RSS Feed
 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mountain Landscapes Initiative:
Participants broke up into smaller groups to share ideas and concerns and list them so that they could be presented at the end of the session. Many of the concerns were the same as we went table by table. Preserving the natural beauty and water quality topped most of the lists. Saving agricultural land from development was also a high priority. Recognizing that as transportation costs increase, desire to purchase locally increases. Interest in organic products and innovative farming techniques make small scale farming once again looks promising. Once those farms turn to subdivisions, there's no turning back. Ridgeline and steep slope development and the implications for increased erosion and deteriorating water quality brought on a series of recommendations. "Ridgelines, not rooflines" would imply setbacks and site plan requirements to preserve the natural profile of the mountains. A "See out, but not be seen" approach to home construction that attempts to blend into the mountain rather than stand out. Selective pruning and tree trimming can accomplish the spectacular view without clear cutting and subsequent potential erosion, not to mention the danger that can cause. "One man's castle can be community's eyesore" was mentioned by someone. Roads that emergency vehicles can't safely climb implies that some areas are just plain not accessible. That points to determining a degree of incline beyond which you just don't develop. Developments that use higher density than the 1 acre/ home rule could actually be a better use of space if the resulting community green space did a better job of preserving the rural appearance of the area. The list went on to include removing billboards, cleaning up signage, cleaning up junkyards {a touchy issue since "one man's trash is another man's treasure"……….or perhaps just another man's trash}. Avoid looking like "Anytown, USA" was well received. I have by no means included all the recommendations but there were many common ideas from tables 1 through 5. Then came table 6. Apparently, there was some real disagreement about what should go on their list but they did manage to agree on two recommendations. The tax code needed to be revisited and the need for economic growth. I'll paraphrase since I didn't take notes but I think I can do the speaker for table 6 justice. He looked around the room and said, "I see some younger people here, but I suspect that a lot of you are retired and I don't think you realize just how bad the job situation is here. Construction has been driving this local economy and while I can see the need for a few of these regulations, making it more expensive to build homes will just make the situation worse." I thought to myself, "Now, we can finally have a public discussion about all sides of these issues including the views of property rights advocates and how much is too much regulation." But, after a few more points made by table 6 and a few counterpoints from the audience, our host announced it was time to wrap it up………….. discussion over. Now I think we need to continue this dialogue in a public forum so that everyone's concerns are expressed and explained in more detail. The fact is that wages are abysmally low and good paying jobs are scarce at best in this area. Managing growth responsibly can sound sinister to those suffering the effects of the present economic downturn. In the Mountain Landscapes Initiative's literature one of the frequently asked questions is: "Is this an effort to stop growth in the mountains?" Answer: "Just the opposite. This is an effort to make sure that growth takes place. However, since our growth is driven by such a significant degree by the vitality of our natural assets, the best way to assure healthy growth is to guide it in ways that protect and enhance those assets. Economic development concerns will be part of every "Tool Box" conversation." People advocating sensible regulations are often accused of promoting the "nanny state" and hurt the economy by stifling growth. The counter argument is that by allowing home site clearing and housing that detracts from instead of working with the mountains does more damage to an economy so closely tied to the natural beauty of the area. Towns County GA has amended their subdivision ordinance to encourage a 3-acre minimum lot size along with strictly voluntary other recommendations to preserve and enhance green space. In exchange, certain fees are waved and the developer is given a fast track approval for the project. This is a perfect example of rewarding desirable behavior instead of just mandating it. The same approach could be applied to the property tax roles so that landowners that preserve green space are not penalized by the ever-increasing property taxes. At the workshop, we were all asked to envision what this area could look like in 20-30 years. I would ask all those in strong opposition to any form of regulated growth what they envision this area looking like with no regulation for the next 30 years.
Bill Tibbetts
|
for larger version       |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
)
