Posts: 37
Threads: 12
Joined: Nov 2005
Aloha,
I am curious why people imagine that making houselots out of ag land will somehow "preserve" ag land.
And that somehow making bigger houselots will preserve "more" ag land.
If nothing changes but minimum lot size when subdividing ag land, then in our legal and market reality they are simply larger houselots.
The larger they are, the more expensive they will be - because they're houselots, not farmland.
They will be unaffordable for real agricultural uses. The larger they are, the more guaranteed to be ranchettes for the (relatively) wealthy, "investment" properties for those who treat the 'aina as a speculative commodity and so on.
Ag land cannot be "saved" by being turned into what are functionally suburban houselots.
Houselot sprawl is sprawl, whether in 1/4-acre, one-acre, five-acre or even 20-acre chunks.
To actually "preserve" ag land for ag uses, it needs to attain a legal form that cannot be used for houselots.
For example, the "rights" to build X number of dwellings on some Y acres of good ag land are re-located somewhere more appropriate. This could be on a small fraction of the same piece of land, ideally the portion least good for real ag use.
Depending on the size of the original piece, this compact built area could be a few farmer/worker dwellings for a small ag operation or it could be an entire small village.
The building "rights" could also be moved somewhere else where those dwelling units would be even more valuable, such as in an existing population center.
Then the great majority of the actual ag land, intended for real ag use, is placed in some sort of legal structure (ag conservation easement etc.) so that it cannot be used for houselots...only for actual ag (or forestry or combination etc.).
This is a change in our patterns of land use.
More fundamentally, this is also a change in our relationship with land - from one of ownership, commodity and speculation to one of stewardship, community and perpetuation.
John S.
Posts: 27
Threads: 4
Joined: Jul 2005
Hi John,
Someone from the Ag working group directed me to this post. I want to say that I agree with you. I overlooked something that must have been written in minutes of an Ag meeting that you must have read. But I remember at the meeting someone said we need smaller ag lots for young/beginner farmers to get started on, and to live on (thinking susutainability). My eyes opened wide when I heard that, but I didn't say anything, because I get the logic.
But now, you're getting the reality of what would happen, in that dream. This is another good example of why I am following land use issues at the State level, along with this county process. We need a new approach to land management, and probably a new zoning category for "farm-residences".
But it will all depend on what washes out from the state legislature and whether the county will flex on any classifications. I think the county will, but I can't predict where the State will go with land use, although I have some suspicions. They will re-class agriculture, important ag lands will be set aside for ag and used for ag. Putting structures or processing machinery on the land will be harder to do. Then they will take all the subdivisions that are currently in ag, and they will make them RURAL. That will give the ag group what they proposed, ... smaller ag lots. All the way down to half-acre! But you'll have to put up with new developments and especially golf courses, because they're not letting golf courses consume important ag lands, but it will be okay in RURAL, which means it's okay to mow down conservation quality land, for golf courses. Sigh...
That will be bad for the natural resources group because most of the subdivisions are not ag land, they are native species habitat (more closely resembling conservation lands than ag lands). So this group is looking for a different category, something that will encourage larger land sizes (for conservation), and less bulldozing.
Mahalo,
Kim Tavares
Posts: 526
Threads: 11
Joined: Oct 2006
Not sure what is meant by "farm-residences" that is different from the the current Ag definition of "farm-dwelling." Only one farm dwelling can be placed on Ag zoned land. Other dwellings can be added by an ag activities certification to the county, submission of a agricultural plan, etc.
The Rural designation, as far as I can tell from the zoning code, is simply a way to wedge small residential lots into a large lot Ag zone. This is one definition of suburban sprawl and, in my opinion, the eventual death of a "rural character." You can not keep half acre lots (under the current rules) from becoming anything other than residential. How could you require agricultural activity?
Posts: 37
Threads: 12
Joined: Nov 2005
Aloha,
Following up on various comments on my original post...
Re this:
"I remember at the meeting someone said we need smaller ag lots for young/beginner farmers to get started on, and to live on (thinking susutainability). My eyes opened wide when I heard that, but I didn't say anything, because I get the logic."
Yes, IF they are actually farmers, and IF they cannot be used as commuter-houselots, and IF those small farming lots are clustered at the edge of much higher-density areas, so that the market for the farmers' production is close at hand. Then likewise the farmers can live close at hand without necessarily needing to build a dwelling on the "ag" land, which helps avoid the issue Pete brings up of tyring to legislate what is a "farm" dwelling and what is a commuter/suburban home...a very difficult and easily corruptable situation, as we already know. Like 'ohana dwellings.
