History of Growth
Lexington Planning History and Urban Service Boundary
Unique characteristics
and demographics of Fayette County
Bluegrass Region
Planning history
and demographics
Fayette County Today
Current Issues and Interests
Urban Service Area
Rural Service Area
Regional
Current Proposals
Fayette County
Surrounding Counties
Beyond the Bluegrass – A National Outlook
Portland, Oregon
Tucson, Arizona
Fairfax County, Virginia
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Where and how to develop are questions that face every community. However, the issue of growth in the Lexington/Fayette County area came to the forefront due to the moratorium imposed last year on building in the rural service boundary, and the discussion of a proposed Purchase of Development Rights Program.
Our class decided to look at the issue from an interest-based approach, focusing not on positions such as "Growth is Good" and "Growth Destroys the Bluegrass Forever," but on the underlying interests behind those positions. What is growth? What does growth mean to you? How should we grow? Are there certain lands we should preserve? If so, how do we go about preserving those lands? These were questions we had hoped would draw out the interests that exist among the stakeholders regarding the issue of growth. For us, there was no right answer. We were simply trying to bring another perspective to the issue.
We tackled the project by breaking into five groups – Urban Service Group; Rural Service Area Group; Regional Outlook Group; Purchase of Development Rights Group; and a National Outlook Group. The Urban Group’s focus was on the interests and issues facing those in the urban service boundary. They talked with those living in established neighborhoods, as well as looked at growth strategies within the urban area. The Rural Group focused on the interests and issues of those living in the rural service boundary. This included people living on a small farm harvesting crops to the large horse farm owner. This group also looked at the Rural Land Management Plan and recent proposed changes to that plan.
In order to find out more on the proposed PDR program, we formed a PDR Group. They looked at the program in general, and talked with both urban and rural residents about it. A Regional Group was formed to look at the 7-county Bluegrass Region. The class believed it was important to find out the issues and interests of the surrounding counties and relate it to what is going on in Fayette County. Lastly, a National Group was formed to look at other communities and their approaches to growth, as well as some of the federal programs available to communities.
Each group conducted their research by interviewing individual citizens, representatives from various organization, public officials, and others who we came across as having an interest in the issue. We also relied on newspaper articles, public hearings, and the Internet to locate additional information.
It is our belief that an interest-based approach is necessary to bring out interests that might otherwise be overlooked. Instead of hearing from the usual key players, you are able to hear from those who might not have spoken up before. From there, you can work to find common interests among all of the stakeholders.
HISTORY OF GROWTH
Planning History and The Urban Service Boundary
The history of growth in Fayette County and the city of Lexington is unique. After World War II, cities across the country grew at a phenomenal rate. This expansion was due, in most part, to the expansion of suburbs around the perimeters of urban areas. Lexington was no different. In the mid-1950’s, city planners and residents recognized that actions needed to be taken in order to sustain the quality of life in Lexington. The unique agricultural land located around Lexington, the horse farms, and the economically vital thoroughbred industry was identified as worthy of preservation.
In 1958, an Urban Service Area was created. The concept of an urban service boundary was the first of its kind to be implemented and was considered revolutionary. Planners reasoned that growth in Lexington be confined by maintaining and enforcing these boundaries; urban growth was to be limited within the Urban Service Area. The Rural Service Area, or the area outside the Urban Service Area, was designated for agricultural uses. The Urban Service Area boundary has been changed several times since it was created, but the changes have not had much impact on the total area. Currently 85 square miles, or 30 percent of the county, is within the Urban Service Area (Planning Commission Meeting, 1999).
In 1964 a Fayette County Board of Health regulation changed the ways in which land in the Rural Service Area could be used. The Board of Health policy stated that land in this area could be divided into tracts of no less than ten-acres because of septic tank and sanitation requirements. Without a city sewer system in the Rural Service Area, septic tanks are a necessity for sewage disposal. The Lexington Fayette Urban County Government (LFUCG) Board of Health determined that an area of ten acres was sufficient to maintain sanitary conditions within the Rural Service Area. This provision continued until this year (Planning Commission Meeting, 1999).
A recently passed proposal changes the minimum lot size from ten acres to forty acres. It was thought that this change was necessary in reaction to development outside the Urban Service Area. Forty acres has been determined to be the minimum amount of land necessary for a viable farm. The forty-acre suggestion was researched and supported by the Kentucky Farm Bureau and other agencies. It should be noted that this zoning change would not affect land already divided into ten-acre tracts (Council Meeting, 1999).
