[NYpeanut]

Sprawl = whatever is built after I got mine.

Leftists are driven by emotion, even when it costs the next guy. There's a local group here that wants to prevent a farmer from selling to a developer because it will "spoil their view" driving to town.

[OBone]

Loudon County, VA is the latest. It's the old "I'm in close the door".

OB

[11th Earl of Mar]

We have learned in Michigan how a 3 acre minimum eats up land faster than traditional development.

I am surprised the article did not really address "clustering."

Many local government authorities are opting for "clustering" in stead of the standard minimum acerage rule.

Clustering allows higher density housing as long as there is a "green space" set aside where future growth is prohibited.

For instance, a 20 acre piece with typical 3 acre development rules, could normally allow up to six lots of 3+ acres.

Under clustering, a developer would be allowed bonus lots, maybe 9 total lots, for setting aside a large chunk of that land. The municipality would allow lots to be maybe a half or three quarter acre each, as long as 10 acres was dedicated as perminant open space.

It is cheaper to do for the deveoper, the owners still get the use of the open space and the municipality gets more houses to tax.

[Free the USA]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[madfly]

fyi

[EternalVigilance]

The left will use whatever mechanism they can find to CONTROL.

Sprawl is a buzzword; and if you scratch very far beneath the surface when it crops up, you will most always find a liberal power grab.

[gitmo]

"We're just consuming more land than we ever have," said Gary T. Johnson, a planning professor at Virginia Commonwealth University planning professor.

Obviously a man of great learnings. /sarcasm

[Nam Vet]

I'm a Real Estate Broker in socialist portland, and what we have here is called the "Urban growth Boundary". No, or a limited spliting outside of certain areas. It's so stupid that while we build common-wall homes on 2500 sq. ft. lots inside the boundary in the city, they wouldn't allow my parents to split their 100 acre farm into two fifty acre lots for their two sons. "It would ruin the green space. Talk about curtailing property rights. Sheer idiocy.

Nam Vet

[Lorianne]

The development indicated in the article are NOT anti-sprawl measures. These measures are opposed by anti-sprawlers!!! The article gets is exactly backward.

Large lot subdivisions are anathema to anti-sprawl smart-growth types. This is NOT what they promote.

The writer is simply misinformed. It is status quo developers, real estate firms, financial institution, and land planners who promote this kind of development, and have for 40 years. There is nothing new in this. This is standard operating procedure. It has nothing whatsoever to do with anti-sprawl measures.

If you want to educate yourself as to what Smart Growth is about (and it's NOT about single houses on large lots) go to these sources.

http://www.cnu.org/aboutcnu/index.cfm?formaction=charter

http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/

http://www.sprawl-busters.com/

book review of Asphalt Nation
http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/8301.html

http://www.lgc.org/clc/library/articles/archives/ahwahnee_article.html

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/earthpulse/sprawl/index_flash.html

http://www.vtsprawl.org/Strategies.htm