[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]
Re: E-M:/ High Density Developments to Preserve Agricultural Land???
- Subject: Re: E-M:/ High Density Developments to Preserve Agricultural Land???
- From: "William Tobler" <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 10:51:11 -0400
- Delivered-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivered-To: email@example.com
- List-Name: Enviro-Mich
- Reply-To: "William Tobler" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Enviro-Mich message from "William Tobler" <email@example.com>
I don't agree.
The key word is "implemented properly".
I have been on the Planning Commission for 20 years, and I know very
well, first hand, what is going on. My interest is preservation of
rural lifestyles. It is sadly comical when the leading Land Use
Planners come in and propose a 15 foot greenbelt buffer to isolate
incompatible uses from each other. And they do it with a deadly
serious attitude, like it means anything. The advanced land
preservation plans that I have seen all been written from an urban
citizen's viewpoint, and quite frankly, I don't see them as very
attractive or useful.
The developers come in and buy 100 acres. Then they intensively
develop 50, and leave the other 50 as "open space", or whatever you
want to call it.
When you are done, you have an urban park. There is absolutely nothing
rural or "country" about it, and other than market gardens, there is no
farm land preserved. To some, this may be better than having a lot of
large lots and lawns, but in either case, "country and rural life" was
not preserved. PDR is a great concept, but not exactly affordable in
its present form, and also not in reality affecting very much in the
way of stopping conversion of non-developed lands.
There is nothing being done about what the real problem is. This is an
economy (national and/or local) and personal attitudes based on
consumption and continuing growth at all costs, and getting someone
else to pay for "services" other than those citizens demanding them.
It won't stop until ALL of the resources are consumed, and then that
miserable status will be maintained.
I don't look forward to it.
Urban areas need to be enhanced so that individuals that actually
prefer urban life will happily choose to live there (and not be force
to), and not necessitate their flight and creation of new urban areas
in the country at the expense of the country.
> Cluster, or Open Space development, if implemented properly, does not
> have to diminish the rural nature of a community. Rather, if based
> conservation planning principles, designed to preserve and enhance
> natural features while devoting much less land to manicured lawns, is
> good way to allow for some rural growth while maintaining the rural
> William Tobler wrote:
> > I live in an area that is still relatively rural, or at least most
> > urban folks think so. I actually would prefer to live in an area a
> > heck of lot more rural than is available.
> > The problem for a rural township within a commuting distance
> > of employment is the clustering proposal will quickly transform it
> > anything but rural. The factors that keep urban and suburban
> > away are:
> > 1) Yuk, you live on a dirt road?
> > 2) Echk, you drink water that comes out of the ground?
> > 3) Ooh, where does this go when I flush?
> > 4) Ach, you go how far to buy cheez doodles?
> > Creating the cluster home situation takes away all of these
> > deterrents. It would be one thing if we were building it for the
> > township's residents to live in at their choice. But instead, you
> > inviting every one else to move in and take away from you what you
> > hold dear. If you build it, they will come, and in short order,
> > will have the local votes to take away the rest, and they will.
> > spent my entire life moving from one area or another that has
> > place that I wouldn't even want to visit.
> > As far developers paying their way, forget it. They don't and they
> > won't. Not even close. It is a real struggle to get the
> > to even build and pay for the amenities that they promised to put
> > their developments in the first place. Our legislators won't fix
> > either. How many years have they had the opportunity to fix the
> > inequity of MHP developments?
> > The only solution is to address urban and suburban flight, and not
> > create yet more new urban and suburban sprawl.
ENVIRO-MICH: Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action. Archives at
Postings to: firstname.lastname@example.org For info, send email to
email@example.com with a one-line message body of "info enviro-mich"