Presently, there are several urban management plans being discussed for Lexington. One of these is a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program. With a PDR program, money would be set aside to purchase the development rights from landowners throughout the Rural Service Area. After selling the development rights the landowners would be able to continue to farm, live, and sell the land. The only stipulation in the sale of development rights is that the landowner would no longer be able to develop the land or sell the land for the purpose of development.
Other management concepts that have been discussed are revitalizing the downtown area, infilling open areas of land within the Urban Service Area, a better road and infrastructure system, and people choosing to move outside of Fayette County. Since Lexington is not the only metropolitan area suffering from "growing pains," other areas of the county are also being examined for possible solutions. Meanwhile, Lexington planners, concerned citizens and elected officials are attempting to implement creative solutions to these problems. Numerous council meetings, private meetings, publicity campaigns, informational sessions, and discussions are being held frequently throughout the city and region. Driving each of these sessions is the perceived need to continue the "sense of place" and preserve the "quality of life" to which people in Lexington have become accustomed.
History of growth in Fayette County
Kentucky has been and still is perceived as a rural state. Agriculture is a central aspect for Kentucky’s economy and cultural traditions. Revenues from Kentucky agricultural commodities have increased from $518 million in 1959, to $2.66 billion in 1992, (Atlas of Kentucky, 1999). Fayette County in particular is the number one county in Kentucky in agriculture and revenues (Rural Land Management Plan, I-4, 1999). The elements making up Fayette County’s agriculture are the equine industry, livestock, and crop production.
The equine industry has been and is a major influence on Fayette County development and rural land preservation. Horses were first brought to the Bluegrass in a domestic sense during the 1800's and have since grown to include 450 horse farms in the inner Bluegrass Region (Rural Land Management Plan, I-5, 1999; Personal Interview, M. Moody, 1999). The inner Bluegrass Region contains the largest concentration of Thoroughbred and Standard bred horses in the world (Atlas of Kentucky, 1999). Smaller horse farms are also scattered throughout the county.
Both the small and large horse farms draw in tourists from far and near. Horse breeding is a productive industry in the Bluegrass. Breeders first came to Fayette County for the unique landscape of the Bluegrass. The undulating landscape builds strong muscles for racing. The high limestone content enriches the grass with calcium phosphate (CaPO4), which strengthens the bones of thoroughbreds. This CaPO4 enriched soil continues to keep horse breeders in Kentucky, as well as, contributing to the success of other livestock that graze on the nutrient rich pastures. (Personal Interview, M. Ferguson, 1999). Breeding farms located in the Bluegrass Region have produced all-time legends like Man-O-War, who brought in 1,323,000 visitors alone by 1947 (Personal Interview, M. Moody, 1999). Visitors to these farms are not what keep them successful though. Success of breeding farms depends mostly on money brought in from the races (Personal Interview, Nichols, 1999).
For many years tobacco farming has been a way of life for farmers in the Bluegrass. Kentucky ranks fourth in the nation with its number of farms. Tobacco farms encompass the majority of these farms (Personal Interview, W. Wright, 1999). Although there is much controversy surrounding the tobacco industry, the fact remains that tobacco is Kentucky’s number one cash crop (Personal Interview, M. Ferguson, 1999). Of all agricultural commodities in Fayette County, tobacco ranks second only to horses in terms of income (Personal Interview, B. Green, 1999). Other economically important crops in the county are corn and soybeans.
Organic agriculture is the latest agricultural development in Fayette County. This was the original avenue of crop production before the advent of nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides. Some believe organic agriculture represents a vital pathway toward making agriculture sustainable (Personal Interview, H. Crane, 1999). Nutrient rich soils in Kentucky provide profitable harvests from these farms. With Kentucky certifying organic farms, their crops will now be able to bring top dollar.
Rural Landscape
When the first settlers entered Fayette County, they found a little paradise. Gently rolling hills, clear limestone springs and lands covered with cane, pawpaw, and hundreds of species of flowering trees and shrubs were set out before them. Herds of deer, bison, and wild turkeys roamed freely on this new land (Flint, 1826). As decades passed, Kentucky attracted more and more settlers to its scenic vistas. Then came horses running along white plank and stone fences, the image that graces everyone’s mind when they picture Kentucky today. People from the Bluegrass Region take pride in this unique and visually appealing landscape.
