[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SG-W:/ farmland protection in Kent County
Are you thinking of the SEMCOG study?
Fiscal Impacts of Alternative Land Development Patterns in Michigan: The
Costs of Current Development Versus Compact Growth (Final Report) - Jun
The MSU spin-off of that is here:
I've never actually seen that before or used the models so that might be
an interesting exercise.
In the interest of counter-points, here's some critique from our friends
at the Mackinac Center:
[full report: http://www.mackinac.org/archives/1998/s1998-06.pdf]
and the Home Builders Association:
I couldn't find the SEMCOG report online but you can order it from SEMCOG.
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 BLonik13@aol.com wrote:
> 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
> 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
> 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.
smartgrowth-washtenaw: Internet List and Forum for issues relating to
sprawl, smart growth, and preservation of the quality of life in Washtenaw
Postings to: firstname.lastname@example.org For info, send
email to email@example.com with a one-line message body of "info