Rural Density
- Thread starter demsformd
- Start date
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
Some random thoughts on county zoning:
I had hoped that the county commissioners would strike a compromise, like 1-in-10 or 1-in-12. I believe Joe Anderson tried this and no one else went for it. Anyone have the details?
I spoke to a local farming family a few years ago, and these people said it absolutely broke their hearts to sell part of their farm for development. The land had been in their family for generations. So why did they do it? Because this was the only way they could keep the farm going and still be able to afford to retire.
Why is it that otherwise successful farmers can't even afford to retire? I don't have all the answers. I remember reading that milk producers are getting less money per gallon, even though the store price of milk has gone up. That means the middlemen are making more money.
I've written before that 1-in-5 and 1-in-20 do not refer to the lot size, but to the number of home lots you can subdivide from one parcel. (Who the hell can afford to buy a home on 20 acres, anyway?) I think that misconception was part of why the ULDC was met with such scorn. Of course, the plan also seemed to have very draconian rules for construction.
I had hoped that the county commissioners would strike a compromise, like 1-in-10 or 1-in-12. I believe Joe Anderson tried this and no one else went for it. Anyone have the details?
I spoke to a local farming family a few years ago, and these people said it absolutely broke their hearts to sell part of their farm for development. The land had been in their family for generations. So why did they do it? Because this was the only way they could keep the farm going and still be able to afford to retire.
Why is it that otherwise successful farmers can't even afford to retire? I don't have all the answers. I remember reading that milk producers are getting less money per gallon, even though the store price of milk has gone up. That means the middlemen are making more money.
I've written before that 1-in-5 and 1-in-20 do not refer to the lot size, but to the number of home lots you can subdivide from one parcel. (Who the hell can afford to buy a home on 20 acres, anyway?) I think that misconception was part of why the ULDC was met with such scorn. Of course, the plan also seemed to have very draconian rules for construction.
Preservation of rural heritage is a joke. The reality of the matter is that our world is becoming more and more crowded. We have to put the people somewhere or do we build more areas like the major metropolitan cities and stuff as many into them as possible and add to the problems such a scheme causes.
On a different aspect of the matter, where does the government get the right to tell the people (read, property owners) what they can and cannot do with their property as long as they aren't harming or infringing on others? If a farmer wants to get out of the business and divide his land for development, why can't they? After all it is their land.
If you want to maintain the rural character of an area I recommend that you buy as much available land as possible, not the government.
On a different aspect of the matter, where does the government get the right to tell the people (read, property owners) what they can and cannot do with their property as long as they aren't harming or infringing on others? If a farmer wants to get out of the business and divide his land for development, why can't they? After all it is their land.
If you want to maintain the rural character of an area I recommend that you buy as much available land as possible, not the government.
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
You make a good point about property rights, Ken. But I'm not prepared to ditch the whole idea of zoning. Part of the reason zoning exists is because of the crowding conditions that you mentioned.
Also, subdivisions like Country Lakes and Golden Beach were built before St. Mary's adopted zoning in the 1970s. These communities were built miles away from schools, utilities and adequate roads. When zoning came in, the county government argued that it had an overriding community interest in directing growth to areas where these sevices could be provided easily. As the argument went, the taxpayers pay less to expand an existing school than to build a new one, and one sewer plant controls nitrogen pollution more easily than hundreds of septic systems.
While I find that a compelling argument, I certainly agree that it can be taken too far. When the zoning office makes home owners jump through a zillion hoops just to build an addition, that does absolutely nothing to maximize the use of expensive utilities.
Ken, you're absolutely right that rural character shouldn't be preserved at the farmers' expense. At one point, the county had proposed "transferable development rights" where farmers could sell the development capacity of their land to landowners closer to town centers. I don't know if that will work, although it's an interesting idea. My point is, should the government have any role at all in directing growth (as opposed to limiting growth)?
Also, subdivisions like Country Lakes and Golden Beach were built before St. Mary's adopted zoning in the 1970s. These communities were built miles away from schools, utilities and adequate roads. When zoning came in, the county government argued that it had an overriding community interest in directing growth to areas where these sevices could be provided easily. As the argument went, the taxpayers pay less to expand an existing school than to build a new one, and one sewer plant controls nitrogen pollution more easily than hundreds of septic systems.
While I find that a compelling argument, I certainly agree that it can be taken too far. When the zoning office makes home owners jump through a zillion hoops just to build an addition, that does absolutely nothing to maximize the use of expensive utilities.
Ken, you're absolutely right that rural character shouldn't be preserved at the farmers' expense. At one point, the county had proposed "transferable development rights" where farmers could sell the development capacity of their land to landowners closer to town centers. I don't know if that will work, although it's an interesting idea. My point is, should the government have any role at all in directing growth (as opposed to limiting growth)?
Thanks for the input guys. I am starting to understand this complex issue more and more. I also am more committed to 1 in 5 because a higher density would just completely screw farmers over. We need useful regulation, not an unlimited amount of regulation.
Oh, BTW, I have heard that Larry Jarboe supports 1 - 20. Anyone know for sure?
Oh, BTW, I have heard that Larry Jarboe supports 1 - 20. Anyone know for sure?