>My thoughts ... It may seem hard to believe, but I plan to testify in favor
>of the original proposal, or something similar (perhaps with less land
>zoned rural residential). The short of my argument is that this
>extraordinary place in which we we live will attract more residents in the
>future, perhaps significantly more if we have the water. A highly
>restrictive ordinance will not stand the pressure of time. Therefore, it's
>better to bite the bullet now and determine where we want growth to occur
>-- certainly near existing towns and near transportation routes.
I'm attempting to understand your logic. You are
reverting to the original proposal because you feel it to
be inherently more "rational" because it concentrates growth
near transportation routes? I find this problematic becuase
as you correctly point out, it hinges on the appropriate
designation of "rural" vs. "agricultural" land. I have
seen little evidence that the P&Z land classifcations
are rational (by rational, I mean systematic with a set of
well-defined rules). Dennis Geist had to fight hard to
change the designation of the Paradise Ridge area where
there was simply no reason for the chosen designation.
There are many other such random designations. I simply
do not believe the P&Z is capable of developing
rational rules for land classification (rural vs. ag)
and following them. The map associated with the previous
proposal encourages dispersed, rather than concentrated
development along transportation routes.
Rather than concentric development, the end result is
likely to be string development.
At least the second proposal (which I still don't
believe is operational with the existing county
databases) relies on verifiable, third-party criteria.
>It's true that the second proposal will push development on to less
>productive ground. But new houses will still be built willy nilly, i.e.
>randomly over the land scape. I believe we'll be more likely to get
>planned -- and (somewhat) logical -- development under the original
>proposal.
I admire your optimism, Priscilla.(grin) But I'm still
not sure how you reach this conclusion. How can
non-systematic classification (rural vs. ag) lead
to logical development if the classifications aren't
logical in the first place?
-- Greg Brown (gregb@siu.edu) Assistant Professor,Dept. of Forestry Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901-4411 (618) 453-7465 FAX: (618) 453-7475