|
Grex > Aaypsi > #56: Preserving Washtenaw County Farmland | |
|
| Author |
Message |
rcurl
|
|
Preserving Washtenaw County Farmland
| 
Jun 19 20:26 UTC 1996 |
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 14:23:07 -0400
From: Barry A. Lonik <ai644@detroit.freenet.org>
Subject: Preserving Washtenaw County Farmland
Dear Friends:
For those of you who don't know, I have been involved in a project for the
last eight months that is seeking to establish a unique farmland
preservation program in Washtenaw County. With farmland conversion
occurring at a rate of some 4,000 acres per year, the county is rapidly
moving to a state where agriculture as an industry will no longer be able
to survive. If the industry goes, so does all of the other benefits
(scenic views, wildlife habitat, rural character, locally-grown food,
etc.) that are attributed to the presence of farming.
The program the Citizen's Task Force seeks to establish would raise public
funds, probably through a modest (like 1/4 mil) property tax increase, and
buy the development rights on the best farms in the county. This way the
farmers can realize some of the equity they have in their land without
having to sell it off for development. The intention with this Purchase
of Development Rights program (or PDR) is to "block up" large enough areas
of farming operations that they can stay viable, get the necessary support
services (seed, feed, equipment, etc.), depend on each other and avoid
nuisance suits from the newcomers to "the country." PDR programs are
strictly voluntary and have worked very successfully in 16 states for 20
years.
The only way a referendum to establish a fund and create a program can be
placed on the ballot is by a majority vote of the Washtenaw County
Commissioners to do so. An introductory presentation has been made to the
Commission, and it is willing to hear more about the process and consider
voting to put the initiative on the ballot. That vote can come no later
than the August 7 meeting in order to meet the requirements of election
rules.
AND THAT'S WHERE YOU COME IN.
Calls to county commissioners need to be made in the next couple of weeks
so they know their constituents are in favor of this referendum. It is
not critical that they support the concept of PDR, only that they are
willing to vote to put it on the ballot and let the electorate decide if
they want it. (Of course once commissioners see the support, they'll jump
on board that train before it leaves the station.)
Please take a few minutes to call your county commissioner and voice your
support for farmland preservation in Washtenaw County. All of us who live
in the county have a commissioner who represents us. Don't feel bad if
you don't know who that is; I didn't know who was mine until two weeks
ago. If you don't know, you can either respond to me with your address
and I will figure it out, or you can call 994-2503 (the county offices)
and ask. I also have a handy sheet with a map of the districts and the
commissioners' phone numbers that I can mail to you or drop off. And
while you're at it, get a couple of friends to make a call too. It really
will make a huge difference.
Thanks for your attention and assistance. Please feel free to contact me
if you have any questions.
|
| 43 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 1 of 43:
|
Jun 19 20:28 UTC 1996 |
Barry is the executive director of the Potawatomi Land Trust.
|
ajax
|
|
response 2 of 43:
|
Jun 20 05:07 UTC 1996 |
Interesting idea. If it were wilderness preservation, or longterm zoning
laws to control urban sprawl, it would have my support. Unfortunately, I
believe taxpayers already subsidize the farming industry too much.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 3 of 43:
|
Jun 20 06:39 UTC 1996 |
Is this a subsidy? The community buys the development rights. That
is a straight forward purchase of an asset. It is similar to buying
the land outright to preserve open space, but without the liability
of having to manage it. The value of the land on the open market drops,
but it can be sold - for farm use. I don't see this procedure as any
kind of subsidy.
Speaking of subsidies, however - a recent study shows that farms cost
the community the *least* in terms of services, in exchange for the
taxes they pay, and *housing development* costs the community the *most*,
requiring services beyond the taxes paid. Therefore, farm use is subsidizing
housing use. PDR tends to redress this balance, as well as keeping the
amenities of rural character of land near cities.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 4 of 43:
|
Jun 20 13:30 UTC 1996 |
This is an interesting idea. I have seen the failure to do this create
real problems in Ft. Lauderdale. I am curious whether there is some
overall plan that identifies some areas as suitable for growth and
expansion? I am not sure a plan to simply stop all growth is wise
in the long run. In addition, farms need buffers from people who
don't understand that farms deal with death and sometimes have a
bad smell. Is this part of the plan?
|
robh
|
|
response 5 of 43:
|
Jun 20 16:42 UTC 1996 |
This item has been linked from AA-Ypsi 56 to Intro 61.
