Missouri loses a notch in population ranking (Kansas City, Springfield: appointed, house)

[GraniteStater]

Conservation of land is an extremely high priority here in NH compared to KS where I previously lived. I think a lot of it has to do with landuse, topography, and wetlands as a whole. NH has many wetlands, wooded areas, and scenic areas. Conservation groups set up a monetary collection toward preserving the land as conservation so it will not be developed at all.

One example would be in Warner. "The town is hoping to buy an easment on the land with $100,000 already set aside for conservation. The Society for the Protection of NH Forests would hold the easement, is working to raise $55,000 to cover surveying and closing costs. In July, a RI couple purchased the property, with the intention of putting it into conservation. The Mink Hills area isn't far from the center of town, but, with its abundant wildlife and quiet, it feels wild. The plan would conserve 426 acres."

I think conservation commissions in towns are a great in terms of preserving rare habitats and riparian corridors for future generations to use. This is becoming especially important in smaller communities across the US as sprawl continues to consume rural lands at a rapid pace for development. Conservation lands act as a protecting buffer to outside forces. Conservation lands can be used by the public for recreation, for trail use, fishing, etc.

So to answer other posters questions, zoning becomes an increasing issue when a smaller community has a rapid pace of population growth. A prime example is any exurban community that is adjacent to a metropolitan area. These residents often move to these areas for schools, affordable tract housing, and jobs. The town also often makes the developers pay their own way for infrastructure upgrades to subdivisions that include roads, sewer lines, water lines, etc. However, new residents often demand more services which generally increases taxes. Zoning in rural areas is less necessary, especially in wooded areas since most people are spread out quite a bit. Having a strong conservation ethic as well as not building near floodzone areas offers residents the benefit of taking advantage of the recreational ammenities nearby.

[OA 5599]

Conservation committees like that are not unknown in Missouri. Recently, the Nature Conservancy purchased something like 11,000 acres of land in the headwaters of the Current River in Texas County. It was literally all up for auction. It is beautiful, remote, and undeveloped land, and I can only imagine what would have happened if it had been sold to someone or some corporation with the interest of clear-cutting it. Also, the L-A-D Foundation owns thousands of acres of wild land in Shannon County, which will never be developed. They do some responsible logging (which is a good thing for economic interests and forest health), but the land is more or less public and has many hiking trails.

There is no zoning to speak of in most of the rural Ozarks. Also no building code, and very little regulations besides possibly the size or presence of a lagoon or septic tank, depending on the size of the house.

As I've said before and said again, outsiders coming in droves to the Ozarks simply aren't a problem, besides some more popular areas like around Branson and Franklin and Jefferson counties. High poverty levels, an elderly population (leading to substantial population decline in the next few decades), little/no job growth, and meth are the largest social problems facing the Ozarks. Environmentally, poor logging practices, the dumping of trash along gravel roads (whole refrigerators, couches, etc), and littering in general, are large problems facing the Ozarks. It literally breaks my heart to see dozens of acres on end clear-cut with every single tree taken. It degrades the water quality of streams draining from the area. Responsible, managed logging is perfectly acceptable and should be encouraged, but not the literal raping of the land.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by OA 5599

Conservation committees like that are not unknown in Missouri. Recently, the Nature Conservancy purchased something like 11,000 acres of land in the headwaters of the Current River in Texas County. It was literally all up for auction. It is beautiful, remote, and undeveloped land, and I can only imagine what would have happened if it had been sold to someone or some corporation with the interest of clear-cutting it. Also, the L-A-D Foundation owns thousands of acres of wild land in Shannon County, which will never be developed. They do some responsible logging (which is a good thing for economic interests and forest health), but the land is more or less public and has many hiking trails.

There is no zoning to speak of in most of the rural Ozarks. Also no building code, and very little regulations besides possibly the size or presence of a lagoon or septic tank, depending on the size of the house.

