Pages: [1] 2 3 4 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: FSP view on the Unity NH dilemma (Read 6144 times)
|
|
dougdnh
|
OK - here's a real dilemma that's hit the tiny town of Unity NH. Unity is a very rural hill town with a population of less than 1000 people, the major activities in the area are logging, welding shops, etc Unit has no zoning, and never felt the need for it.
A few months ago, a developer from down state purhased a large parcel of land, and is planning to put in a 500 unit retirement community, possibly mobile homes. Needless to say this would have a major impact on the town, and most residents are up in arms about this. There is a move afoot to have the town put in an emergency building moratorium, to at least slow down this huge project. The developer now is threatening to sue the town if the moratorium is enacted. What a mess! Many are now wishing that zoning ordinances were in place that may have prevented this kind of dilemma. What is the FSP stand on this kind of issue? Should a developer be given free reign to totally make over a town for his own profit? If you are against zoning, how do we keep this kind of thing from happening, or do you think that whatever anyone (including large developers) want to do is ok, even if it destroys the character of a town and makes a lot of it's longtime residents very unhappy.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JasonPSorens
|
Well, it's a little bit late for this now, apparently, but the property owners in the town could have gotten together and signed contracts restricting what they could do with their property (and if they sold it, what the buyers could do). Some of these property associations are poorly designed, but others have worked well.
Perhaps the only other legitimate tactic would be to make sure the development pays its own way (in terms of town water and sewer, roads, and other services). The town shouldn't subsidize new development!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Audio signature (MP3) "Experience has shown that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a populous state to be run by good laws." --Aristotle, The Politics
|
|
|
lloydbob1
Guest
|
The town could also enact some minumum residency duration requirements to qualify for any social services that retirees might demand.
Beyond tapping social services, this looks like a positive thing for a small town. Older folks are, generally, good citizens. The project shouldn't effect the schools as a regular housing project would, will add to the tax base and create customers for the supermarkets and gas stations in town.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dougdnh
|
I don't think your resolutions are very practical. Having the landowners all agree to some kind of restrictions would never work on a town wide scale. Sure there are many who would want to protect and preserve the town's character, but what about the person who owns 500 acres and lives in another state (or country!), they certainly aren't going to want to go along with a community land agreement. Zoning is a much more practical solution, and fairer in the long run since it protects the little guys from the land specultors and developers who only want to line their pockets at the expense of the folks who live in the town. Zoning can be taken to extremes - like no clothes lines in the yard, etc. but good practical zoning that encourages growth in downtown areas is for the common good of ALL residents. Some growth of course is good and inevitable, but doubling the size of a town for one big development can't be a good thing to the residents who specifically want to live in a rural area.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
5thconcerto
|
I don't think your resolutions are very practical. Having the landowners all agree to some kind of restrictions would never work on a town wide scale. Sure there are many who would want to protect and preserve the town's character, but what about the person who owns 500 acres and lives in another state (or country!), they certainly aren't going to want to go along with a community land agreement. Zoning is a much more practical solution, and fairer in the long run since it protects the little guys from the land specultors and developers who only want to line their pockets at the expense of the folks who live in the town. Zoning can be taken to extremes - like no clothes lines in the yard, etc. but good practical zoning that encourages growth in downtown areas is for the common good of ALL residents. Some growth of course is good and inevitable, but doubling the size of a town for one big development can't be a good thing to the residents who specifically want to live in a rural area.
Doug, Zoning always winds up being extreme and co-ercive. I live in Exeter, and they are getting very extreme. Homeowner associations can, and do work. Government intrusion in your life via zoning is an ever-growing and expanding menace. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rearden
|
The difficulty is in telling the difference between a homeowner's association and a town government. A town government really is a municipal corporation, whereas a homeowner's association would be set up us a non-profit corporation. In practical terms, there's no difference at all.
Living in a town is voluntary, and when you move there you agree to the terms of the charter (just as you would to the homeowner's agreement).
While I would prefer my town have minimal zoning, if any at all, zoning at the town level is not, in my opinion, intrusive or illegitimate. It is usually still inefficient, though.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Government can do only one thing: It can break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, "See? If not for the government you couldn't walk."
|
|
|
|
5thconcerto
|
The difficulty is in telling the difference between a homeowner's association and a town government. A town government really is a municipal corporation, whereas a homeowner's association would be set up us a non-profit corporation. In practical terms, there's no difference at all.
Living in a town is voluntary, and when you move there you agree to the terms of the charter (just as you would to the homeowner's agreement).
While I would prefer my town have minimal zoning, if any at all, zoning at the town level is not, in my opinion, intrusive or illegitimate. It is usually still inefficient, though.
A big difference between town zoning and a homeowners association, is the rules. Zoning is by majority vote. Any changes are by majority vote. HA can have a super majority vote for changes. This, I feel, is a very important distinction. True, not all HA have super majority voting requirements, but the possibility is there, where it isn't with town zoning. Plus SPOT ZONING is illegal with town zoning, whereas it COULD be legal with an HA. Another factor is that TZ is town wide. An HA can be a portion of the town. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Greenbacks
|
zoning is a blunt government instrument to give blanket protection against the possibility of negative externalities effecting a community's property values.
developers as business people are trying to maximize the appreciated property values by buying a large piece of land and sub dividing. The profit potential over time on 500 acres divided into 2-5 acre lots can be enormous.
just because this project is proposed does not mean that it will be successful though.
most people consider this to be a negative for the town and want protection from the downside but do you see them considering sending the developer a big fat check when they sell for that portion of their appreciated property values directly attributed to this project?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dougdnh
|
What puzzles me about most of you folks is your apparent suspicion and hostility towards govenment - especially at the local level. I thing good zoning is a perfect example of small town govenment at it's best. Bein the residen of a small New England town, I know most of the people on the selectboard, planning board, zoning board, etc. They are all honest, dedicated, hardworking people doing a thankless job. They come from all walks of life - farmers, teachers, engineers, housewives, loggers, etc. Some are conservative and some are liberal, but they all work togther for the betterment of our town. Very few people have any gripes, and 90% are glad we have zoning, to keep the gravel pits away from the homes, and to help keep the big developers at bay. I admit that government at the state and federal level can be pretty awful, but at the local level, it's just regular people who do what most folks want them to.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JasonPSorens
|
There's a kernel of truth there, Doug, but it's not the whole story either. I suspect local governments are generally much better than state and federal governments, but sometimes they can do bad things too. A golf course owner in northern Virginia was thrown in jail because the zoning board didn't think he had the right number of trees on his property. That's a clear injustice.
