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.

Barry is the executive director of the Potawatomi Land Trust.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!).

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!). 

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.

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.

  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.

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.

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.

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.

  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.

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. 

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.

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?

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". 

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.

  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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

There are bills in the legislature to do exactly that - and dump the
"10 acre" law. That law also allows the owner of one of those 10 acre
pieces to subdivide further after some number of years - four I think.
(I haven't dug out the details yet.) Still, without platting or township
approval. 

It occurrs to me that my number 24 could look very scary to people, on the
assumption that if houses could be built on 1/4 acre lots, the full 200 acres
would fill with 800 houses, creating a small village.  I don't see that
happening, though, or at least not happening to every 200 acre farm in the
area.  There is at some point, a limit to the demand for housing.  I'd much
prefer to see the housing concentrated and then some remaining rural areas,
rather than the whole area being covered by very spread out sprawl.

hi how are u

I'm fine, thank you, and have been discussing Preserving Washtenaw County
Farmland. Would you care to discuss it too?

Update from Barry:

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 12:06:43 -0400
From: Barry A. Lonik <ai644@detroit.freenet.org>
Subject: Saving Farmland...What You Can Do

Dear friends:

The week of July 8 will be a very critical one for our efforts to place a
PDR referendum on the ballot in November.  The Ag Lands Committee meets at
7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 9 at 110 N. Fourth Ave. to hopefully give
approval to the draft ordinance.  Those interested are encouraged to
attend and let the committee know of support for open space preservation
in particular.  The following night, Wednesday July 10, the County Board
will be presented with the draft ordinance and asked to consider it and
vote in favor of having the referendum on the ballot at its August 7
meeting.  That meeting will be at 6:30 p.m. at the commissioners' meeting
room in the old post office on N. Main at Catherine.  Last night at the
Task Force meeting, we agrreed to have a series of speakers address a
particular topic in the public comment period as a show of support for the
measure.  The two topics that were offered are: 

1.  this is not fast, we've been working on this for 15 years, farmland
loss is rampant and we may not have another opportunity (Jan BenDor)

2.  why this is a good program for city people (Mike Garfield)

Everyone else is hereby requested to submit a topic for which they would
like to speak.  We will compile those suggestions and map out an order to
follow.  Those who feel uncomfortable about public speaking can just say
"I'm from Lyndon Township and I support this" or just come and be there as
a show of support.  The more the merrier.  Bring friends.  We'll go out
for a beer afterward. 

Finally, the following night, Thursday, July 11, the County Planning
Commission is meeting to act on the Ag Lands Committee recommendation on
the ordinance.  Obtaining the PC's support is one of the essential
elements for convincing the County Board to move ahead.  That meeting will
take place at 6:30 p.m. at the Intermediate Schools facility (High Point),
1819 S. Wagner Rd. 

All of our work will come down to this series of meetings. Please mark
these dates on your calendar and plan to attend. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact me Thanks. 

Another update from Barry:

Subject: Good News on Farmland Preservation

In case you haven't heard, the Washtenaw County Board of
Commissioners on Wednesday unanimously passed a resolution to
create a special task force including four Board members to study
options for farmland and open space preservation and report back 
to the Board with a plan in May, 1997.

This is a major victory for those of us who care about our land
and want to see it and our agricultural industry remain part of
Washtenaw County for our children and grandchildren.

Make no mistake:  this issue was not even remotely on the block
for the County Board before the Citizens Task Force brought it
to their attention a short time ago.  I feel it is quite 
legitimate for the Board to request some additional time to 
consider what options may exist and how they can be used.  I feel
quite confident that they will realize as a result of this 
additional study that purchasing development rights is the
cornerstone of a program to preserve our best agricultural and
natural lands.  Having the Board's support to put PDR before the
voters will be a major boost for that effort when its time comes.
That could be as soon as November of 1997.

Our work is not done here.  We have magnificently succeeded in
making farmland and open space preservation a "front burner" topic
for the County Board and the public.  We will need to exercise
continued vigilence with this task force and to continue our
public education campaign to generate the support necessary to
make it irrefutably clear that the people want this to happen.
We can spend the next nine months accomplishing much,
and must take advantage of the opportunity before us.

Thanks to all of you who made calls, wrote letters, provided
testimony and have worked long and hard on the CTF.  We have
taken a giant step toward our ultimate goal.  Let's press on
and see it to fruition.

Rane!  I have been wondering where you were.
You have been missed.

Thanks. I have been wandering around Colorado for two weeks. Colorado
Springs has no preservation-of-open-space program as it seems that they
have open space all the way to Kansas...but one result is SPRAWL, in a big
way. They are rapidly rotting in the core as they build peripheral malls
and strips.

