Printer-Friendly
Email this Story
Post a Comment (0)
Proposal gets plowed under by farmers
Proposal gets plowed under by farmersThe proposal put forth by Supervisor Holder Trumbo (Scott District) and supported by Supervisors Schwartz (Marshall District) and Nyhous (Center District) to eliminate density credits for floodplain and steep slopes in RA and RC zoning districts may have met its demise.
The planning commission public hearing on June 26 was very well attended, and the commissioners certainly received an earful.
Descriptive terms describing this proposal included stupid, crazy, an act of thievery, embezzlement by government, and downzoning in disguise.
Many of the farmers who spoke are long-time residents and remember the actions of local government in May 1981, when they lost up to 50 percent of their development (building lot) rights and very loudly and angrily let the commissioners know they were not going to take it again.
A good number of the farmers openly informed the commissions of their intention, if this proposal is approved, to “see them and the board of supervisors” in court.
By my unofficial count, there were 37 speakers against and only three who supported this proposed action.
One of the latter described the proposal as a “simple process”; another pointed out that the ordinance that gave landowners density credit for floodplains and steep slopes was relatively new (1998-1999), not an ordinance that had been on the books for many years, and therefore could be easily changed.
I didn’t realize that the age of an ordinance made it easier or harder to change.
The vast majority of the farmers were quick to point out that they did not have 401(k) plans, and their land is their retirement investment.
Many also pointed out that they had been paying taxes based on the number of lots allocated to their properties, and if the county was going to take away one or more of these lot allocations, then they wanted tax refunds and/or tax breaks based on their losses.
The farmers also pointed out that they use their land (allocated lots) as collateral when borrowing for the purchase of seed and machinery. This action would lessen their borrowing ability.
Unfortunately, some of the rhetoric reflected a wide division of thought between the farmers and the conservationists of the northern area of the county, as one farmer described the situation.
A few of the farmers went so far as to say that while they might have considered the PDR (Purchase of Development Rights) program as a method of saving their land, this would no longer be the case because the taking of their development rights would lessen their property value to the PDR program also (a loss of $30,000 per development right).
When questioned as to the overriding need to implement these proposals, it became readily apparent, as one farmer noted, that this was strictly a “no-growth” and downzoning (taking of by-right development lots) and had very little to do with the environmental issues put forth.
Also, it became quickly apparent, that not only were the GIS maps very general and developed based on a large scale and therefore subject to many errors, that the very costly actions (engineering and soil scientists) to prove the county wrong in specific cases would be borne by the landowners.
While the public hearing on these proposals remains open, when the backbone of this county (farmers) have taken such a strong stand on this issue, it would seem wise to let it die.
I think that those supervisors who pursue this issue will become one-term supervisors who are "plowed under" in the next election.
Griffin is a retired U.S. Navy cryptologist and a community activist.
You must be logged in to post a comment.