Greg is absolutely correct (actually only partly - I have to disagree
with some of his comments).
Foremost, there is a problem in that the principals who have gotten
involved in public testimony and dominated the process are those who have
an individual stake in this decision. In my opinion, for the planning
process, this is largely the potential seller. If the communal interest is
to have the weight it deserves, it is going to take some activism (which
sounds more exciting than the reality of sitting through endless hours of
mind-numbing meetings).
The simple fact is that potential sellers and property rights advocates
have dominated the public process, and they are well represented on both
the planning commission and board of county commissioners. The 56%
plurality has been silent!
If you are opposed to extensive rural residential development in Latah
County, you better get involved, yesterday. Because we are now receiving
even more flak from the side that believes the proposed ordinance is too
restrictive.
OK, now, as much as I hate to, I have to clarify a couple misconceptions.
First, productivity was not the only criterion used to define the rural
area on the comp plan map. It was clear (to me, obviously not to others)
that current use was an important criterion. The high housing density south
of Moscow, in the Troy corridor, and in the Viola area led to those being
classified as rural, accounting for the putative discrepancy Greg points
out. Second, the area was meant to be a coarse designation, hence it
largely follows range-township lines. This accounts for the rest of the 20
sections.
For the record, I am strongly opposed to this aspect of the proposed
ordinance. In my opinion, it's not the comp plan map that's flawed, it's
the adoption of those boundaries as zoning lines that is bad.
Now for that deadly parenthetical clause. The mere suggestion that there
was malice involved on Paradise Ridge is laughable. I heard a good rumor
that we dodged Greene's house. If I even suspected malice, or mere
consideration of individuals, I will be in Bill Thompson's office in a
flash. Come on folks...
But in sum, Greg's right. If you do not want to see widespread
partitioning of land, you better get active.
Have a Good Day, Dennis
==================================
Dennis Geist, Associate Professor
Geology Dept.
University of Idaho
Moscow, ID 83844
208-885-6491
208-885-5724 (Fax)
dgeist@uidaho.edu
http://www.uidaho.edu/~dgeist/