Perhaps I'm missing something, but I fail to see
how the proposed new ordinance will help preserve
the rural character of Latah Co. This is, after
all, one of the goals stated in the Comp Plan.
By any measure,the new ordinance provides for additional
development in rural areas. The ordinance is clearly a
concession to development interests. Why is the concession
necessary? Who is pulling whose strings? The existing
ordinance provides for growth. Why accelerate the potential
for that growth?
Has anyone taken the time to calculate the aggregate
number of parcels that would be allowed under the current
ordinance versus the number that would be allowed under
the proposed ordinance? If not, I would suggest that
anyone who supports the new ordinance, is in effect,
signing a blank check. Why would someone sign a blank
check? This calculation is possible. If the planning
department has not made this calculation, then it has
not done its job. Period.
Has any evidence been provided that the Latah County
Planning department has the capacity/information system
in place to actually implement/track compliance with the
new ordinance? This is a complex ordinance to
implement, similar to the pre-40 acre ordinance (1994?).
The county did not have an adequate system in place several
years ago to monitor compliance. As a result, the
county threw up its arms and granted amnesty to all the
illegal splits that had occurred prior to the 40 acre
rule. Without any evidence to the contrary, I would fear
the same outcome.
I would be interested in hearing someone articulate
how Latah County is bettered by this proposed ordinance.
BTW...I *do* think the design standards are a reasonable and
a useful addition.
-- Greg Brown (gregb@siu.edu) Assistant Professor,Dept. of Forestry Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901-4411 (618) 453-7465 FAX: (618) 453-7475