For the sake of the acres

Jim Dwyer received the highest amount paid per acres for his 205-acre farm on Houston Antioch Road, and used his $864,444 PDR payment to buy another 127-acre farm across the county line in Bourbon County.

Lexington's farmland preservation program has plowed through more than $25 million in the past two years, protecting more than 10,000 acres of rural Fayette County from future development.

More than $15 million has been doled out to area landowners since July, setting a blistering pace of preservation that few expected from a 3-year-old program designed to preserve 50,000 acres over 20 years.

"We're starting to see big blocks of protected farmland, and that's exciting," said Margaret Graves, chairwoman of the Rural Land Management Board, which oversees the preservation program.

Despite progress, the Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program faces significant hurdles in coming months and remains under attack from opponents and farmers alike.

Year-old PDR applications from about 40 farmers who own more than 3,000 acres haven't been considered, and most of those requests won't be processed any time soon, Graves said.

The program has less than half a million left to spend, and its next appropriation of money from the city probably won't come before July.

A little less than half of the $25 million spent by PDR so far was local money, with the balance coming from the state's tobacco settlement funds and federal grants. More state and federal money is available, but not before local matching money is appropriated.

In the meantime, PDR supporters are pondering new ways to raise funds, rather than gamble that city leaders will honor a campaign pledge by Mayor Teresa Isaac to spend $2 million a year on PDR.

Everything from bond issuances to new dedicated taxes will be considered by the land management board in coming months, Graves said. The goal is to find a steady, reliable source of money that isn't subject to political whims.

That hasn't been the case so far. The program didn't get a full $2 million this year, thanks to budget cuts, and Vice Mayor Mike Scanlon is gunning for more changes next year.

Scanlon is attempting to garner support among Urban County Council members for a resolution requiring that each dollar spent on PDR be matched with a dollar for redevelopment in the downtown area.

"Every time we stop development, we must encourage it somewhere else," Scanlon said. "We have to have the yin and the yang of development."

He points out that the county's Rural Land Management Plan, which recommended the PDR program in 1999, also says the city should "aggressively promote" development projects on vacant and underused urban land that would "reduce the need for utilizing agricultural land to accommodate growth."

The plan suggests such actions as upgrading infrastructure, providing development incentives and financial assistance programs, and revising regulations.

Given the city's budget crunch, it seems unlikely that an additional $2 million per year could be found for downtown development, which suggests Scanlon is supporting a 50 percent cut in PDR's budget, Graves said.

"I'm supportive of them getting funding, but I don't want to see our money cut in half," she said. "Downtown has received a lot of investment recently, in terms of courthouses and lights and sidewalks."

The city council has also approved new regulations for development in the city's core, and a rash of new residential projects have been announced in and around downtown.

"I know the PDR zealots are going to hear 'cut, cut, cut,' but that's not what I'm saying," Scanlon said. "They (PDR and downtown development) should be fiscally equal, whether it's a cut or an increase."

Councilwoman Gloria Martin, who represents much of rural Fayette County, doesn't like Scanlon's idea. She points out that past studies have shown that taxpayers outside the county's urban area have been subsidizing services within the city since the county and city merged in 1974.

One of the main goals of the PDR program, they contend, is reimbursing farmers for the economic loss incurred when city leaders lowered the value of their land in 1999 by setting the minimum lot size in rural areas at 40 acres.

"They took away part of our rights," said Jim Dwyer, a cattle and tobacco farmer. "Those folks in the Urban Service Area still have the same rights they've always had."

In their minds, the program is underfunded and offers farmers only a fraction of the money they might have otherwise gotten from developers.

So far, the PDR program has paid an average of about $2,500 per acre preserved. The highest compensation per acre, $4,216.80, went to Dwyer for 205 acres off Houston Antioch Road. The lowest compensation, $821.19 per acre, was collected by David Jenkins for 379.63 acres off Jacks Creek Pike.

"I think the compensation is paltry compared with what the big land developers are getting," said J. Kirk Griggs, who received $2,950 per acre to preserve his 110-acre horse farm on Hume-Bedford Road. "It's not exactly a handout or a gravy train."

PDR officials defend their payments to farmers, noting that each farm is professionally appraised and ranked using a complex formula that takes into account everything from soil quality to proximity of other preserved farms.

In fact, the preservation program is becoming a national model, with cities such as Ann Arbor, Mich., considering similar initiatives, said Bill Van Pelt, the program's administrative officer.

PDR has also been a "highly successful" economic development tool that is boosting the local economy, Martin said.

No one is officially tracking how farmers spend their PDR payments, but program officials suggest the money is largely being used to finance improvements such as new fences and barns, pay down mortgages and buy more land.

Dwyer, for instance, used his $864,444 PDR payment to buy another 127-acre farm across the county line in Bourbon County. "I kept the money doing what it was supposed to be doing," Dwyer said.

Scanlon isn't convinced that others are doing the same. "The perception of the public is that the money is going into the pockets of farmers and they're buying condos in Florida with it."

Lexington has spared $25 million of farmland from development -- but the program's success isn't without controversy.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

"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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.