SW Loudon County...What Gives With The Recession? (Richmond: homes, employment)

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by Hudlander

You know what, you people want to move to NOVA?
Fine. Why don't you do the responsible thing and before ruining lovely SE Loudon, go ahead, infill develop Annandale and other parts of Fairfax, do that and THEN use open space in Loudon.

If you feel passionately about this, you should do what you can to support smart growth in the inner suburbs, renovation and improvement and of course transit (lack of which is one of the things holding back Annandale in particular)

[newnewsmama]

You sound so hostile (like the yuppies you described). These are your fellow Loudouners and neighbors, and their houses and children you were talking about. And exactly what defines "ruining of Loudoun"? Hundreds of years ago, before Europeans came to America, this land was roamed by Native Americans with no development or farms. By your token, can we say the building of America ruined this land?

Originally Posted by Hudlander

Exactly, farmers aren't to blame.
When those yuppies move into NOVA, they complain and whine about odors from farms, honk their cars at tractors on the road, and are rude, snobby, and don't let the locals who lived in NOVA use their pools and rec courts.

In short, THEY make it hostile and destroy the quiet, peaceful, scenic beauty that was NOVA forcing the farmers out.

Also, many of the areas that are developed aren't farmland, but rather forests that REMAX and other greedy speculators bought.
Go down Braddock 10 years ago, there weren't but a few or so farms. The rest? Trees and forests NOT owned by farmers.

You know what, you people want to move to NOVA?
Fine. Why don't you do the responsible thing and before ruining lovely SE Loudon, go ahead, infill develop Annandale and other parts of Fairfax, do that and THEN use open space in Loudon.

I just HATE these McMansions and other shanties that came in and ruined SE Loudon which used to be a refuge and artifact of what NOVA was when it was nice.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by newnewsmama

You sound so hostile (like the yuppies you described). These are your fellow Loudouners and neighbors, and their houses and children you were talking about. And exactly what defines "ruining of Loudoun"? Hundreds of years ago, before Europeans came to America, this land was roamed by Native Americans with no development or farms. By your token, can we say the building of America ruined this land?

quibble - this is a huge myth, that all native americans were hunter gatherers. Many, many native americans had farms - including most of those who lived in Virginia. They were noted for farming practices that included growing certain crops together - notably the "three sisters" corn, beans, and squash, in ways that avoided depleting the soil. There agriculture was DIFFERENT from ours, in many ways (and lacking meat producing domestic animals, they relied on hunting for animal protein) but they DID have farms.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by Hudlander

You know what, you people want to move to NOVA?
Fine. Why don't you do the responsible thing and before ruining lovely SE Loudon, go ahead, infill develop Annandale and other parts of Fairfax, do that and THEN use open space in Loudon.

I just HATE these McMansions and other shanties that came in and ruined SE Loudon which used to be a refuge and artifact of what NOVA was when it was nice.

People make RE decisions based on their personal needs, and the choices they find in the marketplace. A few will add some social concerns to their choice, but not many do, and even they are heavily constrained by their personal needs and the supply available. The best response, I think, to development trends you dont like, is not to berate the folks who buy, but to work for public policies that would reshape the market in the way you desire. In your case it might be more extensive ag protection in LC (wasnt there an "antigrowth" political movement in LC a few year back?) and to support intiatives making possible denser growth in the smart growth areas.

[Caladium]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

I think the person you were responding to was simply trying to seperate the issue of development from that of farmers well being, not claiming that the land was ownerless.

But they are not separate issues. The farmers' well being benefited from seeing their property values go up, since they profited a great deal from the sale of played out cow fields and treed areas that were not even useful to farmers. The farmers who continue to farm here have benefitted, as well. They now have an increased number of nearby customers, and they don't have to drive as far to make deliveries, since there are more stores and farmers markets nearby. It's easier for kids and spouses to get a job at a local company and still work on the farm.

I don't see how a housing development hurts a local farm--it's not like we're out west where cattle needs to be herded across acreage. It's not like they're building factories that pollute the environment.

Changing gears, I'd also like to note the argument about "they don't let the locals who lived in NOVA use their pools and rec courts." That doesn't make any sense at all.