To avoid denying live-on ability to such small farmers as wanted it, the same pattern of a very small buildable portion and the remainder as ag/forestry-only easement could be applied at any scale, really.
At present we already have tens of thousands of small "ag" lots for those hypothetical beginning farmers - in theory anyhow. In practice they are 95% suburban commuter houselots. And some great percentage of them are not particularly good to extremely difficult land for "ag" as well.
Also re small lots for "beginners" - and this was a surprise to me as well - I heard relatively recently from a solid ag source that farmers are often eager to lease land rather than buy it. Various reasons, such as being able to work on cash flow instead of having to carry huge debt load, or simply being unable to buy anything (due to "ag" land sold at speculative houselot prices for example). And flexibility in size/location of land, for reasons of climate/crops/useage, etc. Leasing can include small ag leases for the small farmers. This does not pay for e.g. Shipman which needs an additional profit from the lease. This would not be such an issue for a farmers' cooperative or agricultural community that owns the land itself and leases to its members/residents and other local agriculturalists.
So owning is only one path and not necessarily the most desired, apparently.
How many actual working Puna farmers are on the Ag working group and subgroups? Not to mention Land use...! If not many, better get ahold of some and recruit them, or at least find out what they actually want and what would actually work for them.
Re this:
"The Rural designation, as far as I can tell from the zoning code, is simply a way to wedge small residential lots into a large lot Ag zone. This is one definition of suburban sprawl and, in my opinion, the eventual death of a "rural character.""
As I said, the lot size is pretty much irrelevant in terms of real ag use versus houselot use. HPP is suburban sprawl, so is Orchidland and Ainaloa and Leilani and so on and on and on all through upper and lower Puna. Just happens to be larger lot sprawl instead of smaller lot sprawl.
The alleged "rural character" is due to most of it being less than 25%-30% built out (on average), so many of us have multiple empty lots all around us.
Portions of HPP are now visually suburban, the roads closest to 130 and closest to the coast being the obvious examples. Ainaloa Blvd. likewise, and Kahakai and so on.
And more importantly, and leading to our alleged "transportation" issues (which are really land use issues), movement patterns are almost entirely suburban - "rush hours" daily as well as most all trips are to and from an urban center (Hilo) for the vast majority of residents.
SUB-URBAN, as in tied to and dependent on a nearby urban area but not a direct part of that urban area.
Rural, my 'okole.
And:
"You can not keep half acre lots (under the current rules) from becoming anything other than residential. How could you require agricultural activity?"
That's exactly it - trying to legislate (define in order to require) "agricultural activity" is a horrific can of worms, like trying to legislate what a "farm dwelling" is vs. a suburban home.
Right now Puna may as well be called (by the state definition anyhow) "rural," because the vast majority of the lots are suburban houselots in usage and in market terms, they are not working ag lots. The arbitrary size distinctions the state makes vs the various lot sizes already here are largely irrelevant.
The current types of ordinances and codes and zoning etc. cannot successfully "preserve" ag land for ag use because all they can do is pick a minimum lot size for what will be sold as suburban houselots (and will be called "rural" in real estate PR).
If anyone is trying to "fix" our land use issues *without* proposing significant new and modified county (and state) ordinances for land use and zoning, all I can say is good luck and hasta la vista, Puna. We can't get out of the current box without getting *out* of the current box.
"Following" what the state is doing is also a lost cause. We are the ones living here, we need to be *driving* what the state is doing.
See, in theory WE are the county and WE are our part of the state. There is supposedly something called representation that is supposed to be happening FROM us TO the legislators.
However more often it happens the other way around - when we let it. So we gotta stop letting them drive us and start driving them. The whole CDP process is a good place to start making that change.
Plantation days pau, brah.
John S.
Posts: 37
Threads: 12
Joined: Nov 2005
Aloha,
My perspective on this sort of comment:
"Interesting reading, though the practicality of his ideas is debatable."
I hear this a lot, that I'm a dreamer, an idealist, not "practical" - which I think is pretty hilarious actually. My response is simple:
Anyone who thinks it's "practical" to keep doing what we're doing and thus getting what we're getting is the dreamer, the idealist, the one who's not "practical."
What we've been and are doing is not at all "practical" IMO. Ever more sprawl, ugliness, pollution, traffic, rubbish, deforestation, stress, anger, greed etc.
