Northwest Observer Forums > M.A.A.N. > Green Thumb Topics > Land Conservation / Open Space Preservation
Northwest Observer Forums > M.A.A.N. > Green Thumb Topics > Land Conservation / Open Space Preservation |
|
| Moderated by: Steve Adkins | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Possumhund Member 
|
I've noticed many forum participants have close roots to the land in our communities, but we haven't yet had a discussion area for an exchange of ideas on preserving our rural heritage. All of our communities have taken some small steps toward preservation, but much more could be done. So, lets hear it guys and gals; what are your views on rural preservation? To get things rolling here's a link to an article in the Raleigh News & Observer about conservation easements- a technique that preserves farmland and forrest while allowing the owner to continue harvesting their crops and giving them some extra cash and tax advantages. Any farm land owners out there listening? http://www.newsobserver.com/news/growth/story/647357.html Last edited on Jul 24th, 2007 12:56 pm by Possumhund |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member 
|
Possumhund This is sort of off subject I guess but are you not outraged by the company in Florida trying to sell the flood plain to the State of North Carolina for 6 million dollars? The Haw River park has been talked about for years. The state with the help of Guilford county has worked very hard for years trying to buy the land to make this park happen. They contacted land owners in the area years ago and told them what was planned. So now some group out of Florida has bought 700 acres in the middle of the area that had been earmarked for the park, are going to put in 700 houses in a gated community. Their attorney says "but it will be a very nice community with lots of open space and add money to the cofers of Guilford County." The acreage that the Park system is trying to buy is in the 100 year flood plain but the developers say they can put ball fields for their residents and they will lose some houses, so the land is worth 6 million dollars. 96% of the land in discussion is wetlands. There is a hearing on 8/8/07 at Guilford County planning board. It is greed like this that makes open space and parks such a problem in a community. |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member 
|
Good post, Jane! There ought to be a law!!!!  |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Edited by Poster. Last edited on Aug 5th, 2007 02:34 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
So it all comes down to what is best for the individual vs the greater community, huh? Would the state still have the option of condemning the property now? |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Edited by Poster. Last edited on Aug 5th, 2007 02:34 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Edited by Poster. Last edited on Aug 5th, 2007 02:35 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Edited by Poster. Last edited on Aug 5th, 2007 02:35 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Edited by Poster. Last edited on Aug 5th, 2007 02:35 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
And who determines "just compensation"? |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Edited by Poster. Last edited on Aug 5th, 2007 02:36 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
My complaint is that I am sure that what ever the home owner sold his property for he did not get 6 million dollars for 50 acres in the hundred year flood plain. Where are the schools and roads to support this huge development? Guilford County is so far behind in their ordinances. Orange County and Wake County are so much more progressive in their land use ordinances. So you and I taxpayer are going to pay what ever price this out of town developer is holding us up for plus the schools, roads and all the other infrastructure this development requires. While it sounds like a lot of tax money residential does not pay it share of the infrastructure which is why you have to have commercial development. |
|||||||||||
|
Possumhund Member
|
Exactly right, Jane. Jim's point's are valid, though I think he's really playing devil's advocate in this thread since I know he's very interested in conservation issues. However, government exists not only to protect private property but also to provide for the "public welfare". Certainly preserving a modicum of open space is in the public welfare, and protecting our water supply, especially a stream whose water quality is already threatened is also in the public welfare. I'm curious how this property in the flood plain can possibly be developed given the concern that exists over water pollution in Lake Jordan and the remediation that the state is likely to require of municipalities along the Haw to protect the lake's water. |
|||||||||||
|
Possumhund Member
|
Jim Flynt wrote: macca wrote:So it all comes down to what is best for the individual vs the greater community, huh? This is a difficult problem for the public and for landowners to resolve. No one wants to lose a substatial portion of their net worth whether to a goverment condemnation or a drop in market values due to an undesirable neighbor (trailer park, pig farm, paper mill, landfill, etc.). The conservation easements referenced in the opening post are one way to encourage private landowners to preserve open space, but more needs to be done. One technique I'd like to see locally is reduced property tax rates for farmland, forrests, and other open space which would be some encouragement for landowners not to sell their property for development. I'd also like to see our local communites approve higher density housing. The current rules which place limits on minimum lot size in order to preserve a rural atmosphere actually work in reverse in a market where there are plenty of well heeled homebuyers for whom price isn't really an impediment when puchasing a home. Higher density housing would provide much needed "affordable" housing, and in exchange for allowing the higher density buildout, a larger proportion of the property could be dedicated to open space while still allowing the developer a fair profit. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Higher density is a problem with septic systems and wells although wells are less or going to be less of an issue in Stokesdale and Oak Ridge. Density it tied in to recharge rates and septic needs. Summerfield at one point was discussing a municipal septic system so as to protect the lot sizes in the core district. I personally thought that was a great idea to perserve the feeling of a small town. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Edited by Poster. Last edited on Aug 5th, 2007 02:36 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