For one thing, if you own a house in a development, you are a local. But leaving semantics aside.... First the OP wishes that developments were not there. Then he adds people who did not buy a house in a particular development should be able to swim in the pool or use the tennis court... but how can they do this if the housing developments weren't there? That doesn't make any sense. Nor does it make any sense to think that someone has the right to swim in someone else's pool no matter who owns it. Reverse the argument, and you'll see what I mean. Would the residents of the housing development be allowed to go over to the farmer's house and swim in the pool in his backyard? Of course not.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by Caladium

But they are not separate issues. The farmers' well being benefited from seeing their property values go up, since they profited a great deal from the sale of played out cow fields and treed areas that were not even useful to farmers. The farmers who continue to farm here have benefitted, as well. They now have an increased number of nearby customers, and they don't have to drive as far to make deliveries, since there are more stores and farmers markets nearby. It's easier for kids and spouses to get a job at a local company and still work on the farm.

I don't see how a housing development hurts a local farm--it's not like we're out west where cattle needs to be herded across acreage. It's not like they're building factories that pollute the environment.

Changing gears, I'd also like to note the argument about "they don't let the locals who lived in NOVA use their pools and rec courts." That doesn't make any sense at all.

For one thing, if you own a house in a development, you are a local. But leaving semantics aside.... First the OP wishes that developments were not there. Then he adds people who did not buy a house in a particular development should be able to swim in the pool or use the tennis court... but how can they do this if the housing developments weren't there? That doesn't make any sense. Nor does it make any sense to think that someone has the right to swim in someone else's pool no matter who owns it. Reverse the argument, and you'll see what I mean. Would the residents of the housing development be allowed to go over to the farmer's house and swim in the pool in his backyard? Of course not.

1. Its quite possible that the local forest lands are not owned by local famers - there are landowners of forest, etc who are not farmers. I don't know if thats the case or not in LC, but the land being owned does not mean that the current generation of farmers owns it (it may never have been owned by farmers, or given the history of virginia, it may once have been farmland that was exhausted and sold - maybe to a farmer, maybe to a non farmer)

2. I have heard, repeatedly, in discussions of agricultural preservation, of precisely the kinds of conflicts about noise, fertilizer, ag machinery, etc that the OP mentioned. I have also heard that decreases in the number of farmers can make the economics more difficult, by removing economies of scale for sellers of ag equipment, seed, etc. Now maybe the other advantages offset (though closer farmers markets probably doesnt help say, a dairy farmer). I dont know how all that plays out in LC (esp given what you say about soil quality issues). Every place is different. But from all I can gather I think its incorrect to say there are never conflicts between farming and residential development.

[Caladium]

Originally Posted by Hudlander

honk their cars at tractors on the road,

This is another argument I'm just not buying. It sounds good if you haven't actually driven out in Loudoun, but is this reality? I've done a LOT of driving out here, and you don't really see tractors on the road here. That may be more of an issue in places like Iowa.

[brooklynborndad]

"Would the residents of the housing development be allowed to go over to the farmer's house and swim in the pool in his backyard? Of course not."

not as of legal right. Possibly in some rural communities, it would have been a matter of course, among farm families as part of neighborliness. Legal property rights do not exhaust the kinds of things that change when a community changes.

I am looking to move at some point to a nabe where I will be an "eevil gentrifier" While I am not really considering myself eevil for wanting to do that, I am not going to pretend that transitions dont impact informal networks, community norms, etc in ways that arent reflected by looking only at legal rights and property values. That said, I suspect the farmers in LC are a LOT better off wrt to the transition, than poor renters in transitioning parts of DC or Alexandria. Though I think the transitions in the latter case are better for the metro area and the planet (but lets not start on THAT )

[Caladium]

BTW, while we're on the subject of local farms, the Spring Farm Tour is coming up. You can drive out to the farms and see for yourself how well they've managed to coexist with the local development. You can also check out the reality of the development out here. You'll see that, due to zoning, homes are spaced far apart on 2-acre lots (which means noise is not a problem). Even on an unusually busy weekend like the Farm Tour Weekend, it's quiet enough you can hears the frogs singing.

Loudoun Spring Farm Tour is May 21-11

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by Caladium

BTW, while we're on the subject of local farms, the Spring Farm Tour is coming up. You can drive out to the farms and see for yourself how well they've managed to coexist with the local development. You can also check out the reality of the development, which, due to zoning, is spaced far apart. It's also a good way to check out noise issues--even on an unusually busy weekend like the Farm Tour Weekend, you'll see noise is not a problem when developments are homes on 2-acre lots.

Loudoun Spring Farm Tour is May 21-11

some areas have used buffer zones as an alternative way to limit conflicts, which has different costs and benefits than 2 acre lot zoning.

I am glad you are providing details specific to LC - I just want to make the point that this issue is found pretty commonly in the zoning literature - OP isnt making it up.

residential agriculture conflicts - Google Search=