12-05-2006, 11:10 AM
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.
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.