Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
I'm still trying to sort out the St. Mary's commissioners' decision on Tuesday to set the rural housing density to 1 home per 5 acres. I don't know if I agree with it or not. I have two questions:
First, would the 1-in-20 proposal really have mandated 20-acre home lots in the rural areas? I thought this would have actually required one home lot for each 20 acres. This means the property owner could subdivide it to get a home lot of 1 acre or so, leaving the other 19 acres undeveloped. That would make much more sense to me. Not many people can afford to buy a home on 20 acres. You could build a good-sized house on 1 acre and find plenty of buyers.
Second, Commissioner Dan Raley said the area's economy depends on the building industry. Is this true? St. Mary's will run out of developable land sooner or later. That could happen in 20 years or 200 years. When that happens, could builders still earn a living by replacing old structures? I certainly don't begrudge builders the right to make money. But there's just something scary about the notion that an industry needs a constant supply of developable land to survive. As Louis Goldstein once said, God didn't make any more land.
I guess I'm just disappointed that the commissioners couldn't strike a compromise between the desires of the building industry and the wishes of the environmentalists.
First, would the 1-in-20 proposal really have mandated 20-acre home lots in the rural areas? I thought this would have actually required one home lot for each 20 acres. This means the property owner could subdivide it to get a home lot of 1 acre or so, leaving the other 19 acres undeveloped. That would make much more sense to me. Not many people can afford to buy a home on 20 acres. You could build a good-sized house on 1 acre and find plenty of buyers.
Second, Commissioner Dan Raley said the area's economy depends on the building industry. Is this true? St. Mary's will run out of developable land sooner or later. That could happen in 20 years or 200 years. When that happens, could builders still earn a living by replacing old structures? I certainly don't begrudge builders the right to make money. But there's just something scary about the notion that an industry needs a constant supply of developable land to survive. As Louis Goldstein once said, God didn't make any more land.
I guess I'm just disappointed that the commissioners couldn't strike a compromise between the desires of the building industry and the wishes of the environmentalists.