Joe,
Thanks for posting things about the Wicomico County Concerned Landowners. By the comments on the blog it appears there is support of us in the community. If you get the chance, I would appreciate you putting another item announcing our website. We now have a letter on there for people to send direct to the council and executive to tell the council to vote NO on the legislation. www.wicomicocountyconcernedlandowners.com
Thank you so much for your help.
15 comments:
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?
Orson,
You're a sharp guy. And perhaps I didn't make myself clear as I just reread my post.
note to self- Really have to NOT have a dinner beer then post...
All choices are bad. Down zoning is a potential loss of income when the land is sold. Development rights can be bought back, but it's expensive. WCCL's plan, in my view promotes increased development and I'm a bit of a skeptic regarding the motives of the indivduals involved.
Here is the rub. We have to change our concept of what our farmland is. Oil is (most believe) a finite gift. Just like coal or other resources of embodied energy. Productive farmland is the exact same thing. When it's gone, it is gone. When is the last time someone tore down a house to make a farm? Paying a farmer for his development rights on a recurring basis is in many ways a form of entitlement. The state/county rewards the farmer so that he and his family can keep on doing what they do.
Orson, I don't like this option either but the bottom line is a simple one. There is a certain amount of "farmable" land in Wicomico County. I and most people in these parts want to protect our farmland in order to preserve ag and industry jobs (chicken, feed, vegetables, etc.)
Can YOU come up with a better plan?
Orson, where do you want your children or grandchildren to live? If you say Long Island or Jersey, well, I guess we just disagree.
Joe, you gotta keep these nutjobs off of here. Anon 9:21 is close to being right, but Orsonwells and your original poster are fools. MALPF is NOT some crazy scheme. The segmentation of property rights is as fundamental to American property as private ownership. Landowners have the right to sell or donate certain rights, just as they have the right to sell ALL rights (development, mineral, farming, etc.). If you don't get that, you don't understand land ownership. The ONLY folks railing against this are the people who want to see us look like New Jersey or Long Island or Suburban Atlanta. The ONLY people railing against this are single-family real estate developers and the farmers who have been brainwashed to believe that they would lose value, equity, or loan collateral through downzoning or an effective TDR program. The FACT of the matter is that every scholarly paper published and every after-the-fact research report done in this region has shown that property values INCREASED (admittedly only marginally) for farms following an effective downzoning and TDR implementation. Property values increased because the market adjusts positively in the face of certainty. When it is more likely that land will be farmed in perpetuity, or at least more contiguous land is likely to be farmed, higher market value is placed on farms in that area. NO bank stopped lending, or reduced the lending amount for seed or equipment. Anyone who tells you differently is simply lying, saying what they FEEL, not what they KNOW. The reason for this is its easier to do no research and to cower in the face of progress, versus the much more difficult process of learning, knowing, and working with your community for what is best. That might just be too much to ask from some of these folks, Joe. Someone attacking MALPF is just laughable and only shows their ignorance. Someone attacking MET, Lower Shore Land Trust, or another land preservation entity is equally laughable. These organizations have nothing to do with "taking someone's rights or land away". Quite the opposite. The only way development rights end up with these organizations is when a LANDOWNER sells or gifts them (for enormous tax benefits). It's so funny to me that people are confused by this, seeing it as some sort of conspiracy.
To 9:21, You seem reasonable and your argument has some value, but if the goal is to preserve farmland (that the farmers own, not you and I) to preserve our views or our idyllic drives out in the country, than the entire community should share in the cost of the preservation since they are the ones that benefit. 2009-5 just takes rights away from farmers so certain groups can claim a victory. This won't stop development. Everyone must share the cost, farmers, city dwellers, environmentalists. Not this way which puts the entire burden on the farmers back.
im in the county and i would like to voice sumthing... i hope my house never catches fire and thoses engines dont have enough water on them cause cheif see has it set to get rid of the engine tanker out of station one cause his comment was we are not a tanker busniess.. well u mite not be but i do have kids and a fmily i dont want killed or your firefighters cause they run out of water... i hope the mayor sees thisa and thinks about this.. Us as county residents of nutters crossing dont not want that station to loose the engine tanker.. tat tanker needs to stay thats are only help.. it dnt make since to take 2000 gallons and put a 700 gallon truck or engine in its place.. please read this and voice it to others
..
9:21,
I agree that there is a finite amount of farmable land here, and am very familiar with one farm in particular where the farmer had one part of one field that wouldn't grow anything decently and the other 2/3 of the same field did just fine as well as all the rest of his fields. This needs to be protected by farmers through good stewardship and working through the soil experts we have at the extension service. One would think that if a farmer ever got in to a pinch and had to sell a lot or two to get by, that he would sell the corner of the field that wasn't worth a crap for farming anyway. This is called natural selection and common sense. I'm not sure we can legislate that.
