12-08-2006, 05:06 AM
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.
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.