Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know in some areas, there are attempts to do so, and there is some land, that laws have been passed, stating that the land is not to have anything build on it, or what can be built on it is very limited. This is primarly to keep some farmland in many areas, and also lets not forget, we need some rural land for some of the things that we eat. What do you guys think? Do you think it's silly? Do you see the point? Or do you not really care?
There comes a point where land is too valuable for agricultural use. It may not be an issue for a farmer that owns the piece of land in question free and clear. But land eventually changes hands. If it ever goes up for sale and the land is worth $10,000 per acre or more, is another farmer going to buy it and continue raising crops, livestock, etc.?? The crop value being produced wouldn't even come close to making a return on the investment. Should the goverment force farming on property with that value?? Who should pay for it? That's why there aren't anymore oranges grown on Orange County, CA.
This reminds me of the area I grew up. The area grew over the years. People in the area got concerned about all the new development (the ones that came after the development they live in ) and the loss of green space. So they decided to incorporate to try to curb it. They suceeded. They regulated land use to the point where new development was difficult, if not impossible, so some rural space was "preserved" in a sense. If you are a landowner, your rights were stripped.
Here's the negatives. They also banned the discharge of firearms, regulated hunting out of existence, banned open burning and require a permit for every single tree you want to cut down on your own property.
Be careful what you wish for. In a perfect world, an area would stay rural forever. When you want the government to go after other people to preserve your lifestyle or have a heavy hand in decision making, be damn sure it's going to affect you too.
The man we are buying our house from on contract has land for sale too. It's in the contract that, if the first tree is cut on the property, the contract is null and void and he gets the land back.
I live in the #1 bean and #2 corn producing state. I live 50 miles from urbanization in a county seat and I have a 1/2 acre lot in the city. My area is a mix of hilly, forested areas and plains with groves of trees. The areas that cannot be farmed are natural areas for housing. The last cookie cutter houses were built in the 1930s. McMansions look silly and they don't sell well. I live six blcoks from 12,000 acres of wetlands and the largest river in the state.
Every count seat has a county/city jail, courthouse, Title company, lawyer, school(s), church(s), post office, and library. Most counties have a hospital but not always; it is usually in the county seat. Everything else is a bonus. My town has a hospital, doctors, pharmacy, gas, grocer, restaurants, clothes, car repair, tractor dealers, etc.. All of my basic needs are met.I go to the big towns 2-3 times a year to buy.in bulk.
I lived in big cities and I''ve traveled a lot in the western half of the US. I don't miss the traffic congestion, the noise or the lights of the city. I miss the convenience when I must drive 160 miles to St. Louis and 35 miles to Wally world. .
There comes a point where land is too valuable for agricultural use. It may not be an issue for a farmer that owns the piece of land in question free and clear. But land eventually changes hands. If it ever goes up for sale and the land is worth $10,000 per acre or more, is another farmer going to buy it and continue raising crops, livestock, etc.?? The crop value being produced wouldn't even come close to making a return on the investment. Should the goverment force farming on property with that value?? Who should pay for it? That's why there aren't anymore oranges grown on Orange County, CA.
Placing land in a Trust would alleviate a large majority of the "too valuable to farm" issues. The Trust permanently owns the land and it allows farmers to work it and live on it in Stewardship. No, the farmer doesn't own it and can't do anything on it that he pleases, but he also doesn't have to purchase it or worry about the property taxes or more most of the repairs.
I'll never understand the concept of "too valuable to farm" anyway... no cookie-cutter subdivision or big box store is more valuable than food, without food we can't survive Yes, the land may become too "expensive" because of urban development jacking up prices and taxes, but that's all the more reason to halt urbanization of rural areas. Proper zoning does preclude this without hampering property owner rights too much if it's managed properly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoNative34
This reminds me of the area I grew up. The area grew over the years. People in the area got concerned about all the new development (the ones that came after the development they live in ) and the loss of green space. So they decided to incorporate to try to curb it. They suceeded. They regulated land use to the point where new development was difficult, if not impossible, so some rural space was "preserved" in a sense. If you are a landowner, your rights were stripped.
Here's the negatives. They also banned the discharge of firearms, regulated hunting out of existence, banned open burning and require a permit for every single tree you want to cut down on your own property.
Be careful what you wish for. In a perfect world, an area would stay rural forever. When you want the government to go after other people to preserve your lifestyle or have a heavy hand in decision making, be damn sure it's going to affect you too.
I agree with this... some governments and HOA bureacracies go a little overboard and set up draconian BS. I think most people would agree that CA and many suburbs are good examples of things gone awry. Reasonable protective measures don't need to be cumbersome, militant or strip the property owners rights. The problem comes in when the "system" gets overly involved and starts controlling every little thing instead of just enforcing the high-level stuff. Zoning and permitting could preclude me from strip logging my forest, but should never be able to preclude me from cutting down a few trees for firewood, and most certainly should never be able to tell me what color I can paint my house!
Why not build homes on the land w/ spacious yards, thus still having all the space you need for farming and growing food? I mean, country living can actually be quite stunning contrary to the common belief. I mean being able to grow what YOU want in your garden, also being able to see stars that you didn't even know God created. Oh and not to mention the privacy.
Why not build homes on the land w/ spacious yards, thus still having all the space you need for farming and growing food? I mean, country living can actually be quite stunning contrary to the common belief. I mean being able to grow what YOU want in your garden, also being able to see stars that you didn't even know God created. Oh and not to mention the privacy.
You just defined "sprawl". The reality is people move to rural areas and get these spacious yards anchored by a McMansion and don't grow their own food unless they happen to eat Bermuda grass.
You just defined "sprawl". The reality is people move to rural areas and get these spacious yards anchored by a McMansion and don't grow their own food unless they happen to eat Bermuda grass.
Not necessarily, when I say build a home, why not have it built far back from the street? Why not have the sides and the back w/ much yard also. And also if the amount of homes is limited, it does not have to be a sprawl. I've rode around, and I've seen homes build out in the country, where some will still raise animals.
B/c generally speaking, McMansions don't have much yard, their home takes up all the yard.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) and the loss of green space. So they decided to incorporate to try to curb it. They suceeded. They regulated land use to the point where new development was difficult, if not impossible, so some rural space was "preserved" in a sense. If you are a landowner, your rights were stripped.
Yes, the land may become too "expensive" because of urban development jacking up prices and taxes, but that's all the more reason to halt urbanization of rural areas. Proper zoning does preclude this without hampering property owner rights too much if it's managed properly.