For those who do think what we've been and are doing is "practical" - we simply disagree about what we like and don't like in our lives and our communities.
cheers,
John S.
Posts: 526
Threads: 11
Joined: Oct 2006
There are many separate concepts running through this post. Maybe taking them one at a time might help me.
The first is that "houselot sprawl" on 20 acre parcels is very different from sprawl on half acre lots. The word "suburban" was coined to describe this difference from "rural" areas.
I agree that "preserving" ag land for agriculture will eventually require a "legal form" that prevents intensive development. Preventing houselots, as you say, means to me that the land use can only be plants in the ground, animal husbandry or structures, like a greenhouse, used only for explicitly agricultural uses (not a sun room house). And, if the land is to be seriously considered in agricultural use, some demonstration of commercial agriculture as opposed to gentleman farming (five citrus and a kukui tree, see Maui for examples) must be made.
The zoning we have now says only one single family "farm dwelling" per Ag-zoned parcel plus any additional dwellings certified by a bureaucratic process to be directly supportive of farm operations. Very importantly, the county says it will not subdivide below five acres in Ag zones any more. So the only issue for maintaining a potential for ag preservation is whether the parcel is subdividable. Are you calling for no further subdividing? We have discussed this issue to some extent in the growth management group but it is very difficult.
Talking "ag preservation" on small lots (an acre or less) seems like a contradiction in general, even if possible in particular. Small lots are inherently residential and very rarely rise to the level of commercial agriculture when there are better economic opportunities available. The high level of investment required for most intensive agricultural development is usually financially prohibitive and the labor required for low investment development is frequently discouraging.
On the other hand if we have a 20 acre parcel (one of the most common lot sizes larger than five acres) then some portion of it would be designated a dwelling area and the remainder then would be designated "ag conservation" and never again be touched by a dwelling. How is this different from a planned development with, say, 15 acres of open space and 5 acres of intensively developed residences? If the ag area is disassociated from the dwelling area, what is to prevent high levels of population density? What is to compel anyone to pursue ag activities on the remainder of the property for that matter? Therefore maybe we limit the dwelling area to five dwellings of one acre apiece. So now we have rural residential (one acre or less) lots within a large lot Ag zone. This is certainly nothing more than suburban sprawl and guarantees the largest future infrastructure burden.
It all goes back to how the land will be paid for. It is excellent to imagine a "change in our relationship with the land," but how would this be implemented? The cheapest 20 acre parcel I see on the MLS is $145,000 and most are well over $250,000 for vacant land. This is beyond the means of nearly everybody. Even five acre parcels are typically $50,000 to $100,000 or more before any construction costs. And the building should be permitted of course; I assume we're not talking about tents and shacks here. How many people can implement an agricultural operation after at least $200,000 of basic land and housing investment? Then what agricultural investment would give a sufficient return to pay the mortgage, the ag investment plus even a minimal living?
This is our basic problem. Unless you inherit land, have land gifted on you or bring a lot of money to the table it is very difficult to get to square one in agriculture in Hawai'i Nei that will even pay the bills much less provide a reasonable living. Perhaps we should not worry so much whether the large parcels are gentleman farms or not. We should perhaps worry how to sustain agriculture at all as an activity where you can earn some or all your living, when only those who are born into a landed family or are significantly monied can get to square one. Our entire economic system is based on "ownership, commodity and speculation." Short of reinstating Hawaiian sovereignty I don't see a mechanism to move our society to "stewardship, community and perpetuation" except as individual initiatives on whatever ground they land on.
Posts: 37
Threads: 12
Joined: Nov 2005
Aloha,
quote:
The first is that "houselot sprawl" on 20 acre parcels is very different from sprawl on half acre lots. The word "suburban" was coined to describe this difference from "rural" areas.
Well, not according to Merriam-Webster:
"Suburban:
1 a : an outlying part of a city or town b : a smaller community adjacent to or within commuting distance of a city c plural : the residential area on the outskirts of a city or large town.
And your etymology is wrong too, though Realtors® would like you to belive they coined the word I'm sure:
"Etymology: Middle English suburbe, from Anglo-French, from Latin suburbium, from sub- near + urbs city"
Our descriptions of land use are so crude and crippled and disconnected from all reality but that of land speculators that indeed, the working definition of "rural" and "suburban" - even for planners who ought to know better - are based on nothing but lot size.
However I and the dictionary definition of "suburban" are pointing to the *movement patterns* as fundamental. Since we have major transportation issues arising from our suburban land use choices, it is movement patterns that show the functional nature of our houselots.