Type "join aaypsi" at the Ok: prompt for talk of matters
affecting Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, and the immediate vicinity.
|
ajax
|
|
response 6 of 43:
|
Jun 20 16:49 UTC 1996 |
I reread the text of #0, and I admit I didn't (don't?) understand what is
being done financially. Development rights and land ownership can be sold
off as independent assets? And the money for the development rights are
paid to land owners who wish to sell them?
Perhaps I wouldn't call that a subsidy, but primarily because of the
obfuscating complexity. If these rights are assets for which the county
would pay fair market value, I don't see why a 1/4 mil tax is needed to
fund it, as the county's net worth would not change (unless the tax is just
for administrative overhead). I see the net result here as taxpayers
paying enough money to make it financially lucrative for landowners to
maintain the farming use of their land. We do, in return, hold an asset,
but it immediately loses value if we aren't able to sell it at fair market
value (i.e. probably to developers!).
|
rcurl
|
|
response 7 of 43:
|
Jun 20 20:07 UTC 1996 |
Yes, property is divisible into many separate negotiable assets. You
can sell mineral rights under your property without selling surface use,
or you can sell (or buy) an easement. Land Trusts are buying conservation
easements, which limit the use of the land solely for preservation as
natural areas or open space. Easements (and PDR) are carefully worded
to describe what the landowner can and cannot do on that property. These
have been found legal and enforceable, and the IRS has determined that
the value of the land for tax purposes is the value *after* the easement
restricts use. Assessors are being trained to assess property on which
there are such easements.
The purpose of the tax is to raise funds for the county to purchase
the development rights (i.e., easement), just as it would raise funds
to purchase land outright ("in fee-simple") to make a public park or
golfcourse (as examples). However purchasing just the development right
allows the land to remain in agricultural production without the county going
into that business.
Yes, the development right is a saleable asset. It's value is the difference
between the value of the land with and without development rights. It
would have to be reattached to the land, however, to be exercised. That is,
a developer would have to buy the land from the farmer and the development
rights from the county, in order to develop the land.
You word it solely as a benefit to the farmer, but the only reason for doing
it is the belief that the maintenance of some lands in agricultural use
is a benefit to the community. If you acknowledge the latter, then you
should realize that the PDR is a benefit to *both* the landowner *and*
the community. Isn't that marvelous?
The alleged "obfuscating complexity" is no more than, say, selling mineral
rights, or an access easement (most easements, such as for a power line,
are *taken* by eminent domain, so you should be happy some can be sold!).
|
adbarr
|
|
response 8 of 43:
|
Jun 21 01:05 UTC 1996 |
Well said, rcurl. Yes, and you can buy "air rights" and others. One advantage
is that by not purchasing the complete ownership you have someone to
care for the land, and of course it also remains on the tax rolls -- for what
ever that is worth for agricultural land. I support this concept personally,
as long as the need for future development of the area is factored in. I
don't want to see the "I just moved here, now stop all development!" syndrome.
|
srw
|
|
response 9 of 43:
|
Jun 21 02:20 UTC 1996 |
I didn't understand this at first either, but rcurl's explanation made it
clear. Now that I understand it I must say that it sounds liek it might be
a reasonable idea. I still would like to know what some of the typical numbers
are.
For example, do the development rights utterly dwarf the agricultural rights?
In ths case, the county could be purchasing 90% of the value of the land.
It would be almost the same as buying it all and renting it to farmers.
That would be less appealing to me than if the values were more equal. Of
course over time the values will be determined by the market. The development
rights could be expected to skyrocket if the city were truely hemmed in by
such restricted us land.