Possumhund Member
|
I can agree with you comletely there' Jim. Plus there's the "soft" cost to the public at large, quality of life. |
|||||||||||
|
ff12 Member 
|
The Comm. of Ag. for NC is trying to go the conservation easement route and he did get some money included in the state budget. Most of that money will end up down east due to Basnight and his friends that control state govt. Farmers could stay on their land but the tax rates even for ag uses have gone up tremendously, add to that rising production costs, labor costs ,equipment and the fact that what they get for their crops has not matched their expenditures makes growing houses look pretty inviting. (Wheat sells for about .30 cents a bushel more today than it did n 1950) |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Edited by Poster. Last edited on Aug 5th, 2007 02:38 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
Possumhund Member
|
ff12 wrote:
What you say is certainly true. But farmers, while they must make a profit to survive, farm because they love their profession, they love the land and nature, and they prize the lifestyle farming affords their families. I don't think what we see around here is "in production" farmland being sold for development. Mostly what we see is children inheriting former farmland and either because they cannot afford the taxes or they do not live in the area and cannot take care of the property they convert the land to cash. I suspect for the most part these children are well off and the proceeds of the sale, while affording them some discretionary spending money, are not absolutely needed. If it were, the parents would have sold that land sooner to care for their grown children and grandchildren. The Piedmont Land Conservancy and other land preservation groups try to identify farmland owners who want to see their property remain in a natural condition. Then between the money paid for the conservation easement, any productive use the landowner still gets from the land, and lowered property tax rates the landowner continues to profit from their land while preserving it in perpetuity. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Possumhund- As I remember though donating land may not be that simiple. That is what happened over on Lake Brandt road where the huge houses are. Ms Jones donated her land for a bird sanctuary but she left no money with it so it was sold for houses and the land was bought in a cheaper area with part of the money and the rest of the money is kept in a trust fund to pay for anything that might be done to the land. So some other area of the state benefited from her donation which is ok but wouldn't it have been nice to have had a hundred acre bird sanctuary in this area? |
|||||||||||
|
Possumhund Member
|
You are absolutely correct, Jane. Conservation easements just prohibit future development as long as the normal expenses of maintaining the property are kept paid up. If they are not the courts can revoke the easement and take the land to sell and pay off debt. Is there a good alternative to conservation easements besides a direct property donation to a trust or local/state government? |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Edited by Poster. Last edited on Aug 5th, 2007 02:39 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
No Jim she gave her property to the UNC, I believe it was, as a bird sanctuary but she had no trust fund so the university sold the land and purchased land else where . |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Edited by Poster. Last edited on Aug 5th, 2007 02:34 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
CUZ Member 
|
BUMP |
|||||||||||
|
PaulS Member
|
I understand that users are allowed to go back to their posts and make edits, but what I don't understand is why someone would take the time to make numerous posts to a topic, and then go back several days later and remove the entire text of every single post they have made. This is not the first time/topic where this has occurred. Can someone, perhaps even the original author, enlighten me as to how the removal of earlier posts is advantageous to the discussion of this or any other topic? |
|||||||||||
|
darrelldawg Member 
|
PaulS wrote: I understand that users are allowed to go back to their posts and make edits, but what I don't understand is why someone would take the time to make numerous posts to a topic, and then go back several days later and remove the entire text of every single post they have made. This is not the first time/topic where this has occurred. Can someone, perhaps even the original author, enlighten me as to how the removal of earlier posts is advantageous to the discussion of this or any other topic? Good point! PaulS been wondering that my dawg self! How can some body be deemed creditable when after they go back and edit the original post to have a different meaning after they get a response? or as you point out delete their entire history of posts. That would lead this dawg to think that they been out in the heat without a hat! Darrell D. Dawg author-7 effective ways a dawg can beat the heat! |
|||||||||||
|
bama80 Member 
|
I am sure we all say/type things in the heat of the moment that in retrospect.. we would not want them preserved for all eternity. One can make their own assumptions as to the reason for the edit (guilt, secrecy, etc). I for one am glad that I have to right/privilege to edit my posts. Even Thoguh I hardly evar botherr. |
|||||||||||
|
Cracker Jax Member 
|
You make a very good point Paul S. I can see where complete edits would make it extremely difficult for people who aren't keeping up on a daily basis to know what folks on here are talking about. Sort of like listening in on one end of a phone conversation....... |
|||||||||||
|
Cracker Jax Member
|
bama80 wrote: Even Thoguh I hardly evar botherr.
