12-06-2006, 05:18 AM
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
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