Global Warming News

[Pilot]

Dave,

Yes the fragmentation concern would make sense if land were being subdivided, but it's not except for urban / suburban areas. If you have an existing 40 acre parcel of timber, you still can't build (and you can't divide) and that won't make any significant difference regarding fragmentation--it just keeps homes from being built where there is timber. Looks nice when city dwellers drive by your place. Might look nicer if you could live there and more actively manage the timber.

 

[dave1949]

Dave,

Yes the fragmentation concern would make sense if land were being subdivided, but it's not except for urban / suburban areas. If you have an existing 40 acre parcel of timber, you still can't build (and you can't divide) and that won't make any significant difference regarding fragmentation--it just keeps homes from being built where there is timber. Looks nice when city dwellers drive by your place. Might look nicer if you could live there and more actively manage the timber.

I see your view point, but the land isn't becoming fragmented or subdivided because of the restrictions on it. In other words, it is more likely to become suburban or ex-urban without those restrictions.

Is that fair to the owner of 40 acres is the question - right? I would agree the owner is holding a sort of orphaned piece of property, about all they can do is enjoy it as is, or sell it.

It's a hard situation. If you take away the restrictions, 20-30 years from now you could drive down that same road past houses and think, 'This used to be all forest'. It might be one of those no free lunch deals. Another way to think of it is - people can love the forest to death. Just want to have a house in the forest and tend it well, but when enough people do that, there is no intact, unfragmented forest left. To me, that's what it comes down to.

We don't face that problem here, more people leave than move in, so I am certainly not sharing your experience and don't mean to sound glib about it.

If the population continues to grow, the land rights problem will grow with it I believe.
Dave.

 

[dcyrilc]

I see your view point, but the land isn't becoming fragmented or subdivided because of the restrictions on it. In other words, it is more likely to become suburban or ex-urban without those restrictions.

Is that fair to the owner of 40 acres is the question - right? I would agree the owner is holding a sort of orphaned piece of property, about all they can do is enjoy it as is, or sell it.

It's a hard situation. If you take away the restrictions, 20-30 years from now you could drive down that same road past houses and think, 'This used to be all forest'. It might be one of those no free lunch deals. Another way to think of it is - people can love the forest to death. Just want to have a house in the forest and tend it well, but when enough people do that, there is no intact, unfragmented forest left. To me, that's what it comes down to.

We don't face that problem here, more people leave than move in, so I am certainly not sharing your experience and don't mean to sound glib about it.

If the population continues to grow, the land rights problem will grow with it I believe.
Dave.

To me, where the problem comes in is where the land may have been buildable/usable when purchased, but regulations change and usability is lost. It doesn't bother me if I can't do something with a piece of land when I know before I buy. Perhaps a viable solution would be if new land use restrictions did not take effect until ownership of the land changed. In other words, If you bought the 40 acre tract before the 80 acre restriction came into being, then you would still be able to build on it. However, if you sold it without building, the new owner would not be able to since it was sold after the restriction was in place. Just a thought.

 

[eepete]

I'm on our county's planning board. All the comments here so far make sense. And it doesn't become any easier to find equitable solutions if you part of the group "drawing the line". If you're lucky the sand is white, most of the time is soiled and shows signs of a scuffle.

Biggest thing going on here is "rural suburbanization" where farms get divided into lots for building houses. Some as dense as 2 acre lots, a bunch at 10 acres (so that county zoning doesn't apply) and as more horse hackers move in, lots of 30 to 50 acre size. No sewer and water in the county controls the density at the low end. So people around here drive around and say "This used to be all farm land." There is still a lot of land in agricultural use for timber and hay. My land grows hay for a nearby farmer who has beef cattle. With this rural suburbanization we are seeing more of these land rights issues. Anything that can cross a property line is up for discussion. Sound, sight, smell, water quality and even light pollution.

Pete

 

[dave1949]

To me, where the problem comes in is where the land may have been buildable/usable when purchased, but regulations change and usability is lost. It doesn't bother me if I can't do something with a piece of land when I know before I buy. Perhaps a viable solution would be if new land use restrictions did not take effect until ownership of the land changed. In other words, If you bought the 40 acre tract before the 80 acre restriction came into being, then you would still be able to build on it. However, if you sold it without building, the new owner would not be able to since it was sold after the restriction was in place. Just a thought.