Anyway I am interested in this idea, and wouldn't mind learning more.
|
ajax
|
|
response 10 of 43:
|
Jun 21 06:27 UTC 1996 |
I support the goal of urban planning, and long-term control of what
directions development can move in. I guess I'm undecided whether
I think this is a reasonable way of implementing such control. It
seems like the local government could simply pass legislation to say
"you can't develop this land," thereby producing the same effect, but
(a) not spend money on it, and (b) be able to do it even if the
landowner is unwilling (as opposed to the voluntary PDR). This could
be viewed as unfair to the landowner, as it diminishes the worth of
their land, and the PDR is one way of addressing this. On the other
hand, real estate speculation is a risky investment.
Rane, I recognize that there are benefits other than to the landowner,
although those listed in the text don't really attract me. Three of
the four, wildlife preservation, scenic beauty, and rural character,
seem to me to be better served by purchasing all rights to the land,
and converting it from farmland to wilderness. I guess the economic
feasibility of this depends on the price ratios Steve mentioned, as
well as the lost tax revenues the use as farmland provides.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 11 of 43:
|
Jun 21 12:33 UTC 1996 |
The Michigan Court of Appeals recently approved a 5 million dollar
award to an landowner who was refused permission to develop land
by the State DNR. If government wants to outlaw all development
it should be prepared to pay just compensation to the landowner.
|
ajax
|
|
response 12 of 43:
|
Jun 21 15:55 UTC 1996 |
I couldn't disagree more. In certain cases, sure. But there are people who
bought swamp land in Florida, as a very speculative investment, and when the
land was later protected under federal wetlands preservation, the investers
claimed that the government owed them lots of money in compensation. If
compensation always had to be paid, then *any* urban planning, wildlife
preservation, or zoning changes could become unaffordable. And the gov't
doesn't similarly charge a fee when they make favorable zoning changes (I
don't think) - so why should it pay when it makes unfavorable changes?
Such compensation should continue on a case-by-case basis.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 13 of 43:
|
Jun 21 17:31 UTC 1996 |
I think the idea is the rules should not be changed after-the-fact. The US
and all state constitutions provide for payment of some fair compensation
when private property is taken for public purposes. You can take, but you
must pay for what you take. If not, then does not the State, in effect,
own everything? Another system tried that, with bad results.
|
ajax
|
|
response 14 of 43:
|
Jun 21 21:54 UTC 1996 |
I agree with that, when private property is *taken*. But when rights
of what can be done on that property are changed? So if I can no longer
hunt bald eagles on my property, the government owes me the lost revenue
bald eagle burgers could have brought in? Let me stress that I fully
agree with compensation in some cases, but there should be no absolutes,
like saying rules should never be changed, or that landowners should
always be compensated for regulations that limit their flexibility.
|
srw
|
|
response 15 of 43:
|
Jun 22 06:09 UTC 1996 |
I would argue that if the government changes the development rules, and that
if the changes reduce the *current* value of the property (not the
speculative future value) as determined by the current market, then that is
and should be construed as a "taking" and thus the government must provide
compensation equal to the difference.
This is the law as I understand it, and it would not compensate Wetlands
speculators but it sure would compensate farmers owning land that is close
enough to a developed area that its market value had risen to reflect this
potential. The amount of the legally required compensation is just the value
Rane has explained would be due for the development rights.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 16 of 43:
|
Jun 22 12:16 UTC 1996 |
Rob. Know that 5 acre tract you planned to build on. Sorry, the new
GreenSpace law requires a minimum of 100 acres per single family
residence. You can still walk around out there, but don't cut down
any trees. Enjoy. Of course you can acquire another 95 acres of adjacent
land. You will be limited to 2000 ft sq. in total area covered by roof.
Country life is sure fun.
|
ajax
|
|
response 17 of 43:
|
Jun 22 16:30 UTC 1996 |
Arnold, that example doesn't seem to address my position that compensation
is called for in some cases, not in others.
Steve, isn't the immediate market value of wetlands just as affected by
wetlands preservation acts as near-city farmland having restrictions placed
on them? I, too, feel that there should be a distinction, but it's based
more on common sense than any set criteria I could verbalize.
It occurs to me that undeveloped farmland near a city doesn't even need
new government restrictions placed on it - it isn't already zoned for
commercial or residential development. City planners can decide "we
aren't going to grant areas beyond this point new zoning designations."
