Agriculture IS Wicomico County-it's the look, it's the economy and its the ideals. Unfortunately developers and realitors have tweeked the thoughts of farmers to make them believe their properties won't be worth a dime. Not the case at all! Look at surrounding Counties with more strick development densities-they aren't hurting at all. In fact their land values are HIGHER than Wicomico County's! People criticize the use of the term "Rampant development"-it might not seem like it now in this economy, but take a stroll down Pemberton Drive or Nanticoke Road 15 or 20 years ago...now take the same route today-you wouldn't even recognize it! Just because development isn't taking place now doesn't mean that it hasn't been a problem.
IMO, I think that if farmers and such land owners what to keep their "developable" land values then perhaps they should pay the taxes on their land as such. Where is it fair that farmers get the tax cuts for ag land and farming all this time, but then can flip it for a monster profit? I bet if the County started taxing the A1 land at the value farmers desire then they would quickly change their tune about this legislation.
The street runs two ways. While I don't think that the legislation proposed yesterday was the best that it could be, I think that people will begin to realize that if written properly with a fair compensation, we will see a better use of the lands in this County. Unfortunately, the compensation will never be fair-too much will drain the County's proposed tranfer tax (or whatever is decided to use to pay out compensation) funds and too little will divide the County. WCCL had some great points for the proposed legislation; however they need to be involved with this committee to reach an agreement as much as possible. It will have to be a joint effort and compromise. There are hundred, if not thousands of farmers in our community that truly enjoy cultivating and working off their land-I would hate to see that go away just because they can make some quick bucks by selling out to a developer. I would hate to see these young farmers that want to buy land miss out on the opertunity that those people "selling out" took for granted.
While I am not a farmer and I do not own more than a 1/2 acre of land myself, I see the value of agriculture in this County. I've already seen how much can be lost. I know it is not my land, it is your's-All I would like to see is cooperation and some sort of compromise as this moves forward. Something is going to happen, but we shouldn't divide this County as a result.
Joe, my suggestion to you, since you are highly influential and have this blog for a great information source, start a thread where folks can voice their opinion as to what an acceptable compromise would be. Moreover, what would be an acceptable compensation measure? I would suggest that this not be a debate, but instead just bounce ideas so that this appointed committee can use them to help come to a reasonable solution. I would like to see it moderated in such a manor that all opinions are respected but criticism would not be allowed. Let's work together for a solution so that we can preserve the rural nature of our County on everybody's terms.
Thank you
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
Since when is that NOTU a property owners right?
ReplyDeleteThere is a security in land ownership, especially for Farmers. For hundreds of years in America, generation after generation have suffered through thick and thin to deliver food to your table.
Taking away their options is NO DIFFERENT today than it was with the American Indian. It was a mistake then, it's a mistake now.
If people want to preserve land, (which we are doing, by the way) hence the new Park land just purchased on the West side of the County, BUY IT! Don't tell us what we can and can't do with our land!
If YOU feel YOU want all this land preserved, YOU spend the money and buy it at full value. Until then, everyone needs to SHUT UP and stay out of our business as land owners.
Twist this any way you people want, we need a NO TRESPASSING BILL presented to Congress to keep the tree huggers off my land.
There is much merit to the thinking in this post. However the examples used- Pemberton Drive and Mt. Hermon Road are not examples of the problem, even though growth, especially on Pemberton Drive has been explosive. Why? The areas where growth has occurred are within the Growth Area designated by the Comprehensive Plan and those areas have been annexed into the City of Salisbury.
ReplyDeleteAnnexation is the reason for huge increase in residential density from Village at Sleepy Hollow back on into town. Nithsdale, West Nithsdale and Old Town, on out much farther on Pemberton Dr. are still in the County, but are in the Residential R-20 zoning district, not in the Agricultural A-1 district. The Ag A-1 district is what all the debate has been about.
Joe:
ReplyDeleteTell the person who wrote this that the development he mentioned is not in "cluster subdivisions" and some, possible much, is due to annexation into the City of Salisbury.
There are only about a dozen cluster subdivisions created in the period since they were first begun, with a total of 263 lots -- about 24 per year on average. And over have of the subdivided sites are permanently preserved open space.
We are being conned by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Wicomico Environmental Trust and Maryland Department of Planning.
I'm a farmer hugger Joe, not a tree hugger. Every time you say farmer, what you really mean is developer. Example, "taking away their(farmers) options...". Tell me how this takes away a farmers options, instead of a developers. We must understand that "options" is not land prices, which is a whole different argument, and a valid one. This bill would limit the options of a builder, since they are the ones that would be building the homes, and this was a homebuilding regulation, not an agricultural one.
ReplyDeleteThe author of this post makes a good point. The farmers want it both ways. They want their land valued at A1 tax values to benefit from the agricultural tax rate, but want to sell it at residential rates. Who wouldn't? If you are willing to accept the ag tax rate, then you should also be willing to accept the regulations.
ReplyDeleteIt's a win-win for the farmers (myself included - I own a small farm that realizes these benefits).
What is your view on the establishment of the transfer tax to be used as a means of providing compensation?
