> The Planning Commission is trying to develop a new zoning ordinance
>that will guide where and how new housing is built in open areas of Latah
>County. It's intended to solve problems created by the old -- supposedly
>stopgap -- ordinance, which limits density to one house per 40 acres.
> Few people seem to like the one-per-40 rule --
Why was in enacted in the first place? That is good question that
few can answer, including myself, who attended all the hearings
on the rule change. I believe it was pushed by the planning department
(i.e., Gerard) who wanted to simplify the previously more complex
formula for determining the number of land splits. I cannot remember
anyone speaking in favor of the 40 acre rule at the hearings and
yet, the ordinance is on the books.
> so volunteer
>commission members are holding 5 public meetings around the county to hear
>what the public wants instead.
Well, I think we *already* know what a representative cross-section
of Latah County residents want based on the 1994 study. They want
the rural landscape and farms preserved. Food for thought:
should 5 meetings that are non-representative, filled with all
manner of hearsay, conjecture, and anectdotal stories, trump a
more representative sampling of all residents?
That rural values should be preserved (the end) *should* be a
given. How that end is achieved (the means) should be the focus
of these meetings.
>Agreement that something should be done is
>close to unanimous.
From whom? Could someone who is pushing for
the change please state the nature of the problem
in their own words? For there to be public action, there needs
to be a clearly defined public problem. I would like to hear that
problem articulated. How the "problem" is
framed ultimately shapes how the problem is resolved.
> At the meeting last night, people who live in rural parts of the
>county said they want more flexibility in how they use their land. Not one
>of them, nor any of the rest of us, seem to know what zoning system we *do*
>want.
Fair enough. But the starting point must be the same
number or fewer land subdivisions. The county has been
experiencing record growth in building permits the last couple
of years. That is a fact.
Clearly, the 40 acre rule has not inhibited growth whatsoever.
If those clamoring for change are arguing for greater numbers
of subdivisions because current ordinances are too
restrictive, they would be engaging in a grand lie.
Jackson County here in Illinois only has a 5 acre minimum.
Surrounding counties have 1 acre or less minimums.
The affect on the landscape is dramatic. I hope Latah
County proceeds with great caution.
----------
Greg Brown
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Forestry, Southern Illinois University
Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Idaho
gregb@uidaho.edu