As an individual who presided over the revision and adoption
of the Latah County Comprehensive Plan and incorporation of the
40 acre rule (both of which are seriously flawed, IMO), I feel I should
weigh in on the proposed new ordinance that Dennis Geist has
posted regarding changes to the 40 acre rule. (I would like to thank Dennis
for being proactive on this issue providing background
information for others to make informed decisions about the proposed change.)
As Dennis clarified for this group, the County Comprehensive
Plan divides the county in "areas" or "regions" including Ag/Forestry and
"Rural". These areas are guides for planning but do not have the legal
strength of "zones" which actually determine the number of
allowable splits on a parcel. Ag/Forestry "zones" currently
exist within both Ag/Forestry and Rural "areas."
Dennis explains the new ordinance:
> What the commission has proposed is that the rural *area* (which
>entirely lies within the current Ag/Forest *zone*) be redefined as a new
>Rural *zone*, thus blurring the distinction. This area was defined in 1994
>by current use and proven lower ag and forest productivity.
As I understand it, the Rural *area* on the Comp Plan would
become a Rural *zone* thus providing for more
more land splits than allowed under the current ordinance.
This is an incredibly poor and ill-conceived change for 2 important
reasons:
1) The Comp Plan map is itself *seriously* flawed. The Rural
*area* on the Comp Plan has no *rational* basis for looking the
way it does. Much of the designated "Rural" area on the map, is
in fact, highly productive farmland. I did an agricultural productivity
analysis for Latah County and overlaid this map with the Comp
Plan map that was derived by the Latah P&Z Commission.
Using a conservative agricultural productivity criteria
(e.g., 70% of the land contained within a given section (square mile)
is highly productive), there are at least 20 square miles (sections)
of the "Rural" area that are incorrectly classified *now*. If the agricultural
productivity criteria is changed to a more reasonable 50%
criteria, the number of misclassified sections appears to
exceed 30 square miles! The P&Z was supposed to base their
initial selection of the Rural *area* based on agricultural
productivity subject to "other" considerations. I never did
get a reasonable explanation for why the map looks the
way it does or why these "other" considerations
trumped the agricultural productivity criteria. The current *areas*
on the map do *not* reflect agricultural productivity criteria.
I do not believe there was any malice in the Comp Plan area designations
(with the possible exception of the Paradise Ridge area) but
I'm also convinced that there was no sound, rational basis
for area designations by the P&Z. So the question becomes,
why would one want to relax parcel splitting rules
(which will promote housing development and the conversion
of Ag land) in a Rural designated area, much of which should not be
designated "Rural" in the first place? That is the question
you should be asking yourselves.
2) The second reason for opposing the ordinance change
is quite simple. The plurality of Latah County residents do
not want to see restrictions for rural development relaxed. I once
again call your attention to the 1994 study of Latah County residents'
attitudes toward growth and rural residential development. The
3 most important characteristics that residents don't want to see
changed are:
Population Size and Development
Small Town Atmosphere
Rural Character
When asked where future housing should be located,
56% of respondents said within existing city limits or
adjacent to existing towns (10% had no preference).
The plurality of residents believe the county should
discourage, not encourage growth.
So ask yourselves, what is the real motivation for
changing and relaxing rural development restrictions?
This is *not* what John Q. Public in Latah County
desires. What is behind this madness?
This is no longer my battle. But I hate to
see such a beautiful county lose what makes it
so special. The ordinance is based on a flawed
Comp Plan and is not informed by the desires
of the general Latah County populace. At the risk
of hyperbole abuse...it is time
for someone to step to the plate and put this
proposed ordinance in its rightful place...out of
the ball park.
----------
Greg Brown (gregb@siu.edu)
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Forestry, Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, IL 62901-4411
(618) 453-7465
FAX (618) 453-7574