ReplyDeleteObviously there needs to be compensation, of which it was never discussed or addressed by the Council, but nobody has provided a source or means of providing the compensation. I feel that this bill, if written properly with the right compensation, could be extremely lucrative for landowners, particularly farmers-get paid and continue to do what you have been doing for years. I would go for it, but again, I'm not the one directly affected.
The ears are open now-I think it is the right time to speak up before this gets too far along again
Farmers who sell their land or develop their land have to pay an Ag Transfer tax as it is taken out of production. So in fact, the state does get some of the real estate tax back from the landowner if they no longer use it for Ag purposes. You need to do your research before you start spouting off about taxes and fairness.
ReplyDeleteThe farmer hardly EVER pays that tax...the developer foots the bill for it and then passes it down to the home buyers-do YOUR research before YOU start spouting off about taxes...
ReplyDeletePeople need to look at the long term effects of this as well. I know family famers that have struggled their whole lives to keep their land in their family. So what happens down the line when you inherit a piece of the land that you can't do sh!t with cuz it had to be divided between family members. If the lot size is increased and it has to be divided and didn't meet the county requirements size requirement and you had to sell it, then what? People need to consider ALL long terms effects. Basically once again its screw the land owners and farmers of this county. You want us to pay freaking higher taxes for your developments and roads. It's hard enough for our farmers to make ends meet as it is and are barely getting by. So basically you will force us to sell our property cuz of more taxes. So who benefits from this, the developers!!
ReplyDeleteJoe, I respect you and your opinion, but you're so wrong here it'd be funny... if it weren't so serious. You DO NOT, in the United States of America, NEVER HAVE, and SHOULD NOT have the right to do what you want with your land. Our founding fathers made darn sure of that, and courts have repeatedly clarified just how limited your options should be. The reason? Not a tough one, friends: what you do on your land can and usually does affect your neighbor. Those impacts (including water consumption, runoff, septic effluent, traffic, pollution, police, fire, library, other gov't services) demand that their be restrictions and rules about what goes where and why. This is the basis for planning and zoning. And guess what, it makes perfect sense. There's no sound argument for letting anybody do whatever they want with their land. None. Not in this country, anyway.
ReplyDeleteLet me tellyou something, fool. If my property is zoned for it, I'll do whatever I want with it.
ReplyDeleteso far it has just a bunch of whining...no suggestions for compensation and compensation sources. You can say "it's my land" all you want, but when the legislation comes back around, and it will, you all will be complaining AGAIN and driving your 10 tractors around town! NOBODY, including the council has come up with compensation terms and measures-and by compensation solutions I don't want to hear "pay me fair market value"-that's the idea of compensation. I want to know WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING TO COME FROM! How is the system going to work? Now is the time to provide the council and this new committee with YOUR ideas of how you should be compensated so that they can be investigated and develope to best suit everbody. Don't cry, piss and moan when they do something that you don't like after you provided no input on the means of compensation...ignorance is never an excuse
ReplyDeleteJoe, in all due respect, the lands in question are zoned A-1 Agricultural-Rural District
ReplyDeleteBy Definition:
"The purpose of the A-1 Agriculture-Rural District is to preserve areas of the County that are predominantly agricultural and to maintain the land base necessary for sustainable agricultural activity.
This district is designed to protect agriculture from incompatible residential, commercial and industrial development."
It's zoned to farm...
Lol. Joe, I've been writing zoning ordinances for (much better) communities. Please understand how arbitrary and illogical most Euclidian zoning laws are. When you sayd "If my property is zoned for it..." you're showing your ignorance. People put such trust in Euclidian zoning. Your property zoning is a) not up to you, b) a result of the factors I mentioned in my last post, and c) easy to change. Stop getting so hung up on it. Also, "fool"? Really? Are we children?
ReplyDeleteI would like to add to the conversation that all the farmers I know in the county supported this legislation.
ReplyDeleteI think it is important to understand that only 15% of the entire county has soils suitable for development. The study was conducted by Calvin Massey and paid for by Pete Richardson, one of the largest landowners in the county. Calvin presented his finding to the Council at the public hearing. Calvin is well respected soil scientiest and former director of the Enviormental Services division of the Wicomico County Health Department. Richardson explained that he spent all he felt he could afford for such a study but the study was incomplete. The study included the entire county. To complete the study the undeveloped areas in the A-1 district needed to be defined and those soils studied. So at the most were are talking about only 15% of the land in the county.
ReplyDeleteThe area's that the writter of the article has described are all in the Metro Core Area. Therefore they can be developed and some area's have been annexed by the City of Salisbury.
My solution is 1-5 with a 50% set aside in the A-1 district. Nobody will like this not the landowners,farmers, developers, or the Chesapeake Bay foundation or WCT. So it is a good solution.
"The 15% of the land in the county is developable" myth is entirely untrue. This statement is based on soils and drainage for septic. How many mounded septic systems do you see out there now? Land can be drained, graded and perked even if it is not a "developable soil". Some developments even have small water and wastewater systems.
ReplyDeleteSo to say that 15% of the land is developable, then you must not know too much about developers and their ways around these things...
Even further, if we limited development to just these "developable soils" then we would have a lot more pissed off farmers who think that their land is developable when it is actually not at all!