Land development, economy, tourism, and cultural events have all been shaped by the area’s geography and cultural history. Although the cultural heritage has shaped Fayette County, increased tourism and population have increased human impacts on the environment. With the limestone substrates, natural waterways eroded many of the landscapes. Erosion, herbicide and pesticide runoff, and illegal dumping in streams have had deleterious effects on the region watersheds (Personal Interview, S. Clark, 1999). Rural land management must take into consideration environmentally sensitive areas like the Kentucky Palisades, along with historic rural settlements, stone fences, and covered bridges.
Demographics
The population of Fayette County in 1958 was approximately 110,000. From 1958 to 1998 the population grew from 110,000 to 250,000(Rural Land Management Plan, I-4, 1999). Growth rates hit their peak at 32.2% increase from the 1958 population at the end of the first two decades. Growth rates have now declined and are closer to 10% (1996 Comprehensive Plan 3-1, Rural Land Management Plan, I-1, 1999). Population densities have increased from 354 persons/acre in 1950 to 792 persons/acre in 1990 in Fayette County (Table 1).
In 1958, the first Urban Service Boundary was put into place, dividing the county into two parts. The Urban Service Area was set aside for urban growth; the Rural Service Area was designated as land to be protected from over-development. In 1964, the "ten-acre rule" was implemented to further protect the rural service area from encroaching development. This rule quelled the 2 acre lot subdivisions that were developing. This peaked concerns in agricultural and equine industries, as well as the broader community, that environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife habitat, historic sites, and the rural landscape would be threatened.
The number of housing units in Fayette County has increased from 59,528 in 1970 to 105,720 in 1995. The average number of persons per housing unit has decreased from approximately 3 persons/house in 1970 to 2 persons/house in 1998(Rural Land Management Plan, I-4, 1999). This decrease in the number of residents per household has sparked the construction of new homes. The increased number of new homes, in return, has increased the density of the area. Fayette County population is expected to reach 277,442 by the year 2015 resulting in the need for a 21% increase in housing units (1996 Comprehensive Plan 3-1 to 3-5).
Bluegrass Region History and Demographics
Regional planning in the Central Bluegrass (defined as the counties of Fayette, Jessamine, Madison, Clark, Bourbon, Scott, and Woodford) historically has not been well integrated among the 7 counties. Some counties have countywide planning bodies that encompass every parcel of land under their jurisdiction while other counties have two or even three commissions handling planning and zoning. Each entity is required by state law to update their comprehensive plan regularly. At those times some counties approve major revisions, implementing new planning tools, while others feel confident in the level of planning already in place, and make only minor revisions. Each county is independent in the planning and zoning process yet, due to their close proximity are affected by changes of land use or management in the surrounding counties. Planning and zoning tools used in this region range from counties with one, five, and 30-acre rural lot sizes, transfer-of-development rights programs (TDRs), urban service areas, cluster housing, and others. However, the variety of planning tools used in this region is equally matched with the variety of planning scenarios, and it is important to understand the individual and unique nature of the individual communities. Access to major roads, type of industry in the area, geography, and community history all play roles in the development of comprehensive plans.
Figure 1
Regional Demographics
According to the US Census (Figure 1), Central Bluegrass counties experienced varying degrees of population growth in the seven years from 1990 to 1997 (US Census, 1997). This indicates that the entire region is experiencing increased population growth and development to accommodate that growth. Due to the much larger size of Fayette County’s population as compared to the surrounding counties there is more direct pressure form Fayette on the other counties than from those counties toward Fayette County or each other.
Figure 2
When looking at the actual increase in population the numbers may not seem of concern. Yet by using those numbers to obtain the Figure 2
rate of growth, we show that growth in this region can range from almost no growth, at 0.6% in Bourbon County, to a rate of 23.4% over 7 years in Scott County (Figure 2). These numbers allow an accurate look at growth rates to better determine who is possibly "feeling" growth the most.
With Bluegrass region’s population increase there has also been a decrease in the acreage of farmland (Figure 3) and in some cases this decrease in farmland has generated interest in the issue of possibly protecting farmland from development (US Census, 1999).
Along with population growth, this region has economically been successful. From 1980 to 1994 the per capita income levels increased by 5.9% per year (Lexington United, 1997). There are no signs that this economic development will slow, and increased population is expected to continue throughout the region (Lexington United, 1997).