That isn't changing the rights of what a person can do with a piece of
land, that's *not* changing the rights. Should the government be liable
for the market impact of non-changes as well?
|
adbarr
|
|
response 18 of 43:
|
Jun 22 17:27 UTC 1996 |
Rob. Farms historically do not develop around cities. You rarely, if
ever hear about farmer Jones deciding to move his 1500 acre farm nearer
to Chicago. I think you will find, in almost all cases, the farms were there
for many years before the city expanded into their domains. Perhaps Ann Arbor
should limit its population so the residents will not impact the farms. Maybe
there should even be a set policy to reduce the population of the city
over time. The pressures to pay for land would be lessened, farms would be
preserved, and everyone would be happy. It is so simple. You could easily
declare that exising single family housing cannot be used for such after
the death of the present owners, or 30 years whichever comes first. You
woul be able to erect an outdoor vegetable market or low-rise grain
storage on your former homestead. You don't get paid for this, of course.
No one is taking your "land".
|
srw
|
|
response 19 of 43:
|
Jun 23 21:01 UTC 1996 |
I don't know the answer to your question Rob, I think it depends on the
circumstances, However , I am unequivocally of the belief that if the
govenrment changes the rules that apply to private property, and the result
is a decrease in the current value, then the owner must be compensated.
It should not matter whether the land is wet or dry.
*Current market value* is the operative phrase.
If the current market value of the wetland in Florida was decreased, and a
judge ruled that the owner should not be compensated, then it was a bad ruling
(IMO). I don't think that's what happened tho. I think the owner was suing
because the ruling affected how much (little) the land could appreciate.
That's different.
|
ajax
|
|
response 20 of 43:
|
Jun 24 07:02 UTC 1996 |
If the land's future appreciation is affected, then it stands to
reason that its current market value will also be affected, since
the current market value is based in large part on its potential
future use.
I don't agree with the absolutist stance that all changes that
impact value must be compensated. I'd agree in many (most?) cases,
but not in all cases.
I am fairly certain that remote farmland is currently not zoned
for dense residential or commercial development, so I don't think
any change in the rules for such property is needed to restrict
development in those areas.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 21 of 43:
|
Jun 24 19:31 UTC 1996 |
You haven't been to Oakland and Macomb counties lately, have you? There is
another insidious factor eating at farmland and open space and driving up
costs for community services. This is the law that allows property to be
subdivided into 10 acre parcels without platting. The townships have
almost no control over this. What it creates is very dilute but *urban*
occupancy, which leads to demands for more roads and utilities, while
making large units of almost empty land (in 10 acre units) unavailable for
agriculture or any other use. There is some statistic to the effect that
in the past ten years this expansion of dilute urbanized land has doubled
the acreage of urbanized areas, while population in the area has only
increased (something like) 20% (I have the more exact numbers somewhere,
and will go hunt them up.)
The purchase of development rights, if implemented early enough, can impede
the spread of dilute urbanization.
|
ajax
|
|
response 22 of 43:
|
Jun 24 19:46 UTC 1996 |
You mean if a farmer in Oakland county decides to build a 10 acre
subdivision, they don't need approval, and the county is obligated
to run sewer and electric lines to meet their needs? There ought
to be a simpler method of controlling that than purchasing land or
development rights.
|
gregc
|
|
response 23 of 43:
|
Jun 25 05:30 UTC 1996 |
No Rob, he couldn't build a 10-acre subdivision. A farmer could take his
200 acre farm and break it up into no more than 20 10-acre lots. The
lots couldn't be smaller than 10 acres. I also believe you can't put
up more than 1 primary residence on a lot. So what you would have is a
really huge 200 acre "subdivision", with 20 houses on it. This is what Rane
meant by "dilute". "Sparse" would be another good description.
|
scg
|
|
response 24 of 43:
|
Jun 25 05:59 UTC 1996 |
Yuck. It sounds like it would probably be much better if there weren't tehse
laws about having to have 10 acre lots. That way you could get the 20 houses
into five acres with reasonably sized yards, and still have 195 acres of nice
rural stuff.
|