That would be nice. I agree. The problem not being addressed is: which among many grandfathering situations will be permitted? A house on a 40 acre forest lot is one thing. If someone owned 1000 acres of raw forest land before it was defined as 'forest land' even, say they have owned it for 40 years, what uses for that land should be grandfathered? Would it be any thing that was permitted at the time of purchase? That land has probably been through several permitted use changes since purchase.

There will be all sorts of 'equal treatment' issues brought to court if they start in with exceptions that are probably hard to defend legally. I think that is why in most of these situations, they grandfather in existing homes, structures, uses or whatever, but don't permit them on raw land.

I'm not saying it is fair, or that the owner isn't due some compensation if their property losses value. Anything worth having is worth paying for As it stands now, some are benefiting at the expense of others, as you guys have pointed out.

Heck, I wish the State of Maine would compensate me, even a token amount, for providing the space and habitat to grow THEIR deer herd - which they profit from.
Dave.

 

[keegs]

I'm on our county's planning board. All the comments here so far make sense. And it doesn't become any easier to find equitable solutions if you part of the group "drawing the line". If you're lucky the sand is white, most of the time is soiled and shows signs of a scuffle.

Biggest thing going on here is "rural suburbanization" where farms get divided into lots for building houses. Some as dense as 2 acre lots, a bunch at 10 acres (so that county zoning doesn't apply) and as more horse hackers move in, lots of 30 to 50 acre size. No sewer and water in the county controls the density at the low end. So people around here drive around and say "This used to be all farm land." There is still a lot of land in agricultural use for timber and hay. My land grows hay for a nearby farmer who has beef cattle. With this rural suburbanization we are seeing more of these land rights issues. Anything that can cross a property line is up for discussion. Sound, sight, smell, water quality and even light pollution.

Pete

Pete,

It seems to me very clear, what's happening in NC is what's happened in NJ over the past several decades. By locating in exurbia, corporations are essentially taking over land use policy. It's a familiar pattern... it's likely unsustainable and it's unlikely we'll do anything about it.

 

[dave1949]

Another interesting land issue on the horizon potentially; shore front land. Let's say your deed describes your property as commencing at the high tide line and continuing xxx feet inland. What happens when the high tide line moves inland?
Dave.

 

[eepete]

keegs: Yup. I grew up in eastern Mass. When my parents moved to the town, everyone said "why way out there?" That area went through these processes. I saw the area go from 20 some farms down to two farms, and then town had to preserve them. By then, the town had grown from 4,000 to 14,000 or so. And then everyone missed the farms, and the two remaining ones turned into roadside farm stands with about 1/2 the produce grown on site. The "easy stuff" get developed, then infill development occurs. It is unsustainable, but eventually the areas just get clogged and then the land and housing supply is fixed and the price goes up. Or local industries go away and the prices go down. What rarely happens is stability, but that might also be the nature of life.

Part of why I'm on the planning board is to help both control some of the run away growth, but also avoid some of the run away over-restrictions. I just have to remember to _never_ start a statement with "Well, up North we used to..." I know that compromise means you're in the middle and will get squished but it's worth the risk. BTW, have been out of Mass since '73, and in NC since '83.

Pete

 

[dcyrilc]

Another interesting land issue on the horizon potentially; shore front land. Let's say your deed describes your property as commencing at the high tide line and continuing xxx feet inland. What happens when the high tide line moves inland?
Dave.

It will probably be handled the same way property lines defined by a creek or stream are when said creek or stream moves it's bank. I've heard of one owner loosing property and the one on the other side of the creek gaining.

 

[dcyrilc]

keegs: Yup. I grew up in eastern Mass. When my parents moved to the town, everyone said "why way out there?" That area went through these processes. I saw the area go from 20 some farms down to two farms, and then town had to preserve them. By then, the town had grown from 4,000 to 14,000 or so. And then everyone missed the farms, and the two remaining ones turned into roadside farm stands with about 1/2 the produce grown on site. The "easy stuff" get developed, then infill development occurs. It is unsustainable, but eventually the areas just get clogged and then the land and housing supply is fixed and the price goes up. Or local industries go away and the prices go down. What rarely happens is stability, but that might also be the nature of life.

Part of why I'm on the planning board is to help both control some of the run away growth, but also avoid some of the run away over-restrictions. I just have to remember to _never_ start a statement with "Well, up North we used to..." I know that compromise means you're in the middle and will get squished but it's worth the risk. BTW, have been out of Mass since '73, and in NC since '83.

Pete

Pete,
I'ld like to take a minute to thank you for your efforts on the planning board for your area. I'm sure it can't be an easy job. As you say, being in the middle leaves you subject to being squished.