I am a personal freedom preservationist, but I also understand that rules need to be made and followed to keep the city in the city and out of the rural areas, The wildlife need their place, farmers need theirs, and the town needs to stay within borders to minimize costs on their city services.
Where my children live is their choice; and it is my job to make sure those choices are there for them. 2009-5 ignores your good farmland and lowers land value arbitrarily to fit the needs of those who administrate it.
A better plan? Maybe. Get all the soil experts together and identify farmable land everywhere; compare that map with where we are now in growth, and zone accordingly, with just compensation.
I agree with your agenda, but not MALPF.
signed, nutjob!
10:02, you are absolutely wrong on the scientific side. There have been plenty of studies that show the opposite of what you say. To make fun of people and call them laughable just shows your ignorance on this issue and the arrogance of the entire environmental community. You laugh at farmers because you think they're ignorant or stupid, and therefore don't understand this issue. You need to talk to people who understand Agriculture, like Lew Riley. Sec. Riley has spoken out against this legislation. I think he is a bit more credible than you or your precious King Burnett or Bill McCain.
Your logic doesn't jive with common sense. If you have something of value and I take part of it away, you're trying to tell me I'm better off with less. Riggghhttt..... That is the typical argument that is used just before someone reaches into your pocket to steal from you. Development rights have value and if you take some away, you will have less value than you had before. End of discussion.
11:33, this is 10:02. I hardly know Bill McCain and have no idea who King Burnett is. I PERSONALLY know Lew Riley, and I respect him. You, however, command no respect. Where's your argument? You didn't present one. Once again, you've only used an elementary line of logic, but no EVIDENCE. Yes, I agree, it "jives with common sense" to suggest that the changing of zoning to reduce the number of developable units on a property reduces land value. However, IT DOESN'T. The entirety of academic and LOCAL research proves it. It's just not true. What IS true is if you downzone a handful of properties the value of those properties go down. When the entire agricultural zoning in a county is changed, values go up (marginally). It's fact. You're wrong. You've done no research. You're speaking from your gut. I understand that, but you've got no role in speaking in a public form. That, my friend, is the end of the discussion.
"meanwhile, nobody is buying or building on the proposed soon to be worthless land."
Orson, it's not worthless if you actually want to farm instead of contributing to the degradation on the Shore. Farmers still pay top dollar for farmland and many farmers from around the counrty are actually trying to relocate here. Ag is our number business and our number one comodity, not housing.
Why is Bob Holloway listed on this web site as being opposed to this legislation? He has already placed over 1000 acres of his own farmland into preservation. That doesn't make any sense.
12:57,
Point taken
12:30...and yet you don't have any evidence either. You quote "the entirety of academic and Local research proves it". In fact, I have done the research, the two local studies from Agroecology center are fraudulent and have been proven so by peer review. Go google down zoning and you will find plenty of research showing you don't know what you're talking about. In Maryland alone, three counties that downzoned showed up to a 70% loss in land value after downzoning. I've got the research to back it up, but doubt you do.
LOL. 3:39, you're kidding, right? The "peer review" you're referring to has been roundly debunked and 2 of the reviewers later wrote a letter to the Center for Agroecology explaining that their participation was elicited under false pretenses and that they actually supported the original conclusions. I know what I'm talking about. It's a shame you're trying to twist public perception by hoping no one knows the facts. Funny that you're using a Google search to do your 'academic' reviews. That right there sums up the quality of the research you're leaning on.
4:16, in fact the peer review was done by Dr. Jeffrey Michael, Towson University, Dr. Raymond Palmquist, of North Carolina State University, and Dr. George Parson of the University of Delaware. None of whom have recanted their peer review, saying the original study had very serious errors in the research methodology and little basis for the conclusions reached.
Most academic research can be found through the web (that is how the web started) and can be found easily through using search engines like google. I'm still waiting for you to prove your point. Oh yeah, here's another piece you might find interesting. "Downzoning, Fairness and Farmland Protection," by Jesse J. Richardson, Jr, asst. professor in the department of Urban Affairs and Planning at Virginia Tech published in the University of Florida Journal of Land Use.
1:05...Please do not make uniformed statements about things you obviously have not looked into. Bob Holloway has NOT placed any land into the MALPF. He has several hundred acres PENDING to be accepted and as a landowner wants to assure that the land maintains its value. Why would MALPF preserve land that has no potential value for development? Seems like there is no need for the MALPF to preserve farmland if the council takes away the value of the land by downzoning.
Post a Comment