Moratorium
When was it implemented?
The county-wide moratorium is a halt in development on parcels of land of up to 10 acres. It has been said that 10-acre lots contribute to the destruction of a significant portion of the rural land in Fayette County. The zoning changes have become "an economically viable alternative for high-end single family homes" (plan, I-3). "From 1990 to 1998, the amount of land subdivided into 10-acre lots was comparable to the total land area utilized inside the Urban Service Area for all residential, commercial, and industrial development" (Plan, I-3). The moratorium was voted on, and set in place, in August of 1998. It was scheduled to remain active until August of 1999. "In 1995 there was a major Zoning Ordinance text amendment that eliminated many conditional issues in the Agriculture-Rural Zone and restricted the size of others" (Plan I-3) This was done to restrict the large amounts of land that were being developed for non-agricultural purposes.
Why was it implemented?
The resolution was passed so that non-agricultural subdivisions in agriculture zones of lots in size of ten acres will halt in development. The reason stated in the Rural Service Management Plan was that "10 acre lot have resulted in serious erosion of the land area available for agriculture use. It is apparent that the 10-acre lot requirement consume land inefficiently, and is no longer effective in addressing the preservation of the rural area." (Plan I-3) The halt in development was allowed so that the planning commission and LFUCG could have time to determine if the lot size should be changed from 10 to 40 acres.
What’s happening with it now?
On Thursday April 7, 1999 the Planning Commission voted on whether to implement a permanent 40 acre minimum or to keep the existing 10 acre minimum. The Planning Commission voted to upgrade the lot size to 40 acres. Only 3 people voted to keep the lot size at 10 acres. Now this vote and issue will go on to the LFUCG council and they will now have to vote on it.
Rural Land Management Plan
Overriding purpose
The rural land management plan is an extensive county-wide effort to
research and develop ways to manage land use in the rural area. The management
plan recognizes many courses of action that can be taken to preserve and
sustain rural land. One of the goals of the plan is to increase the public
awareness surrounding growth issues in the Fayette County . Another purpose
of the plan is to create a new zoning ordinance that increases the size
of lots in rural areas from 10 acres to 40 acres. PDR and TDR programs
that are funded through a mandatory tax on all residents of Fayette County
are also highlighted. The plan encourages infill and decreased sprawl.
However, the main goal of the management plan is to safeguard rural land
from becoming developed.
Zoning change
The new zoning change as recommended in the management plan includes increasing the minimum lot size to 40 acres, creating new zoning categories to preserve historic sites, as well as rural land, and establishing a development rights program that can transfer rights through zoning ordinances. Another proposed change with zoning regulations is creating a rural buffer zone category that can be used in either of two ways by the LFUCG: leave the land in its original A-R zoning category, or allow landowners to file for a zone change to the new rural buffer zone (plan, v- 16).
PDR program
The PDR program is aimed at creating a program that would offer financial incentives to landowners who agree not to develop their land. The goal for the PDR program is to look at the future development of the next 20-30 years and use at least $100 million dollars to compensate landowners. The money that is given to landowners is based on numerous factors that include how much land is used for agriculture, how much the land is worth today, the location of the land, and the amount of money that could be brought to the landowner from development (plan, v-2). The PDR program is completely voluntary; no landowner will be forced to give their development rights away . Also, the PDR program is designed to protect large amounts of rural land, and will be implemented over a number of years (forever, as they say now).
CURRENT ISSUES AND INTERESTS
A. What are the issues involved in accommodating growth inside the USA?
Within the Urban Service Area, the limited amount of space available to accommodate growth has become one of the main concerns for the city. The issues involved in trying to reach a solution evoke responses from all parties involved, yielding a variety of different interests. These interests are quite diverse, but several overarching ideas can be found that encompasses the sentiments of the citizens of Lexington. One way in which the need for space has already been addressed has been to augment the existing Urban Service Area by expanding it into the rural service area.
