We read an impassioned plea by a poster, Racktivist, last week about land use issues being discussed by the Champaign County Board. I am reprinting it in hopes of getting both sides of the debate and clarification as to the purpose of the meeting. (The Civic Calendar said the mtg was about Township Boundary changes).
The meeting is 6:30 pm, Nov. 21, at Brookens in Urbana to comment on changes.
"This issue of preserving prime farmland by relinquishing the owner's property rights is a huge issue. How would you like to be a landowner and have your county board dictate new zoning regulations that restrict your ability to sell off home sites? Ten years ago a one acre home site was legal by right. Today the new zoning text amendments are proposing to restrict the landowner to one lot per forty acres with a maximum of four additional lots per tax parcel.
Here's an example; if you owned sixty acres you could have a minimum six, possibly more home sites. If the new regs went through, you would be limited to one home site. How can the county board even consider doing this to the citizens of this county?
Especially when you see that the loss of farm land is not a big issue outside the urban sprawl of CU. CU is the culprit, not the rural landowners.
You might want to read this.
There are times when the default reaction, "IT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY!" is appropriate, and times when it aint. I would humbly suggest educating yourselves about the issues of drainage, prime farmland, and precedent (especially DeKalb county).
Zoning is what the government does to protect the many from the few. Yes, the few usually get screwed. Personally, I am willing to bear the tears of the handful of farmers who have been denied the chance to get rich. Better that than cheap condos stretching to the horizon, complete with vinyl siding flapping in the breeze.
Should be a fun protest though. My advice: at least know which part (letter) of the amendment you are against. ;)
Joan, I think you might be confusing two separate issues coming before the Board tonight. There is a 6:30 hearing, but as you mentioned, it's regarding the township boundary issue (City of Champaign or Champaign Twp?).
The actual County Board agenda (starting at 7) includes proposals to amend the County Zoning Ordinance. That's probably the one that has property rights activists upset.
looks to me like the farm bureau is on the the wrong side of 2 of 3 parts of the amendment.
-We need to keep in mind that all zoning regulations/ordinances are temporary land use restrictions subject to change at any time by the zoning authority.
-Drainage, especially that placed for agriculture use, should always be protected if part or all of the land is used for agriculture. Failure to protect farm drainage in the past can be attributed to the county, town, city governments which allow non-agriculture developers to destroy it.
"Zoning is what the government does to protect the many from the few. Yes, the few usually get screwed. Personally, I am willing to bear the tears of the handful of farmers who have been denied the chance to get rich. Better that than cheap condos stretching to the horizon, complete with vinyl siding flapping in the breeze."
In the case of rural land development, it looks more like what gov't does to protect a few from the many. "Now that I have my quiet house in the country, lets do whatever we can to make it harder for anyone else to move out here."
"Personally, I am willing to bear the tears of the handful of farmers who have been denied the chance to get rich."
So, in short, you're fine with "protecting" the many from the few.
I love it how people who have never stepped foot on a farm make themselves the biggest authority on what to do with farmland.
Yes, John I am fine with protecting the many from the few. You betcha. Wish we did it more often, actually. The world would be a better place.
As for the farm comment. I assume you understand that most would consider that a personal insult. Not the idea that I've never set foot on a farm (which, btw, isn't true - I worked on farms in DeKalb County before moving down here), but the idea that I don't know what I am talking about.
I am not sure why you continually attack me personally instead of making an argument one way or the other. If you have something of substance to address regarding the amendments, feel free to type away. If you're just here to slam people personally, then I wished you find somewhere else to hang out. It's getting pretty old.
Thanks for the info. When I saw the post last week about the 6:30 meeting and then the Civic Calendar with the township boundaries issue also at 6:30, I kinda figured that Racktivist had the time wrong. Since he was hoping for protesters, I wanted to clarify when to show up for the zoning ordinance amendments (for public participation at 7 pm at full board).
Let me set the record straighT for those of you who don't know the details. Farmland Preservation is one of two key elements at play. The others relate to conservation of habitat, wildlife, soil, air and water conservation.
In regards to Farmland preservation, it is not the rural landowners who are converting prime farm land it is urban sprawl predominately around CU. The text amendments punish every individual landowner with no regard for there property rights as citizens of our great country. They are not the culprit, urban sprawl is, so why punish them.
The County Board hides in plain sight as a liberal block of environmentalists with zero formal knowledge of how conservation really works. (I am presuming that by there recomendations). They want to invoke rules and regulations to develop contiguous wildlife corridors, for example. These exist all up and down the rivers. But they then want to restrict you from mowing to the river because this breaks the continuous concept. If you have ever been in the woods along the river you might have noticed these plants that make you itch, commonly known as Nettles and Poison Ivy. I mow them down so I can enjoy a wALk in the woods, not under the rules they are trying to establish.