I imagine such injustices are more common in large cities than in small towns, but there's also the issue of well-intentioned inefficiencies. Sometimes everyone can go into a policy with all the right intentions, and it just doesn't have the right effects. Zoning can encourage sprawl by preventing high-density development. It can also price native people out of the market by artificially restricting housing supply. That seems to be the way zoning is used in southeast NH. I grew up in a very large city, Houston, that has no zoning. Yet the hog farms and gravel pits are kept out somehow.
So while zoning isn't always an injustice or a moral wrong of some kind, it may just not be the right tool for what you want to do. Sometimes you have to think creatively for different solutions. Most of these local issues may not be matters of justice, but they are matters for open-minded, pragmatic reasoning.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Audio signature (MP3) "Experience has shown that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a populous state to be run by good laws." --Aristotle, The Politics
|
|
|
lloydbob1
Guest
|
If I buy into a community that has zoning, I realize the limits on what I can do with that property before I buy.
If I own property in a community that adopts zoning, my right to do what I please with my property has been taken away.
More often than not, zoning is used as a 'not in my back yard' measure, usually to limit families with children from moving in and effecting the school system.
My family recently sold some land in Pomfret, CT. Up until 2 years ago Pomfret had no zoning and our property of 7 acres had a potential of 10-14 reasonable building lots. Pomfret adopted zoning in, I believe, November of 2002 and have added to the original laws twice. They now limit building lots to 2 acres and God help you if any of the property is wet!
In general, zoning flys in the face of property rights.
Lloyd
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SteveA
|
If I own property in a community that adopts zoning, my right to do what I please with my property has been taken away. I think if you buy property that's unzoned it should stay that way. Having a community vote on whether they want to be able to zone others property just seems wrong. If they adopt zoning, it should only be applicable to the people that were in support of it. Yes, that's not what everyone wants but it's unfair to owners who were intentionally living in an unzoned area and personal property rights shouldn't be at the whim of majority votes. If someone can claim a neighbors actions causes damage to them, then there's a bit more of a legitimate claim but even then the "damage" should only apply if it was something that would still have been considered "damage" in an unzoned area. (For example, a whole bunch of people vote on what color to paint their houses but there's no homeowners association or zoning etc., if someone doesn't want to be a part of the vote, I don't think there's a legitimate claim to be made that the one red house is damaging everyone else green house. They should have respected the individual rights of the owners when they made the decision. No if an agreement had been made when buying that house that they all had to be the same color, that's different. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Fruitless, born a thousand times, lies barren. Unguided inspiration, yields random motion, circumscribed in destination, going nowhere. Guidance uninspired, always true in facing, stands immobile. But fixed upon that destination firmly and with inspiration lofted; beget your dreams."
|
|
|
|
FreeKeene.com's Ian
|
Having the landowners all agree to some kind of restrictions would never work on a town wide scale. So... if the landowners can't agree to restrictions, then why would they agree to a few bureaucrats making those decisions for them? Regards, Ian |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Karl
Guest
|
I'm going to be unusually blunt here.
New Hampshire is a growing rapidly, and people need places to live. Every town that experiences growth in population has to deal with it in some manner. Every method of growth control to date has been a blow to property rights. The typical excuses are things like impact on town services and increased traffic. More often its motivated by simple protectionism -- "Its OK if I live in my town, but its not OK if you move here." People just don't want other people moving in. Several towns have endorsed the easy way out: coersion. Make it illegal for new people to move in; just end people's property rights; problem solved. Thats what Auburn, Barnstead and other towns have done. That is what Unity is apparently debating now.
I know it is painful to see a rural place begin to urbanize, especially if it is your home. But that is simply the way it is. If you want to permanently preserve a rural paradise, or disallow trailers, the only way to do it is without taking people's property rights is to reach a voluntary agreement with your neighbors; if they won't agree, then buy their land if you can.
If you want to styme growth, stop subsidizing it. Subsidies in many forms are what drives much of the rural growth in New Hampshire and elsewhere. Longtime residents foot the bill for school expansions, road widening, utility hookup. A better solution would be to make the developers pay an impact fee up front. That'll make them think twice about building in a rural place that will require expensive new services and infrastructure that they have to pay for in full. Alternatively, deny them those services.
Property rights are a two way street. They protect the rights of "evil developers" that people may hate. But they also protect your own property from those same developers. This is an amazing power. Use that power to your benefit. But please don't take those same rights from someone else just because your guys happen to occupy town hall at the moment!
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 10, 2004, 03:58:57 pm by Karl Beisel »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SteveA
|
So... if the landowners can't agree to restrictions, then why would they agree to a few bureaucrats making those decisions for them? Habit |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Fruitless, born a thousand times, lies barren. Unguided inspiration, yields random motion, circumscribed in destination, going nowhere. Guidance uninspired, always true in facing, stands immobile. But fixed upon that destination firmly and with inspiration lofted; beget your dreams."
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
