07-30-2010, 04:10 PM
quote:Lets say that the land can be acquired through the Land Fund.
Originally posted by Irongstone
Bob, if we have a good idea then we don't need loopholes. We just flesh it out and take it to the people, and to the council which can change the law if necessary. The county could buy the land and zone it for an eco-villages. It doesn't have to be prime "agricultural land". Organic farmers in Puna are on lava with as much organic material as they can add to it. I only mentioned good soil to make it easier and better for the homesteaders. Who is so exempt from rising property tax that they would never become one of the homesteaders?
First you have to buy the land willingly from the owner. If the owner is unwilling to sell, the option is condemnation. But if condemnation is used, the land must be for public benefit. That means the County can't give the land or use of the land to a private person without compensation. So, since this is for homeless people, the lease rate is $10 a year. But if Monsanto offers $50 a year, the County has to offer it to them so long as they use it for agriculture.
If the owner sells to the County, the County can't just assign the land to a private person. They would need a formal program that meets County and State requirements for private use of public property. In that process, all sorts of challenges could be raised from other private citizens. You may be in court for a decade and still end up with nothing.
Once the land is in public hands, every taxpayer now has a vested interest in maximizing benefit from that land. What if a bunch of residents nearby want it for a community garden? Or a non-profit wants the land for a educational organic farm for children? Or a big national agricultural conglomerate wants to plant GMO sugar beats and pay huge lease rates back to the County? All these are valid uses.