This might restore your faith in the youth of America - teen buys farm

[Shimon]

Yeah, good kid...but this is nothing more people wanting to preserve the appearance of "rural life" without really being "rural". This quote from the article says it all: "But steady growth in construction spurred residents to step up efforts to preserve the town's rural character." These are the same people who move into a rural area and then complain about the smell of the cows, the noise of the tractors and the appearance of old farm buildings. But then when they realize all they are left with are housing developments that all look alike they yearn for "rural character". They want the rural look without the rural annoyances. If people really want to preserve rural areas then stop having so many babies. Of course, I could be way off base on this one...but that's my take on the article. I don't mean to rain on hazmat's attempt to share a interesting article.

 

[farmerjim]

i tend not to agree w/ connomx if you don't preserve some open space areas wether its agriculture land or what have you.the taxes will climb even higher than they are currently. more developement leads to more people which leads to more money needed for services they need like new schools/road maintainance ect. while if you were to preserve some land for ag use or just open space whether its tax free or taxed on a limited value, it would be actually less of a burden on the town/area. tax rates stay or go up at a level that most everyone can afford, the town's budget doesn't become a crisis to get approved. in my area you see it all the time they develope all this property and these people move out to the rural area which doesn't really have an infrastructure to handle the capacity of the influx. so within 2yrs of big developement the taxes are going up through the roof, for the new schools and road repairs, other services these suburbanites require, that the town has never had to have b4. let alone the rise in taxes drives out the elderly, and younger people who just don't make enough income to afford the taxes and mcmansion houses they're building. 2500+sq ft isn't really necessary for rural living unless you have a large family or working farm, like in the early years, a family of 2 or even 3 just doesn't need a house w/2500sqft+. sorry to take away from the real story, like i said earlier i wish i had the oppurtunity that kid had, when i was 18 or even now.

 

[Highbeam]

The kid could be renting the land for all I care, the important thing is that he is actually taking fiscal risk to make a living in agriculture in his home town. Attracting and keeping young farmers is proving very difficult for the industry. Rather than a land trust setting up and buying out farmers we have some areas in my county that are just zoned rural and they won't allow the small chopping of lots. That is what zoning should do. If you want an area to stay rural then don't allow urban growth. Yes, it will keep values down in the rural area and yes it will increase values in urban areas. Maybe that will make more young folks come out and try farming. The city won't become a ghosttown.

 

[hazmat]

Regarding the preservation/taxation discussion:

I grew up in the next town over from Westport (Dartmouth) - parents still live there. Both towns are in the middle of a conversion from town/center - rural area to suburbia. Dartmouth has had a mall and associated retail for years, but also many, many acres of farms (It is one of the largest towns landwise in MA). The conversion used to be gradual, but has accelerated significantly.

The area is approx 1 hour south of Boston, 40 minutes east of Providence, RI. The local cities - Fall River & New Bedford (former textile & whaling giants) are both in economic distress. It is only in the last 10 years that Westport & Dartmouth have been considered "bedroom communities" for Boston & Providence metro areas. As such the rate of development today is overwhelming.

The goal of preserving land (whether it be land trust, as in this case, or the town itself buying it) is a - to preserve it (duh), and b - to slow the rate of growth in town. Some towns limit the number of building permits each year, others (especially cape cod) create special restricitons that most of the new building is not for year round use - ie you get to pay taxes, but don't have a valid residency to put your kids into the school system.

Town govt. in many areas is going bankrupt because they can't keep up with the pace. Maintaining the level of service (primarily schools, but also public safety etc.) that attracted the new residents is very expensive. New schools cost lots of money significantly adding to the "overhead". For example - consider the school that was built 20-50 years ago - it's debt (bonds) has long been retired. Never mind that it cost a fraction of what a new building costs today. If adding 10% to the school system requires a new building, it could well double the cost of education in town (depending on how many buildings the school system already had). It's the interplay of the fixed (buildings) & variable (# teachers) costs that come into account.

Limiting developable land has unitended consequences though. It artifically raises property values. You won't see many current town residents complaining, but it makes it more expensive for new residents to move in.

I don't think anyone can stop suburban sprawl unless you tore up all the interstate highways that enable "reasonable" commute times to the cities/metro areas for employment. I wonder if Eisenhower intended to create suburban american when he created the interstate system???