The movement patterns from the vast majority of bunches of houselots of *any* size on this island are suburban. Certainly here in Puna, which is functionally a suburb of Hilo, as the movement patterns and resultant suburban-typical traffic issues clearly show.
So it's fine if people want to continue to think they live "rural" because they have more than 1/2 acre lot when their entire lifestyle (movement pattern) screams "SUBURBAN" - however nothing will get better as long as this denial of what is continues. We can't make good decisions on bad (incorrect) information.
As for the ag land stuff, I'm just not interested in large scale energy and chemical-intensive commercial agriculture. It has no future, we simply can't afford it much longer.
I'm interested in local small farmers and foresters feeding and providing fuel and fiber to local communities. That's the only viable future, whether it needs ten or fifty years to be shown so.
If you think that's "not practical," just wait until the barges stop coming for a whole week or two (or a month, or nobody knows...) or the artificially cheap US food economy takes a dive and you'll wish we'd done everything we could right here right now to start making such a transition.
quote:
On the other hand if we have a 20 acre parcel (one of the most common lot sizes larger than five acres) then some portion of it would be designated a dwelling area and the remainder then would be designated "ag conservation" and never again be touched by a dwelling. How is this different from a planned development with, say, 15 acres of open space and 5 acres of intensively developed residences?
I don't follow your question. I do know that building on 5 of 20 acres is using way too much of that 20 acres, if the idea is to preserve ag land. An acre would do easily for all built farm infrastructure and housing. Two at most if very large roofed areas were needed for value added processing etc.
quote:
If the ag area is disassociated from the dwelling area, what is to prevent high levels of population density?
Again I don't get your context here. However high levels of population density on small areas of land is exactly what we need far more of. It's the opposite of the unaffordability (individual and societal) and inherent transportation problems of low-density (sprawl).
This (high-density/small land area) used to be called a "village," or if bigger a "town." It's where the true rural (not suburban) people all went once a week, on Sundays, for church and socializing.
quote:
What is to compel anyone to pursue ag activities on the remainder of the property for that matter?
Well, because that's what it's for and only for. If they're not going to do it themselves, they can lease it to someone else. If they don't want to lease or do, it can fallow and grow biomass.
The fundamental difference between you and me is that I don't think we have a future here if we keep doing what we're doing. And I know that there are infinite ways to do things differently and I don't see the value in constantly saying "no can" when obviously we can, if we want.
The people I know who are working, local, non-agribusiness/non-cash-export-crop farmers and gardeners and food-foresters and so on - these are the people folks will be begging for food from when the 90% imported food machine stops (or even stumbles for a couple weeks). And they are mostly kind and loving human beings who will probably share what they have, even with people who could have done something and yet did nothing to help them afford and preserve the land they needed to grow that food.
And some of them live in tents and shacks. I have no problem with that. Sometimes it's because that's all they can afford. I realize it's a crime to be poor in this country, but why add homelessness to poverty when there's no practial need to?
Some live like that because they just plain like it that way. It's their choice. Some live in unconventional dwellings because it's part of how they express their creativity and they just want to do it. They have to do it. They wouldn't want to live in a shizit-rock west-coast-container stick-box if someone gave it to them, and no one ought be be able to force them to.
There's an ancient rumor that this is a "free country" and if that rumor is true, then these folks have nothing to fear.
If that rumor is false, then we're all in trouble - because as the man said, sooner or later they'll come for you and there will be no one left to speak up.
a hui hou,
John S.
Edited by - johns on 12/28/2006 19:18:51
Posts: 37
Threads: 12
Joined: Nov 2005
Aloha,
Forgot one thing:
quote:
...So the only issue for maintaining a potential for ag preservation is whether the parcel is subdividable. Are you calling for no further subdividing?
Yes, absolutely, that would be an excellent recommendation. It's a most fundamental step.
We already know from prior "development and traffic" studies that at full build-out of only already existing houselots we'd need about eleven lanes to Hilo to handle the cars.
Is that not a clear enough sign that there's already too many houselots in Puna and we don't need any more?
John S.
Posts: 4,533
Threads: 241
Joined: Jan 2006
Has anyone submitted a additional farm dwelling assessment to Planning? If I could, I would like to look at it!
Posts: 8,464
Threads: 1,032
Joined: May 2003
None has been submitted by the Land Use WG that I know of. Not sure what you mean by additional farm dwelling assessment.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
|