Drainage ways are very important, any one who lives by them can see the necessity to stay a safe distance from them, whether it is a ditch, a creek or a river. It is obvious not to build where it floods. those who do this are foolish. We do not need blanket ordinances that say you can not build within so many feet of a waterway. Because this is just an arbitrary number. It is not about width it is about elevation. Water does not run uphill. If you had a home sight fifty feet above the waters edge it will not flood, yet it may be ten feet from the waters edge. This blanket approach is not fair to the individual with regards to the lay of their land.
The reality of this entire debacle is --- we have an agenda that has been pushed by Frank Dinovo under the auspices of a comprehensive zoning revue. The goals are to push an extremely liberal environmental agenda through zoning that restricts growth in the country and develops conservation easements on our private poperty. The Sierra club and those who share there very common view in Urbana are out to get us. They know how to use the system and are unrelenting, so are we! the Big Small All initiative is but another tool they are developing that we will have to combat, unless we show up tonight with a resounding LEAVE US ALONE OR YOU WILL PAY THE PRICE! THE BOARD KNOWS THEY ARE TREADING ON LEGAL ISSUES IN THIS CASE, ITS TIME TO REMIND THEM.
THE NURSING HOME MOLD ISSUE WILL PALE IN COMPARISON IF YOU KEEP ATTACKING OUR RIGHTS AS CITIZENS OF PROPERTY IN THIS COUNTY
Please support your fellow americans against this unconstitutional attack from our county board.
TONIGHT TUESDAY AT 6:30 AT THE BROOKENS CENTER SOUTH OF THE COUNTY JAIL ON WASHINGTON.
PLEASE PASS THIS ON, MANY FARMERS RETIREMENTS ARE AT ISSUE AS WELL.
:shock:
Racktivist is passionate about this issue, but not entirely correct with his information.
First of all, the most irksome of these proposals (farmland preservation) comes not from Urbana Sierra Club tree-hugging environmentalists, but from the reliably conservative Farm Bureau. Most environmentalists think the version before the Board tonight has already been so watered down that it's no better (and possibly worse) than the current ordinance. If Racktivist aims his anger at environmentalists, he's not aimed at the people who actually support this proposal.
Second, this issue of mowing a path to the river seems pretty bogus to me. My understanding is that the amendments specifically allow a property owner to mow pathways within the buffers. If that's not true, I'd love to know where to find this "pathway prohibition" in the proposed ordinance.
Finally, his point about water not running uphill is a good one. The problem is that the proposed stream buffers specifically exclude land elevated above the flood plain. So, the proposed amendment agrees with Racktivist's logic entirely, and exempts property he says should be exempted (property uphill from streams, and not subject to flooding).
Basically, there are those who simply don't believe in zoning. Unfortunately for them, they lost that argument decades ago. The current debate on updating the zoning ordinance has been confused with that long-settled debate over whether to have zoning at all. It's too bad, because many of the current proposals seem pretty reasonable.
Why would the reliable conservative farm bureau put such high restrictions on the options of their membership. They don't trust them to do the right thing with their property, they don't think their membership can make intelligent decisions on their own or perhaps the leadership has been compromised by a few extreme environmentalists. Fifty percent of the membership is against these proposals. Why would an organization go against its membership when this is the case. Why would a county board put such extreme restricitions on an entire population when there is no rural problem. Urban sprawl is what is eating up the land, not the individual farmers through out the county.
As far as the buffers this is the first step to introduce a concept called conservation easements. Public easements that allow the public to trespass or should I say take nature walks along these very important "contiguous wildlife corridors". You were aware of the proposal to limit tree removal to three trees for the life of a property, no matter its size (thirty five dollar permit per tree at that). This is a prime example of the insanity of this committee. Their ulterior desires are not on the table, yet they are there.
The reality is the flood plane is the current measuring device and is highly adequate. Additional buffers are very much specific to the property. A blanket approach is unfair and highly restrictive. We don't need restricitions on areas under water when it floods, we know better.
I believe in zoning, I believe in property rights as well. Landfills, junk yards, walmarts, commercial, residential, these are categories of zoning that we all are accustomed to. County wide proposals to restrict landowners from selling or utilizing their properties on flawed premises is not one of the things I believe in. Liberals who abuse the system for an ideological agenda is a travesty to our system. A spade is a spade. Their is not one single part of A through M that should be passed because they hinge on each other and are meant to open the door for further highly restrictive proposals as time goes by. PROTEST TONIGHT AT 6:30
I guess it's just an illusion that they're building a Wal-Mart on the west side of Rantoul on farmland and seeking to develop more land in that area. Meanwhile, downtown businesses sit vacant, and much of the base waits to be redeveloped.
