My main disappointment is the lack of feature/opinion pieces on the impact
a radical change in the zoning ordinance will have both on individuals and
the community. I think that Kenton has hit the nail on the head. The issue
has made a group of fairly polarized factions, and some simple case studies
would likely be extremely informative and very well read:
1. Some landowners stand to make a whole ton of money by taking advantage
of their increased splits.
2. Some landowners stand to lose a whole ton of money because they lose
splits and this may have a huge impact on the supply/demand in the area.
3. Some landowners (including farmers and foresters) will see more or fewer
new neighbors.
4. Average citizens from the towns whose immediate environment is to be changed.
It is very important that you realize when I say "change" I mean change
from the way the county would be developed under the 40-acre rule. The
status quo will be changed no matter what. I helped to build a proposal
that will direct the changes in what I see as the most favorable way:
protecting farm and forest ground and the rural character of the county
while providing housing in appropriate areas while minimizing regulation
and not violating rights while being fair to everyone.
On the public hearing Wed.: it was extremely odd. Six weeks ago we had a
town meeting in Moscow where the crowd was nearly unanimous in its attitude
against regulation of any type. On Wed. the crowd was dominated by farmers
and conservationists who want to see development extremely limited. Whoever
is organizing this conspiracy, please stop and see to it that people of
opposite viewpoints attend the same meeting.
Thank you for reading.
Dennis Geist
Vice Chair LCPC (but soon to be silent citizen)