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.
1 posted on
11/28/2003 9:24:44 AM PST by
toddst
To: toddst
Are they purchasing this land or are these conservation easments?
To: toddst; Carry_Okie
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.)
To: toddst; farmfriend
ping
To: toddst
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.
7 posted on
11/28/2003 10:34:16 AM PST by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: toddst
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.
8 posted on
11/28/2003 10:40:33 AM PST by
skinkinthegrass
(Just because you're paranoid,doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. :)
To: toddst
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.
10 posted on
11/28/2003 11:06:01 AM PST by
singsong
To: Carry_Okie; sauropod
ping
11 posted on
11/28/2003 11:06:49 AM PST by
dirtboy
(New Ben and Jerry's flavor - Howard Dean Swirl - no ice cream, just fruit at bottom)
To: toddst
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.
12 posted on
11/28/2003 11:43:10 AM PST by
sergeantdave
(You will be judged by 12 people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty)
To: toddst
Control immigration, and the pressure on farmland will subside.
15 posted on
11/28/2003 12:46:34 PM PST by
B Knotts
(Go 'Nucks!)
To: toddst
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.
16 posted on
11/28/2003 12:55:15 PM PST by
tacticalogic
(Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
To: toddst
self ping, to read later, more crap, different day! Read the fine print! Read the fine print! Just more landgrabs!
To: toddst; AAABEST; Ace2U; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; amom; AndreaZingg; Anonymous2; ...
Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.
28 posted on
11/30/2003 11:04:41 PM PST by
farmfriend
( Isaiah 55:10,11)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson