Currently, special interest groups are dictating how Wicomico County citizens should use our land, with no investment of their own. The Wicomico County Council has scheduled a public hearing on April 27, 2009 at the Wicomico County Youth and Civic Center for legislative bill 2009-5. This bill would change the zoning law and repeal the “1 lot per 3 acres cluster” provision and replace it with a “1lot for 15 acres” provision. This down zoning will negatively affect the equity of land in rural Wicomico County.
The County Council and County Executive need to hear from every landowner impacted, as to how this will affect the value of your land. Any business associated with construction that may be effected by this down zoning of agricultural land, (i.e. surveyors, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, etc.) should also be represented at this meeting to let the Council know how this legislation will affect your business.
This is a property rights issue. Together we can make a difference.
On Thursday, April 23 at 9 a.m., there will be a rally on the front steps of the Wicomico/Salisbury Government Office Building steps. The TRACTORCADE—a parade of tractors and commercial vehicles will travel downtown Salisbury to show support for our position. County Executive Richard M. Pollitt, Jr. will accept petitions and make remarks concerning this issue.
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
25 comments:
I'll be there. Thanks for letting us know about it.
Joe, I'm at work and can't view the video. What time is the public hearing on Monday?
This makes it fun if you inherit land. What if there are 4 children and it is to be divided equally and there are only 35 acres? Then what? These a$$holes need to stop.
If you go to the hen house to get two eggs for breakfast and on the way back into the kitchen you drop one. Well according to Billy McCain using billy bob math 101 you are still OK. You can scrape up the dropped egg with your manure shovel and still make a two egg omelet. No Change in Value!
Here is an Eastern Shore saying
"I'm sick and tired" of the people who post in the Grapevine and write letters to the Editor about
"Saving our Farms" I think you want to save me right out of the farming business! It is my farm--not our farm!
How about I come to your house and tell you what you can and cannot do with "Our yard"
This reminds me of the commercial about what would happen if firefighters ran the government.Was a Sprint commerical? Well in this case if we all have a goal of preserving our agriculture culture....who do you want to make the decision on this. Bill McCain, the MD Dept of Planning and the Wicomico Environmental Trust? Or let the farmers solve the problem. Council members McCain, Cannon, Hughes, and MacLeod better start listening to what the vast majority of the farmers have to say on this. Downzoning with no compensation will hurt our farmers.
Good thing we've got so many land use and planning experts in Wicomico County. Oh wait, even if it is your land, that doesn't mean you understand land use law or planning policy. If you don't know what you're talking about, please don't talk.
9:45 What you don't understand is who owns this farmland. This is a property rights issue. We own this land. The enviros want to believe it is "their land". Excuse me, it is my farm and my land. My family has farmed it for generations and I we intend on continuing to farm it. I don't need the government to tell me what I can or can't do with my land.
It's funny how the WCCL forgets to mention that the Wicomico Farm Bureau did not take a stand on the bill. Half of the the board of directors were in support of the proposed zoning restrictions. It seems that the ones that ACTUALLY farm are in favor of restricting development while those looking to quit are opposed. Do we want to cater to the "has been's" and jeopardize the future of the "will be's"?
Besides, if you are actually a farmer wouldn't you be in the field with your tractor during prime planting season rather than riding around downtown Salisbury?
10:41 More arrogrance from the Greenies who want to tell us what we can do with our farmland. Go play in your sandbox and you can call it your farm.
To 10:41, you don't know what you are talking about. The Farm Bureau voted unanimously against downzoning without compensation. There are a few farmers who support this legislation. They are the ones who have already had their land preserved, or rent all their land. They want to take rights away from the farmers who haven't or can't preserve their land. You will find out on the 27th what people think. Downzoning without a viable preservation program is wrong and will hurt farmers.
Anon 10:41
Your logic is very flawd, just like those who think they can interpret numbers any which way to benefit themselves.
Bare with me on this one please, if Im reading this right if you have 45 acres of land to sell it has to be broken into 3 15 acre lots? Who the heck wants to take care of a 15 acre lot? This will kill the already half dead building/construction of resedential homes around here.
Doug, that isn't correct. The new law that is being proposed only allows for the max. lot size of 2 acres on a 1 per 15 acre code. On a 60 acre property, there could only be 4- 2 acre max.lots all being contiguous by this part of the code. The lots would also have to pass the health department's perk test.
3:11, to continue your thought, and correct me if I'm wrong, this means that the remaining acreage could still be farmed. It does, however take away 8 acres from the farmer and cost the builder/ owner more for his house because he was forced to buy extra land he didn't want to. Currently, 3 houses could share 1 acre, making a good deal for the builder/ owner and preserves more farmable land, as well as making that 1 acre more valuable because it could be sold to 3 owners?
Is this the view I'm getting?
4:11
3 lots by right takes precedence, then the 1:15 with 2 acre MAX. lot size. Lots can be smaller than 2 acres. Or 1:10 with 1 acre max lot.
So on a 65 acre parcel....
2-2.5 acre lots (or smaller) due to 3 lots by right, plus 4 lots (1:15) smaller than 2 acres. For a total of 6 lots and a minimum of 52 acres of farmland.
As the law is presently, 1 lot per 3 acres means on a 60 acre parcel there is a slim possibilty but 20 homes could be built on an interior road and all lots contiguous. The first criteria that has to be met though is that 50% of the land is preserved forever and ever. The health dept. actually dictates by their perk wether is possible or not. With the new law proposed the density would be 1 lot per 15 acre but the lot would be a max. of 2 acres. These would also have to be contiguous. So one can see the potential that a landowner is going to be giving up if this law passes. Most farmers don't want to develope their land only when it is neccesary such as a drought year, sickness or things such as situations like those. But taking the rights away affect the equity when a person goes to the bank to borrow money.
4:52 - BINGO!!! That is absolutely CORRECT! The lender looks to see the viability of the sale for the land when assessing equity and loan value, and they have no intention of farming it. So, the raw land value is LESS under the new zoning.
This is in keeping with what CBF (oops, I meant Md Dept of Planning) and Governor Baker (oops, I did it again) have been pushing towards all over the Shore. It has nothing to do with what you want to do, it is only about what they want. The part that most people miss is that the downzoning also reduces the appraisal for purposes of buying the development rights, so by lowering your property values, they lower the amounts the State and others have to pay for land preservation programs.
Want to hear another fun one? The Critical Areas Commission is now saying that not only can you not build within the buffer (200 ft for new lots) you also have to agree that you won't drive or ride ATVs in the buffer. Now, I have no problem with preservation, and I don't own waterfron, but if a homeowner can't ride their mower or quad to the river to fish or take the cooler to the pier to go out on the boat, WTF is going on? Berfore long, they are going to have to start paying for the rights they are taking. Then lower the taxes on property in the Critical Areas because you cannot use it.
During a tough year, it used to be that a farmer could sell 1/2 an acre to a young person that wanted a starter house, or someone that needed a bigger place for the kids and the farmer would get just enough cash to make it through to a better season. The way it works now, you have to sell the whole farm or none of it, so the farmer has no ability to make it through the tough years. All they can do at the end of a tough year is develop.
The hidden issue behind this bill is forcing our citizens to pay a higher tax . If lots are going to be sold in 10-15 acre plots in rural area then that is going to force developers and individuals to have to build in a municipality or incorporated towns. Those of you who either own or live within a municipality or incorporated town know the additional tax burden place upon you. In most case your tax burden has double. After you add the additional cost of water and sewer to your expenses you have just about tripled your tax burden. So by allowing this bill to pass you are giving government more control of yours and mind individual rights as property owners. You are limiting future property owners rights as they are being force to pay higher bills to promote bigger government control of your land.
For those of you who say I live in the county and don’t have to worry about those issues. What happens when the municipality or incorporated towns annexes your property and then you are placed with the impact fees of connecting to the water and sewer lines? (Salisbury City is approximately $12,500) And don’t forget the extra tax bill you will have to pay as a result of being a city resident.
I was once told by the executive officer John Pick that it will be beneficial to becoming a city resident for the following reasons:
1. The city has developed a payment plan to spread the cost of connecting to the water and sewer over several years. (my favorite)
2. I will now have city police and fire protection.
3. I will have trash pick up.
Well I apologize in advance but the only advantage I see is I don’t have to take may trash to the dump anymore. I already have police protection through the Sheriff’s office and Maryland State Police. Fire protection is covered by yes our volunteers and depending what area of the county you live in paid firefighters through Salisbury City which is contracted by the county government.
A note to our council members who decide to vote for this bill remember election time is coming and the public it getting tired of new taxes and bigger government that does not listen to the citizens it represents.
Concern Citizen
So I went to the WCCL website.
Let's look at the players.
A bank President, a lawyer, a real estate agent, two land developers, and one farmer.
Since WHEN do we want those who make prime money from DEVELOPING farmland having anything to do with conserving said farmland.
Downzoning stinks plain and simple, I don't like anyone telling me what I can and can't do.
But how else can we STOP the developers that started the WCCL from "saving" my farmland?
They want to save farmland allright, until we are living in Long Island.
Here's an idea
Rather than using the WCCL's flawed system that encourages development, or doing nothing, (the current system) which allows development, what we need to do is use what we already have just tweak it a bit.
What the Tractorcade needs to call for (but they won't because Mr. Bank President won't allow it) is to ensure that the state/county fully funds the "sell your development rights program".
Here's how this system would work.
The Wi Ag Dept first looks at each farm in the county on an individual basis.
If you are an actual FARMER, not a bank president who owns almost 1000 acres, and it's getting time to retire, you can sell your development rights to the county/state for the going rate, but for a fixed time period, say 30 years. That way, your kids get to farm it and after 30 years, it passes back to the children doing the farming, perhaps to a predetermined trust. Then, if so desired, and this could be reinforced with tax incentives, the process can start all over again. It's win win.
But here is why you won't see the selling of recurring development rights take place.
We have sitting on the county board an executive who has a busines that makes money from appraisals. Less farmland being developed means less money in his pocket, and we have the newly formed WCCL, filled with developers and bank presidents with deep pockets. These folks are in the background getting everyone emotionally charged up and creating a big smoke screen in general. The smoke they are creating is so you or the OTHER county executives don't see who the players are.
Oh yes, yes, I can hear the howling now.
I don't want my taxes going to pay for Blan Harcum's farm every thirty years.
And I will probably quickly see the WCCL paid mouthpiece (lawyer) get on here telling my why this won't work because of the definition of "is"
Well think of it this way, our farmland is a natural resource. They aint makin' any more of it. When it is gone, it is GONE!
State and County, put up or shut up. If Wet or the other Enviro people want to see/live near/drive by "green space", they must pay for it. They pay for their starbucks, they pay for the roads, a recurring expense, they are going to have to pay to live near farmland, or it is ALL going to go away, thanks Mr Developer!
BTW here are few links on selling development rights.
http://www.malpf.info/overview.html
http://www.wicomicocounty.org/pnz/p&z.htm
The program in it's current iteration has several warts. The first being it's underfunded, second, it's a one time deal.
Isn't downzoning a form of condemnation? "Just Compensation" is a constitutional guarantee, when property rights are taken.
Downzoning "takes" value. Maryland has not been sued over this issue, but courts in other jurisdictions have agreed. Pay the farmers for downzoing their land.
It is their land, zoing is a form of police power, and has been used as such for many years, however, there is some new thought that it is wrong without "just compensation" It would be good to go to court if this zoning is passed. Especially in Maryland.
I think I finally have my head around this thing; thanks for the MALPF link.
Under the guise of keeping the shore a farming rich area, 5 or more salaries are paid to create an organization to buy the individual rights of property owners, namely farmers, to exercise the right to do what they want with land they own.For "$600-$10,000 per acre" prize money, no one in the perpetual future can ever build their house on those acres; not descendants nor purchasers. In order to pay these 5 or more salaries, The money is charged back to the same farmers, as well as everyone else, through taxes. Since this has to be monitored in perpetuity, the farmer's descendants and everyone else wind up paying way more in the long run than was ever profited by the farmer, and all the while there are a bunch of property owners out there living their lives without rights that other people have.
Seeing the ignorance of this quick cash scheme, the fish aren't biting, and the 5 salaries aren't making enough headway in their theft of rights and increased taxes due to the fact that people, as a whole, are more intelligent than they thought.
So, they think they can introduce a law named 2009-5 and force their agenda on these same farmers WITHOUT paying out cash prizes! It's win-win for them, and meanwhile, nobody is buying or building on the proposed soon to be worthless land.
Do I have this close to being right?
MALPF, which is administered through Maryland Dept of Agriculture, is a very popular program for farmers because it gives many farming families the opportunity to sell their potential development rights and their land will be forever protected as ag land. If a farmer seeks preservation through MALPF, the land is appraised to determine the market value of the land. The farmer get a portion of the difference between ag land and market value which is the value the development potential creates. With legislative bill 2009-5, the development potential will be drastically reduced by the down zoning making the funds available to the farmer for preserving the land much less. Again, this is a property rights issue. The decision to preserve the land should be made by the owner not by legislation. Time and time again, the council has been told compensation to the landowner has to be a part of the down zoning. The legislation will reduce the value of the land without compensation.
Post a Comment