see the words "gun" and "shoot" and "kill", and then paintball is evil forever.

[vikingshadow]

I can agree with that. I was actually thinking that while I typed that previous thought. One can always hope, if we do many positive things to offset the few negative ideas, maybe it might work!

[HelpDeskHustler]

Originally Posted by marvin-martian

that wont even matter. people and their ignorance will only see the words "gun" and "shoot" and "kill", and then paintball is evil forever.

Well, I know a lot it is external ignorance... but there still are players that even though they do it sarcastically, they wear an image people try to fight and wear ak-47's and "contract killer" stuff. It's all over the place. Pro's wear it, pbn is big on it. That's a big source of problems too. Probably not in this case, but for public image on tv it would be.

[Kingman-Rep]

Here is a rebuttal that was sent to the editor of the newspaper who published this garbage.

To whom it may concern,



After reading the article recently printed in “The Mountaineer Progress” by Mr. Tom Mason, I thought it only right to correct some of his misrepresentations of paintball and defend a sport for which I hold great adoration. In the article Mr. Mason claims that paintball is dangerous, violent and harmful to the environment. All of these statements are made with little or no merit. In fact, paintball is one of the safest sports in existence. Less injuries occur on an annual basis while participating in paintball matches than occur in youth soccer or even golf. The article also makes reference to the violence of the sport. The sport of paintball is falsely represented as a brutal war game, the validity of paintball as a sport has been shown countless times over as major sporting networks such as ESPN and FSN (Fox Sports Network) have aired paintball tournaments, promoting it as the fastest up and coming sport in the nation. I highly doubt the executives at these major networks would spend the money and production time needed on promoting a violent, environment destroying game as Mr. Mason would like the public to view paintball. As for the environmental effects of paintball, all paintballs are manufactured to the highest possible EPA standards. The paintballs are both non-toxic and bio degradable. Anyone curious to the ingredients can simply contact any one of the manufactures and obtain a full MSDS form, describing each and every ingredient in the product.



On a more related topic to the article, I myself have been to the facility in question and have found it to be very safety conscious and environmentally friendly. The field was built with the goal of not disturbing any of the natural foliage or landscape. I am not sure the same can be said for the residence of one of the advocates against the field. Clearly visible in the pictures portrayed in the article is a roughly three acre plot of land completely clear-cut to make room for Ms. Nina Guerini’s new home. How does that change the landscape for the wildlife the authors of the article are so concerned about? It is stated in the article that, the sound of the paintball markers being used is disturbing the quail population of the area. I have witnessed quail on the property completely undisturbed by any of the sound made during play. The owner of the property has even hired sound engineers to ensure the noise levels are well below legal levels. It is very surprising too me that the quail population of the area would be such a concern to the author as well considering quail hunting is perfectly legal in the area provided the hunter has a permit. The sounds of paintball markers in no way come close to the sounds of hunting rifles and the participants at the paintball field are not shooting the quail, so where is the problem there? The owner of the property has also done extensive safety testing, with county officials present; to again ensure no animal or passer by could possibly be struck by a ball during play. During testing paintballs fired from a marker could not come close to even reaching the property lines of the home on which the field sits, let alone reach trails and street where people could be. Also, the home owner does a complete walk through of his property after playing to collect any materials left from the activity.



This entire situation is has been looked at several times by county officials and the home owner every time has been found to be within his legal right to use his personal property to entertain himself and his friends. The property is both environmentally friendly and safe. The sport of paintball needs more enthusiasts like this home owner.



Thank you,

Chris McInally

[battlechaser]

Umm.... don't paintballs have to be NOT ONLY non-toxic, but also biodegrable?

I remember once upon a time they were filled with glycol (essentially automobile antifreeze), but uhh... that was the 80s.

[Nader]

The rebuttal by Mr. McInally does give a little hope for the situation. I have to agree though, that the homeowners will most likely win this "battle".

I appreciate this bit:

Originally Posted by Kingman-Rep

On a more related topic to the article, I myself have been to the facility in question and have found it to be very safety conscious and environmentally friendly. The field was built with the goal of not disturbing any of the natural foliage or landscape. I am not sure the same can be said for the residence of one of the advocates against the field. Clearly visible in the pictures portrayed in the article is a roughly three acre plot of land completely clear-cut to make room for Ms. Nina Guerini’s new home.

Originally Posted by battlechaser

Umm.... don't paintballs have to be NOT ONLY non-toxic, but also biodegrable?

They do, and they are.