"Government is not, in this case, destroying the investment of the developers. The developers are perfectly free to sell the property they bought. They can either build houses on it at the existing zoning or sell it as they bought it, as farmland. They aren't entitled to make unbelievable amounts of money on their real estate purchase any more than I am guaranteed by law to make money on my more modest one. No one is even saying they can't build on the land they bought. They just can't build endless thousands of houses whose occupants will swamp local infrastructure."
You are clearly of the socialist mindset. You actually stated that they are not "entitled" to make "unbelievable" profits. Do you understand that farmland is no longer a wise investment in the year 2006 (we are not an agrarian culture as the Soviets were in the early 1900's) and that if it must be sold as such, then the property has been devalued by the community, yet they happily enact zoning laws to esure that their own property values remain intact.
Also, infrastructure should not be burdened by development since there are such enormous increases in tax revenues, unless the funds are not appropriated toward updating said infrastructure. Unfortunately, what often happens is that the local governments squander the money on various school "programs" and other unnecessary projects and then cry about the burdened infrastructure and propose tax increases. That is not the fault of developers, but of the voters.
Understand that the tax base increases proportionally to the services that are required. If there is not enough money coming in from the tax payers for additional services, then they do not "require" such services.
And here is a newsflash for you - developers pay taxes for as long as they own the property. Please get it through your head that you aren't forking over anything that pays for development property. In fact, if your home is modest - the developer's property taxes, which are probably much higher than those on your property, are likely contributing more to your community than you are.
So you should say thank you if you choose to stay.
"You're not from around here, are you? Come visit us sometime. Spend a few hours parked in motionless traffic on Route 7 or I-66 every morning and afternoon for a week. You may come to feel differently."
No thanks, I like it rural. That is why I choose to live in a rural community. When it no longer is one, I'll choose another. :)
Yes, I understand that farmland isn't a good investment. All investments are a gamble and investors cannot require that laws--zoning laws or others--be changed to guarantee them a profit. And no, the property has not been devalued by the community. The property has maintained its former value as the agricultural land it is. The developer who buys land in anticipation of building houses on it, or the farmer who plans to clean up on selling the family farm, cannot be guaranteed his profit any more than I can require that the government and taxpayers guarantee my profit on a stock purchase I make.
Also, infrastructure should not be burdened by development since there are such enormous increases in tax revenues, unless the funds are not appropriated toward updating said infrastructure. Unfortunately, what often happens is that the local governments squander the money on various school "programs" and other unnecessary projects and then cry about the burdened infrastructure and propose tax increases. That is not the fault of developers, but of the voters.
Actually this is not true. Statistics show clearly that townhouse developments, for instance, generate far more costs to a community than their owners can possibly pay in taxes. And because the cost of housing here is so high and land is getting scarce, much of the new development is in townhouse rather than single-family development. Naturally it's pretty difficult to tell a homeowner that he has to fork over an additional thousand dollars a month in property taxes in addition to his mortgage, to pay for the new schools.
Building schools, police stations, fire stations, water treatment plants, and schools cannot be said to be squandering the money. Roads, of course, are beyond the purse of any local community, and roads are paid for by state and federal government, a process that takes far longer than the speed of putting up a stick house. In any case there is not a great deal of open space left around here for road construction without condemning and taking private residences, which is a government taking nobody wants to see either.
Understand that the tax base increases proportionally to the services that are required. If there is not enough money coming in from the tax payers for additional services, then they do not "require" such services.
Fine. Tell that to the people whose houses burn down, who are the victims of crime, because they don't "require" such services according to you.
And here is a newsflash for you - developers pay taxes for as long as they own the property. Please get it through your head that you aren't forking over anything that pays for development property. In fact, if your home is modest - the developer's property taxes, which are probably much higher than those on your property, are likely contributing more to your community than you are. So you should say thank you if you choose to stay.
Land that is zoned agricultural is taxed at a far, far lower rate than residential land. Near me, 153 acres of farmland generates about half the taxes of my little lot. No, I do not thank developers.
No thanks, I like it rural. That is why I choose to live in a rural community. When it no longer is one, I'll choose another. :)
Well, how very nice for you. I too am leaving suburbia for the country this spring. But you must see that there is something inherently selfish about this attitude for both of us: the attitude is, "I'm going to be just fine, but the millions who are facing overcrowded roads and schools, crime, gang activity, lack of water, and sewage on their lawns are just out of luck." Those people have to live and work somewhere. They can't all pack up and leave and go out to the country; they need jobs and schools. We need to think about them and do some more intelligent planning. The entire DC metropolitan area is not all that different, and the crime, crowding, and traffic problems are prevalent in every county here. We can't all move away and live in the middle of nowhere. How do you expect four million people to buy food and heating gas in the middle of nowhere?
As I say, unless you live here you cannot understand what exactly it is you are commenting on. In general it may be best to refrain from offering advice about issues in parts of the US one is not familiar with.