[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SG-W:/ farmland protection in Kent County
- Subject: Re: SG-W:/ farmland protection in Kent County
- From: BLonik13@aol.com
- Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:28:44 EST
- Delivered-To: email@example.com
- Delivered-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
In a message dated 11/26/02 5:22:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, email@example.com writes:
I have yet to see a community where the development ever paid for the demand for more services.
They don't even stay the same; they always rise. School construction is the back breaker; without that, commercial/industrial development could pay for residential expansion. So the solution is 5,000 sq ft houses with one bedroom!
Someone (MSU?) a couple years ago did a comparison of taxes for typical development v. saving 15% as open space (same number of units), and the latter was cheaper. Washtenaw Land Trust did a comparison of future costs with different densities and preservation, and preservation was cheaper.