For the sake of the acres

Lexington Herald-Leader ^ | Fri, Nov. 28, 2003 | John Stamper

[toddst]

This is controversial locally. Use of tax dollars for the PDR program is opjectionable to many (including me.) I'm interested in FReepers thoughts on this.

[Lurkina.n.Learnin]

Are they purchasing this land or are these conservation easments?

[little jeremiah]

There definitely is a problem with valuable farmland (which is essentially irreplaceable) being turned into housing developments, industrial parks and so on. A country can keep destroying food producing land only for so long without bad harm being done. In fact, erosion and other destruction of food producing arable land has been a factor in the demise of most civilizations.
People say, well, with agribusiness, chemicals, and Mexican produce we don't need farms. Bad argument, for many reasons. Personally, I won't touch Mexican produce if I can help it. Hepatitis, anyone? Or unregulated pesticide use.
Food produced locally is actually very important. Currently most food people eat is grown in FL, CA, AZ, OR. Suppose some kind of disruption occurs? Not only that, the quality of locally grown food is much better.

It is possible to have needed development and farms. One possibility is to lower property taxes - which IMO needs to be done anyway. If farmers have lower property taxes they wouldn't be so inclined to sell their farms to developers. And eliminating inheritance taxes. A lot of states have really high inheritance taxes, which is hateful.

(carry_okie - I thought you might be interested in this thread.)

[toddst]

Are they purchasing this land or are these conservation easments?

Purchase of development rights only. The land continues to be owned by the "farmer."

[Issaquahking]

ping

[toddst]

It is possible to have needed development and farms. One possibility is to lower property taxes - which IMO needs to be done anyway. If farmers have lower property taxes they wouldn't be so inclined to sell their farms to developers. And eliminating inheritance taxes. A lot of states have really high inheritance taxes, which is hateful.

10-4. I have proposed reduction of farmland taxes as part of this program. IMO the same should apply to all propertyowners. Taxes are driving older people out of their homes. I want to see a rollback plus a freeze, with no increase until the property is sold (like taxing improvements, for example.)

There are many issues connected to property taxation that need to be addressed. With an incoming Republican governor in Kentucky I believe we have an opportunity to deal with property tax issues more realistically than in the past.

[Cicero]

If it helps keep the farms as farms, I think it's a good thing. The problem is, that's a very hard thing to do. Probably the easement route, which prevents development and keeps the land in the hands of farmers, is the best solution found so far.

[skinkinthegrass]

This is controversial locally. Use of tax dollars for the PDR program is objectionable...

It's the 'NOT IN MY BACK YARD' mindset...They think, they are preserving the "Bluegrass", but for whom?, not for the Chill'ren. Anti-Development Luttites...They do it b/c, they can...nothing less, nothing more. They are typical brainless morons.

[Lurkina.n.Learnin]

"The land continues to be owned by the "farmer.""

"Owned" is questionable here. When they regulate the small farmer out of existance and they find they have given up clear title it will be sad. Here's a related thread.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1028759/posts

[singsong]

I don't get it. Why not just pass a regulation against building permits in the area? The land could still be sold but only limited construction allowed. There are industrial areas, there are residential areas, why not "farming areas"? Seems logical.

[dirtboy]

ping

[sergeantdave]

Sounds like a Conservation Easement (CE) to me. Bad deal all around.

CEs strip away an important part in your bundle of property rights - the right to do what you please with your property.

CEs also take land out of development, causing the prices of homes in urban areas to skyrocket.

CEs discriminate against low income earners, especially minorities, pricing them out of the housing market.

CEs will cause banks to treat your property like poison ivy - the owners in these restricted properties have great difficulty in getting loans for improvements because the property is restricted.

CE victims can be sued by third parties - Sierra Club, Wilderness Society and other property hating fanatics - if CE victims in any way violate terms of the CE.

Land subjected to CE control is very difficult to sell. Who wants to buy a 40 acre site if you can't build on or improve the land?

Finally, CEs are nothing more than state control of private property - fascism.

To subject private property to some condition, in perpetuity, is damn un-American.

[toddst]

Why not just pass a regulation against building permits in the area? The land could still be sold but only limited construction allowed. There are industrial areas, there are residential areas, why not "farming areas"?

In reality, there are multiple forces that shape development, especially on agricultural land surrounding our urban area (Lexington, KY.) Much of the property in our area is connected to the horse industry. Horse farms cannot operate if residential development ls allowed to locate adjacent to the farms - dogs, children, vandalism, stupid curiosity, all create serious problems. In effect, open space allows for buffers between residential development and the horse farms.

[toddst]

CEs also take land out of development, causing the prices of homes in urban areas to skyrocket. CEs discriminate against low income earners, especially minorities, pricing them out of the housing market.

Yes, home prices are impacted. This increased housing cost has been accepted by people who choose to live here.

Per the low-income folks, yes there is pressure that bears on them. Some accommodation is being made via special loan arrangements, more economical construction of some units, urban redevelopment.

The community has to decide how to deal with these impacts if a PDR program is adopted. That process is ongoing here.

[B Knotts]

Control immigration, and the pressure on farmland will subside.

[tacticalogic]

This is part of the "smart growth" agenda. Al Gore pretty much laid it out in his book. The idea is that the most efficient arrangement is to have the human population concentrated in large metropolitan areas with about the population density of Tokyo.

IOW - those red areas on the map are going to be slowly de-populated, and everyone re-located into the blue areas.

[toddst]

Control immigration, and the pressure on farmland will subside.

Well, perhaps in some places, but not here. Our problem is traditional suburban development constantly moving outward from the urban area. We have an immigrant (Hispanic) population but they aren't buying homes, for the most part.

I agree with stopping the flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. but they are not a part of our specific development pressures.

[toddst]

This is part of the "smart growth" agenda. . . The idea is that the most efficient arrangement is to have the human population concentrated in large metropolitan areas with about the population density of Tokyo.

Perhaps that's what some "planners" want but it doesn't automatically apply to every community that implements a PDR program. In our case I believe the objective of preserving open space (and protecting horse farms) is a good one. The problem yet to be worked out is funding. I oppose supporting PDR with tax revenues.

IOW - those red areas on the map are going to be slowly de-populated, and everyone re-located into the blue areas.

That may be what the socialists intend but I seriously doubt such relocation will take place. Some folks aren't about to be pushed off their land - by anyone.

[sergeantdave]

I can see problems ahead with these "farmland preservation" schemes.

In time, that farmer, through old age or death, will stop farming. Then what? The kids don't want the farm, so it gets sold to a preservation group or goes back to the state or local government for unpaid taxes.

Now the farm sits there, buildings fall apart and the land goes fallow because I'm sure the mayor won't be on a tractor planting corn and wheat. The idle 400 acres becomes a hang-out for drug dealers and vandals, as it's an easy 20 minute drive from the city.

The "Tragedy of the Commons" sets in. Garbage, condoms and bed springs pile up in what was once an orderly and productive farm. The farm gets abused, mis-used and finally used up as no one and everyone owns it.

What you end up with is a little piece of socialist hell in the midst of your nice community.

Private property owners always take better care of the land than the state. It's a lesson of life that needs to be repeated over and over again.

[countrydummy]

self ping, to read later, more crap, different day! Read the fine print! Read the fine print! Just more landgrabs!