I don't think the issue is with minor edits though. I think it's more a matter of having a clue what people are responding to. For those truly interested in Land Conservation/Open Space, this has got to be a difficult thread to follow when every other post has disappeared. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Edited by poster. Last edited on Aug 15th, 2007 11:45 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
I knew about the unconditional offer of the hundred acres but the acreage while extemely important to the health of the river is totally underwater all the time. It is the proverbial swamp land and totally unusable to the developer. It is a hundred acres that he now does not have to pay taxes on. I do absolutely agree the state drug their feet and for all intents and purposes talk out of both sides of their mouths about conservation issues. On the one hand it is extremely important but on the other hand we don't want to pay for it. I find golf courses particularly problemmatic and this developer has been sanctioned and fined for erioson and water polution issues in building their two other huge developments in Chatham county. I do hope the county inspectors do their job. While I have water and don't think there will be a particular issue for me in my lifetime I am not sure my garndchildren will not suffer the consequences of the decisions of governments and big business. |
|||||||||||
|
Possumhund Member
|
The discouraging thing about all this development is that "once its done, its done". There is no going back. If we don't figure out some way to light a fire under people/government we can kiss our rural communities goodbye- all we'll have left are the memories. Will our grandchildren be better off because we made some dough selling our farmland? |
|||||||||||
|
JamesAttaway Member 
|
Possumhund wrote: The discouraging thing about all this development is that "once its done, its done". There is no going back. If we don't figure out some way to light a fire under people/government we can kiss our rural communities goodbye- all we'll have left are the memories. Will our grandchildren be better off because we made some dough selling our farmland?Possum, You have said quite a mouthful of truth and to Illustrate lets all get on my little time tour bus grab a seat and hang on cause we will be back before Pappy's feeding Time. Welcome ladies & gents Today our time trip takes us down I-85 south to a country setting just minutes from downtown Atlanta, a land of open fields, fresh springs and creeks, birds singing and a 13 year old boy running bare foot through the meadows with his trusty dog. The date August 1933. Hold on we are now arriving, the bus doors are now opening, Wait! this Is not Pea Ridge Georgia August 1933, No meadows no dogs playing with its boy, no fresh streams.Where are we? The driver tells me we are at the right location just still in 2007 in what is now Tucker Georgia at a concrete plant next I 285 8 lanes of Highway. Guess Possum is right we cant go back! Hang in well get the controls fixed and journey back to NW Guilford County. Hold on and lets see where we land Yes Pappy I know Its almost Feeding Time! |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Edited by poster. Last edited on Aug 15th, 2007 11:45 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
Super Moderator Super Moderator
|
Flame ideas, not people. Personal attacks are not allowed. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Unfortunately at the end of the day if we don't have air to breath or water to drink the condition of our finances will not matter. I feel that as a society we have the responsibility of protecting the future of the generations to come. It certainly does not seem to be working to let private business be responsible for the protection. Less than 50% of the people in this country practice organized religion so that leaves government. I pay my taxes and I expect my government to take some of that money and protect my grandchildrens environment. |
|||||||||||
|
Possumhund Member
|
Amen to that, Jane. Our generation(s) has done much to mortgage our decendents future- think social security, national debt, etc. Is the loss of a habitable environment the next "gift" we leave? |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Edited by poster. Last edited on Aug 15th, 2007 11:47 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Not as much as the Catholic Church I bet. |
|||||||||||
|
Possumhund Member
|
What's the difference between gross and net land percentage? And while you're at it, what are the numbers? |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Edited by poster. Last edited on Aug 15th, 2007 11:47 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
Possumhund Member
|
Duh! I thought you meant state/local government. Federal lands include millions and millions of acres that no private citizen would want (desert [not dessert], mountaintops, military bases, etc.) as well as national parks, forests, and other protected areas. It wasn't specified in the original post to this thread, but most replies have assumed we are talking about local conservation, which is natural since local is the arena we are likely to have any influence over and has the most impact on our quality of living. Question: if a large enough percentage of our rural land is converted to housing developments so that it is no longer rural but is still not a city, will new potential owners still pay the premium price developers/landowners are getting now? In other words, are property values going to continue to increase when the desirability (rural quality) of lots decreases? I think not; whereas cummunities that adopt open space ordinances and restrictive development codes have been shown to increase the property values in those communites compared to historical values. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Possum, Cuz and I was doing away with some open space over this way this weekend. We went tree shopping and got a little carried away and well, there is gonna be slightly more Christmas trees over here for both of us to light up soon. Four truckloads worth......Big 'uns too. Last I saw of Cuz he was still a diggin' and still a sweatin'..... Bye Bye open space. Welcome Santa Claus. Last edited on Aug 19th, 2007 01:50 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
Scott L Member 
|
Since this forum is closing I can be reached at scottlawrence@triad.rr.com. I would like to talk about this topic. Scott |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Why is this thread closing? |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Jane, read the thread entitled "Dear Forum Participants" at the top of the NWO Forum opening page for the answer to your question. |
|||||||||||
|
muchless Member 
|
For goodness sakes, ya'll, plant a damn tree! |
|||||||||||
|
stokesdale Member
|
muchless wrote: For goodness sakes, ya'll, plant a damn tree! It is sure better than knocking them down! |
|||||||||||