I believe that the zoning changes were going down, 10 votes in favor, 16 opposed, according to WICD at 10 p.m.
One farmer brought up a good point after Brandon Bowersox (Urbana City Council) lectured, all-knowing, that he knows what we should do in the country.
The farmer said, if you care so much about prime farmland, then why are you approving one more big box store like Urbana Wal-Mart (just how many Meijer's and Wal-Marts', etc. do we need in this community, he asked) on productive, dark soil? In other words, Bowersox was a hypocrite, in his opinion.
I'd like to second the spirit of the comment above. The city, especially the planning commission, has the ability to stop the sprawl. Or, they could at least make it less offensive sprawl by including some parklands, splitting up the housing, demanding smaller square footage/higher quality builds in subdivisions, etc.
I hate the Wal-Mart, and can see little use for the Menards beyond the idea that "now we can buy a fridge in Urbana". The City continues to believe that it must grow at an astounding 5% per year, just to keep up with the services. I find this core principal of the city to be flawed for several reasons, but mainly because it demands expansion at all costs. Parklands, sensible development be damned! We must meet our 5%!
That said, I hope the spirit behind the 13 amendments will find it's way into future development choices. We must arrest the sprawl, by any means necessary, before our town becomes another of the countless towns in the country that is dominated by corporate behemoths on the outskirts, and cheap condos that will be bulldozed over in 30 years. Let's hope this Council and County Board will educate themselves about smart, sustainable development instead of just accepting the common wisdom that more is good, and 5% is a must. :)
"We must arrest the sprawl, by any means necessary"
Let's just outlaw new housing all together.
And ... there goes any chance for reasonable discussion. :roll:
when you start with a premise that "we must arrest sprawl, by any means necessary", what kind of reasonable discussion do you expect?
"control growth" - don't like it, but we can discuss
"provide incentives for infill" - I am listening
"consider the pros and cons of rural development, and development on the outskirts" - I am ready and willing to chat
Last night was a huge victory for the farmers in our county. It was a huge victory for those who enjoy the peace and tranquility in their rural homes in the country as well. It was an eye opening experience to how screwed up the champaign county board is as well. I say this with little to no respcect for the liberal side of the aisle.
The turnout was approximately twenty five to one (at the least) against these highly restrictive amendments. Yet the democrats would not recognize that "the people spoke'. The citizens of this county spoke with resounding clarity.
Instead they spent the last ten minutes posturing to continue with this attack eluding to the BIG SMALL ALL initiative. last night was but a battle in the war. The democrats at this level remind me of the ones in Washington. County Board member Gross took the floor at the end and denounced that the concept of property rights were invalid as the Europeans stole the country from the natives and therefore property rights should'nt even exist in her mind. She said it. Unbelievable. Does anyone wonder about this pathetic Socialist agenda.
The slant of this board is so far left I hold very little hope for our future. Urbana will be the counties downfall.
Don't know if anyone is still reading this but I couldn't figure out the dynamics of the debate the other night. I mean, the Farm Bureau was FOR the amendments? But the rural county board was against? I didn't get who was on what side.
And that Steve Moser... what a piece of work. Does he always come across so badly?
It is impossible to figure the Farm Bureau out. Some parts are logical with regards to drainage tile. The rest of it is much to restrictive. To put such extreme limitations on the farmers is un American. I think the membership is owed an explanation, given the extreme restrictions that would have ensued.
Imagine that, a farm organization concerned with drainage issues and protecting agriculture and the soil resource. Truly hard to fathom.
Racktivist I presume is a Farm Bureau member and so should come to some meetings to see if that would help out his/her understanding of what they are "about". Although as a member it should not be news to understand the Bureau's support.
Imagine this, in theory, this organization should be representing its membership, first and foremost. If that were true, why would they jeopardize every members potential to realize the value of the asset called land (of which many members consider a large part of their retirement portfolio). The one per forty amendment trumped all potential conservation initiatives. And one more time, this entire assault on the landowners throughout the county would have very little impact in protecting prime farmland or habitat in Champaign County. Smoke and mirrors.
That is the problem, the goals would not be realized had this Comprehensive Zoning Proposal been passed. Yet the landowner members would have payed a very large price over time. The Farm Bureau is suppose to protect them. Why is this not the case?