Did we, could we, should we, expect anthing less/different? Colorado, like
Wyoming is too beautiful to exist. We must destroy it (them) lest we be found
wanting in comparison. Let's make lots of money from the corpse(s),

  You're wrong, Arnold. Wyoming and colorado have nothing on West Virginia.
You're also very sick ;)

West Virginia and Colorado are *both* beautiful - in places. 

There's been an election since the last response to this item.  I didn't see
anything related on the ballot here in Washtenaw County.  What is the current
status?

Are the people who favor this proposal sure that they need government
involvement and taxes to make it happen?  What about a group of interested
citizens chipping in some cash to buy the development rights from the farmers
on the open market?

The Commissioners decided against putting the question on the ballot at this
time, but have asked county staff to investigate the question further and come
up with more definitive evaluations of the effects on land uses and values,
etc.

Groups (land trusts) are buying some development rights, but the resources
of the private sector are paltry compared to the rate of conversion of
agricultural land to development. PDR could be considered a form of zoning
that does not deprive people of land value without compensation. All
"Fair Use" supporters should be in favor! However just like zoning, it has
to be done soon and inclusively, to be effective and fair. 

I am on the board of a land trust that bought land to create nature study
areas. The effort is enormous, and taxes the capabilities of "a group of
interested citizens" to do more than a bit here and there.

The following notice of the County Agricultural Lands and Open Space Task
Force hearing Tuesday reached me to late to post in advance. An account of
the hearing appears in AANews Wed. 27 Nov (Sec C.1-2). The encouragement to
attend that follows can appy equally well to the next hearing.

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 16:01:34 -0500
From: Barry A. Lonik <ai644@detroit.freenet.org>
Subject: REMINDER: PRESERVATION HEARING TUES. NOV. 26

ACTION ALERT

Your help needed to preserve the undeveloped lands in Washtenaw County! 

The County Board-appointed Agricultural Lands and Open Space Task Force is
holding a public hearing on Tuesday, November 26 at the Lodi Township
Hall. 

Those who oppose farmland and open space preservation, especially the use
of purchase of development rights (PDR), have begun to appear and work to
undermine the efforts of those who treasure our beautiful farms and
natural areas. 

IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THERE BE A STRONG TURNOUT OF LAND PRESERVATION
SUPPORTERS TO OFFSET THE DISINFORMATION AND RHETORIC OF OPEN SPACE
OPPONENTS. 

Please attend and speak at this public hearing.  Ideas for comments: 

1) support the work of the county task force to identify the best quality
or most fragile lands and to research ways to protect them

2) encourage the task force to explore all available means of preserving
farmland and open space including, but not limited to, purchase of
development rights

3) it's cheaper to preserve land now than it will be to pay for the
services needed once it gets developed

4) there needs to be voluntary, incentive-based programs for landowners
who wish to preserve their land.  More carrots and fewer sticks is better

5) it is critical to implement strategies to preserve farmland and open
space now if those lands are to be there for our children and
grandchildren to see

6) community population growth is important, but so is maintaining a high
quality of life.  We must strike a balance between growth and
preservation.  We don't want to become another Livonia or Novi and suffer
their environmental and economic problems

7) once a watershed gets as little as 15% paved over, the chemical and
biological quality of surface water plummets and cannot be revived.  We
are facing (or have exceeded) that level of impervious surface in all of
the local watersheds around Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti

The Lodi Township hall is at the southwest corner of Pleasant Lake Rd. and
Ann Arbor-Saline Rd. 

Update:

From: "Barry A. Lonik" <ai644@detroit.freenet.org>
Subject: ACTION ALERT

I just got word that the Michigan House of Representatives today passed
the legislation enabling local units of government to establish and fund
purchase of development rights (PDR) programs. 

The GOOD NEWS is that the House version did not limit the use of PDR funds
for agricultural land, as the Senate version did.  There will now be
action to iron out the differences in the next day or two before final
passage. 

IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE SERIES OF THREE BILLS BECOMES LAW WITH THE
LANGUAGE IN THE HOUSE VERSION.  Local units of government should have the
right to choose which lands they want to protect with money they raise. 
The Michigan Association of Homebuilders doesn't agree and will be
fighting to limit use of PDR to agricultural lands. 

Please make one quick call to Sen. Bill Schuette's office in Lansing.  He
is the original author of the bills, which intended to cover any lands. 
Let him know you support the use of PDR for protecting ag lands, aquifers,
wildlife habitat or any lands the community deems important to spend its
tax dollars on. 

Sen. Schuette's number is (517) 373-7946. 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss