Re: SG-W:/ cashing out

["Christina Lirones" <goldenspiderfarm@hotmail.com>]

Thanks for your responses, Matthew and others. Matthew, you make an 
excellent point about the purpose of zoning and the fact that we stole this 
land to begin with. Let's not continue to pile wrong on wrong.

I'm thinking hard about step 2: Who do we contact. Last night I was at a 
democratic party dinner and sat next to a Gore worker. We talked about 
sprawl among other things. He says it's a big issue in certain pockets, but 
tpeople tend not to get excited if it doesn't affect them directly. That's a 
problem.

I did use my example about Ag being able to be converted so easily; that you 
couldn't raze a house in a res. neighborhood and sue to build a gas station. 
(Matthew is correct to add the term well-to-do). A light bulb went on over 
his head, and he said that was an excellent way to put it. I think this is 
an important point to convey, because otherwise you get weepy stories about 
farmers having to sell for their retirements, which are used by our 
supervisor here, and here, anyway, that's almost entirely false. Farmers 
aren't necessarily doing the wrong thing, it's just that they are being 
allowed to do it: How many of us could resist the temptation of big bucks if 
we were allowed to raze our houses and build shopping centers, the 
neighborhood be darned.

We need to hammer home the importance of Ag as a zoning category, as well as 
everything else (Preserving land for parks and habitat, PDRs, etc.). Almost 
from the day I began my involvement in the War In Pittsfield, I have thought 
of what Ken Ver Berg told me: "We need to elevate Agricultural Zoning to the 
same level as other zoning categories." Simple and true.  Tina

>From: Matthew G Kerwin <mgkerwin@juno.com>
>To: smartgrowth-washtenaw@great-lakes.net
>Subject: SG-W:/ cashing out
>Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 10:57:09 -0400
>
>"Ag is the only zoning category where everyone seems to think it's ok to
>sell
>off the business and convert it. Think about it: if every piece of land
>is
>going to be sold by a farmer and converted so he/she can retire, there
>will
>be nothing left. They certainly can sell it, but why should the purchaser
>
>automatically get to convert the zoning?" -- Tina
>
>Wow!  Tina's full message, the above being her central point, was
>powerful.
>
>What laws allow -- even encourage -- this rezoning?  Will writing our
>representatives in the legislature about changing the laws do any good?
>
>Can you imagine going into a well-to-do neighborhood, buying up the
>remaining available acres, and successfully suing the local government
>for refusing to rezone it industrial. (In poor neighborhoods, of course,
>the government might collude with you to condemn the neighborhood so as
>to convert it to industrial use.)
>
>Several moral and thus uncivil points:
>
>All the land in Michigan was stolen from indigenous people and converted
>for our ancestors use.  Our ancestors thus got the land at a slight
>fraction of its value as the conversion was subsidized by the U.S.
>Military.  Current possession of the land gives us the right to use it to
>make a living (through agriculture or as a location for non-farm
>business) or to use it as a place to live.  We have no right to profit
>from the sale of the land (speculation).  All profits on the land itself
>(not the "improvements") should be turned over to the government for
>distribution to the heirs of the original (and rightful) owners.
>Probably, a portion of the property taxes should be distributed to
>American Indian tribes as rent.
>
>Another point of view (not recognized in civil law -- only in moral law):
>we do not own the land, we hold it in trust for the community.  We pay a
>transfer fee to the previous trustee when we "buy" the land.  The
>increase in the fee from one trustee to another can not be tied to a
>supposed increase in the value of the land; it can only be increased at a
>rate no greater than the general rate of monetary inflation.  As the
>community actually owns the land, the community has a right and duty to
>place restrictions (unrelated to personal morality) on the type of use of
>the land.
>
>Zoning laws reflect the "Common Good" concept expressed in the
>Constitution.  Why is it many who so avidly promote laws related to
>personal morality (a misreading of the Common Good), believe that the
>Common Good can't be applied to land and business issues?
>
>Anyhow, what can we realistically ask the legislature for in changes to
>current land use laws so as to allow townships to better fight sprawl?
>
>Matthew Kerwin
>Newsletter Editor, Southeast Michigan Naturists
>Liaison, Michigan Nude Beach Advocates
>
>
>===============================================================
>smartgrowth-washtenaw:  Internet List and Forum for issues relating to
>sprawl, smart growth, and preservation of the quality of life in Washtenaw
>County.
>
>Postings to:  smartgrowth-washtenaw@great-lakes.net      For info, send
>email to majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info
>smartgrowth-washtenaw"
>===============================================================

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com



===============================================================
smartgrowth-washtenaw:  Internet List and Forum for issues relating to
sprawl, smart growth, and preservation of the quality of life in Washtenaw
County.

Postings to:  smartgrowth-washtenaw@great-lakes.net      For info, send
email to majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info
smartgrowth-washtenaw"
===============================================================