A few more thoughts on potential changes to the
40 acre minimum ordinance. As mentioned previously,
the 40 acre ordinance was pushed because the older
ordinance was considered too complex to administer
by the planning department. The older ordinance required
the planning department to track previous land
splits and thus make a determination if the number
of allowable splits had been exceeded. The rule
contained both acreage and number of splits as
decision criteria. There was a *history*
to the land splits that was important in the
determination about whether another split could
be allowed.
The planning department was not very good at
administratively tracking land splits over the years
and many splits occurred illegally. The 40 acre rule
was seen as a way out of this potential legal
and record-keeping quagmire. All illegal splits--and
there *many*--were grandfathered in with the 40
acre minimum. Clean slate.
But is it possible to effectively manage land
without taking into account that land's human
history, including splits or subdivision? Is it not
important to know *why* land was subdivided? Would
one expect a farmer to do a good job farming
without knowing the farming history of the land?
Seeking the simple, easy rule to administer
such as the 40 acre rule may not yield the best
solution. And yet, bureaucratic theory informs us
that the planning dept. will continue to push for simple,
easy-to-administer rules. It will resist a more complex
density-based rule.
I would suggest that human relations to the
land are not so easily accounted for in non-complex
ordinances such as the 40 acre rule. On the other hand,
I'm still waiting for someone to articulate the "public"
problem associated with the 40 acre minimum rule.
----------
Greg Brown
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Forestry, Southern Illinois University
Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Idaho
gregb@uidaho.edu