Printer-Friendly
Email this Story
Post a Comment (0)
What will it be — conservation or property rights?
What will it be — conservation or property rights?At its first public hearing, held without property owner notification, the proposal put forth by Supervisor Holder Trumbo (Scott District to eliminate density credits for floodplain and steep slopes in RA- and RC-zoning districts gleaned the support of six who spoke in favor, with only one against.
The next public hearing, after the county mailed notification letters to property owners, reflected a huge public outcry against the proposal (unofficially 37 against and two in support).
Trumbo’s public comments suggest this proposal is a good way to reduce residential growth in the agricultural areas.
He simultaneously recommended the Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program be changed to reflect the elimination of these density credits when our tax dollars are used to buy development rights and place the property in permanent conservation.
Trumbo ran as the conservation candidate and received the support of the conservation organizations leadership/members.
These organizations have spent many years convincing farmers that conservation efforts would enable them to continue farming and keep our county as a leader in agriculture.
It would seem that the true efforts of these organizations may have been one that is more self-serving — that is, control growth by any and all means and keep as much land as possible in open space, agriculture and forestry.
They have spent a great deal of time and effort convincing farmers the only way they can continue their agricultural endeavors is to go the route of the PDR program and place their land in perpetual conservation.
The steep slope and floodplain proposal seeks to take a portion of the farmers' and large landowners' property without any payment or concern for the effect it will have upon their futures.
How many of our farmers/members of their family already have to work another job just to continue farming or keep their land?
What would you do if the government came and took some portion of your property without compensation?
A recent column in the Times-Democrat presented a lot of “what ifs” and worst-case scenarios regarding the cost of hypothetical development which conceivably could never happen in our lifetime. That is why we have zoning regulations and a density requirement of one house per 10 acres in RA-zoned districts.
So let’s stop blowing smoke and misleading the residents of this county with thoughts of potential huge costs that don't exist. These properties are scattered throughout our county, and there is no chance whatsoever of them being developed simultaneously.
As for taxes, they will be set at whatever level it takes to keep the services and programs that residents demand. Perhaps more emphasis on economic development might mitigate this issue.
One thing for sure has developed as a result of this proposal, and that is it has split this community and perhaps implanted a large wedge between no-growth conservationists and the farmers/large landowners they once wooed.
It appears that conservation is trying to trump property rights and dictate unfavorable consequences should a farmer or landowner desire to retire and sell his/her property.
What is it going to be — conservation or property rights?
Griffin is a retired U.S. Navy cryptologist and a community activist.
You must be logged in to post a comment.