As I've said before and said again, outsiders coming in droves to the Ozarks simply aren't a problem, besides some more popular areas like around Branson and Franklin and Jefferson counties. High poverty levels, an elderly population (leading to substantial population decline in the next few decades), little/no job growth, and meth are the largest social problems facing the Ozarks. Environmentally, poor logging practices, the dumping of trash along gravel roads (whole refrigerators, couches, etc), and littering in general, are large problems facing the Ozarks. It literally breaks my heart to see dozens of acres on end clear-cut with every single tree taken. It degrades the water quality of streams draining from the area. Responsible, managed logging is perfectly acceptable and should be encouraged, but not the literal raping of the land.

The Nature Conservancy is a wonderful organization and has done some great work. My mother is a member of that organization.

I hear ya on some of the bad landuse practices. Here in my area a big problem "has" been the clearcutting of land for houses on very large lots in rural areas of the state. A developer will come in and clear much land instead of building mostly among the forest. However, the national housing slowdown has substantially cut the number of new housing permits and starts, especially for 2nd home development in rural areas + along some of the lakes.

NH actually faces a similar problem like MO when you look at demographics among the rural counties. The difference is that the aging in NH is forcing out some of the younger residents due to more limited job opportunities (in the rural areas) and rather high cost of living. The higher cost of living has come about due to out of staters come in with a lot of equity from the sale of their houses in other states, and then paying over-inflated prices for real estate. Now the RE market is gradually correcting itself to a more sustainable price point level for more buyers due to this rather severe economic downturn.

[GraniteStater]

I get off-topic way to easily...

Back on topic...
I think that some of the rural counties in northern MO could benefit some ecnomically due to the emerging potential of more renewable energy, primarily from wind farms.

One example would Atchison County in the extreme NW corner of the state. Another wind farm has gone online in the past couple years has been over in King City in Gentry County. However, I have read about some issues with this medium scale wind farm. It appears that improper site placement was a factor in this case and the turbine blades themselves were too close to rural properties. GIS technology should have been better used to accurately map out the the EXACT distance that the houses were located in relation to the proposed wind farm.

The landowner can get royalty payments by leasing out land to the wind energy companies in order to put turbines on the property. In general, high voltage electric transmission lines need to be nearby in order for a large scale wind farm to be successful in a rural area. Wind turbines can be easily integrated into existing corn and soybean crop fields with no loss in total yields. It is mostly a win/win situation as long as the wind farm is property sited by a team that includes the wind energy company, the land surveyor, and someone with knowledge of Geographic Information Systems like myself.

[Lake Junkie]

Originally Posted by J1ndo

...As the population increases, so does the need for regulation. Your "ruralians" aren't fundamentally different than the newcomers, it's just easier to get by without regulations when there's not that many of you, you have a lot of room, and you share a relatively common view of the land and its uses.

And for many of the newcomers, the increased regulation that you chafe against will often seem like utter freedom, so it's still a net gain for them. They won't perceive any irony, for there is none for them.

The burden of adjustment is mostly yours to carry. The weight of that burden depends on your ability to adapt. You have no birthright to the land, no greater claim than the newcomers have. You were there first, sure; but all that gives you is a brief opportunity to act to try to steer the change in a way that is less painful to you.

There's another facet of this issue that I think some of you might want to consider, and that is that we all become so accustomed to our own environment that we really don't "see" it any more. If you've lived in an area for a long, long time, have you ever had trouble giving someone directions? You know how to get there...but you don't know the names of the streets...and you still see things the way they "used to be"...!

When I was first here, I would ask someone how to get to so-and-so street (out in the country, ok...) and they would start by saying, "...go up the highway and turn right at the old Claxton place...then go to where the big red barn burned down..." I wanted to say, did I mention I just moved here?

Now I laugh at myself when I talk about where Michaels used to be...

It's like in my job, when someone wants to sell their house, and they need help "seeing" their piles of junk or the overflowing litterbox, or outdated colors, or other things that a newcomer to their home would find objectionable. They want a new set of eyes to help them.

All I'm humbly saying is, sometimes it's good to have a new set of eyes.

Originally Posted by OA 5599

...There is no zoning to speak of in most of the rural Ozarks. Also no building code, and very little regulations besides possibly the size or presence of a lagoon or septic tank, depending on the size of the house.

In the rural areas of my counties, there is definitely county oversight of septic/sewer systems!

Originally Posted by OA 5599

As I've said before and said again, outsiders coming in droves to the Ozarks simply aren't a problem, besides some more popular areas like around Branson and Franklin and Jefferson counties. High poverty levels, an elderly population (leading to substantial population decline in the next few decades), little/no job growth, and meth are the largest social problems facing the Ozarks. Environmentally, poor logging practices, the dumping of trash along gravel roads (whole refrigerators, couches, etc), and littering in general, are large problems facing the Ozarks. It literally breaks my heart to see dozens of acres on end clear-cut with every single tree taken. It degrades the water quality of streams draining from the area. Responsible, managed logging is perfectly acceptable and should be encouraged, but not the literal raping of the land.

I absolutely positively whole-heartedly agree with you, OA. And you can go from a "popular" area to a "rural" area in a matter of minutes around here. (Here being Taney & Stone Counties.)

I think the New Eyes coming into Missouri have a social responsibility AND need to be sensitive to how they become a positive part of the growth that they are creating.

[SeemorMO]

negative growth is not necessarily a bad thing. Observe the growth related problems from rapid expansion in places like Springfield/Branson.
More Crime,more police, more taxes, more illegal aliens, more cars and trucks,more buildings and roads, which require the destruction of Missouri's natural beauty and farmlands. Growth and expansion is not progress. Take it from me, I am an EXPERT on this having moved from NJ where "progress" has destroyed a once beautiful state.

[DeanMoore]

here in Christian county, we just started building codes, and I think there is a 3 acre minimum for housing lots. For the most part I think that's a good basic platform to begin with. I would prefer a 5-10 acre minimum, but what can I do?

I have been here four years, and have been wanting to move here for 12 years before that. its all I expected and wanted, and after living in kalifornia, I think I can offer some perspective to PREVENT the kalifornication of Missouri. the little ag town I lived in in California, was overwhelmed, and destroyed by invading bay area newcomers. will this happen here? not so much. the people who destroyed california would typically never move here into deep flyover country. For the most part, the people I see coming here, are a good fit, but used to a faster, more energetic lifestyle. thats not good or bad, just different. However, they can be good at spotting the future trends we want to avoid, as they have seen it before. Anyone who has been burdened with heavy-handed government, will be actively looking to avoid or stop it, so befriend the newcomer, they may be like the canary in the mineshaft for ya.
Springfield is like Sacramento was 25 years ago. If I had my way, it wont follow the same path.

[Cali BassMan]

Originally Posted by DeanMoore

Springfield is like Sacramento was 25 years ago. If I had my way, it wont follow the same path.

Amen to that, and here some reps too.....

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by DeanMoore

Anyone who has been burdened with heavy-handed government, will be actively looking to avoid or stop it, so befriend the newcomer, they may be like the canary in the mineshaft for ya.
Springfield is like Sacramento was 25 years ago. If I had my way, it wont follow the same path.

I second Cali BassMan, reps and all. Happiness will be Sacramento and Kahleefornia in the rear view mirror. In 25 years I'll likely have assumed room temperature, or will be close to it, but once we're back there we'll do our best to help folks avoid what's happened here. We're a couple of retired state political/legislative analysts so we'll be watching the trends in MO.

[DeanMoore]

OMG think Pat Brown's admin before he started changing things. our new governor is much more big-city, than rural Mo. but its only been a few weeks, so we'll see. the outcry is already building.

you will still love it here though, there is still time.