Expansion Areas
In 1996 the Planning Commission has identified three Expansion Areas compromising approximately 5,330 acres. All of the designated Expansion Areas are immediately adjacent to the existing Urban Service Area (Refer to Figure 1). Expansion Area (1) is an area of approximately 614 acres of land between Armstrong Mill Road and Tates Creek Road. Expansion Area (2) is approximately 4,213 acres of land that is located between Winchester Road and the western end of Jacobson Reservoir. The future land use element divides Expansion Area (2) into three sub areas – Expansion Area 2a, 2b and 2c. Expansion Area (3) is an area of approximately 502.60 acres located north of the Interstate and east of Newtown Pike Road. Expansion Area (1) is envisioned as a low-density residential community with the possibility of a golf course designed in a fashion to be compatible with the adjacent farm and the rural character of Delong Road. Expansion Areas 2a and 2b are envisioned to have space for economic development, community centers, and a full range of housing densities, including low-, medium- and high-density areas. Expansion Area 2c is envisioned to be a low- to medium- density residential district with a small community center. Expansion Area (3) is planned primarily for economic development with a small area of low and medium density residential space to the east of Russell Cave Road (LFUCG Division of Planning, 1999).
The Expansion Areas were set aside in 1996 for the additional Urban Service Boundary and have yet to be developed. The regulations for the new area are quite different from those for the existing Urban Service Area; this in itself presents quite an obstacle. The two reasons for difficulties are as follows: developers and landowners do not fully understand what the new rules and regulations entail. This process is one of development and design rather than an exact stipulation of meeting a normal specification ordinance enforced by Fayette County since 1928 (Mattone, Personal Interview, 1999).
Now developers in Fayette County must deal with two kinds of ordinances: (1) the specification ordinance defines what builders and landowners can and cannot do; (2) newer performance ordinance sets guidelines, ideas, and objectives, and describes what the end product might look like. The city does not have a mechanism in place for reviewing the proposal of the landowner or developer. This proposal should include plans for development with respect to performance ordinances. In developing the expansion area, the notion is that when city planners see a plan that will accommodate the most aspects of LFUCG's ideal plan, it will be approved. That is, when planners see the proposal that they like, it will be applied (King, Personal Interview, 1999).
A new implementation in Fayette County, but a successful measure in other areas, is a concept called "impact fees." Impact fees will be applied within the new expansion areas. These taxes are designed to help minimize the cost of infrastructure problems before, during, and after development has taken place. Infrastructure repairs can range from concerns regarding roads and sewers to wastewater structures. The impact fee is first placed on the developer, and subsequently passed on to the homebuyer. Impact fees are successful in other areas because the city and all taxpayers do not bear the cost of repairs to shoddily placed infrastructure. This cheaply designed or insufficient infrastructure is the case in many areas that are quickly built without impact fees (Mattone, Personal Interview, 1999).
Several informed sources reason that the 1996 expansion area will provide residential housing for the next 20 years (Simpson, Personal Interview, 1999). The addition of the expansion areas increased the total amount of land capable of development in the Urban Service Area to 5,330 acres. This enlargement will accommodate an estimated 30,000 people. The expansion area exhibits the opposite of the usual scenario; it already has a water supply, but the area is without sanitary sewer hook-ups. This complication has been given as a reason for the lack in development of the areas so pressured for expansion prior to the 1996 re-zoning.
Suburban Issues and Interests
Partially because the expansion area has not addressed growth as previously envisioned, the residents of neighborhoods throughout the Urban Service Area are concerned with several issues. These issues, however, stem from far deeper concerns than lack of development in the expansion areas. Some citizens living in residential neighborhoods within the Urban Service Area are active in addressing issues on a citywide basis and through their respective neighborhoods. Thirteen Lexington neighborhood association presidents in 10 county districts as well as Emma Tibbs, the president of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council, were interviewed regarding issues most affecting the lives of residents in their neighborhoods. These neighborhood representatives feel the overriding issues most concerning their neighbors consist of the following:
(2) Alleviating storm water flooding and facilitating drainage
(3) Creating a sense of community
(4) Neighborhood Infill
It remains obvious that many Lexington residents present a high level of interest regarding occurrences in the city and in their neighborhoods. Increases in residential and commercial development cause residents to worry about changing traffic patterns in and around their neighborhoods. People living in established neighborhoods are finding it increasingly difficult to enter and leave their neighborhoods through entrances at thoroughfares that were not designed to accommodate the higher traffics volumes brought on by increased development (Moran, Personal Interview, 1999).
Another concern deals with traffic rerouting. As major thoroughfares in Lexington become clogged with increasing amounts of traffic, drivers are detouring through smaller neighborhood streets in order to avoid bumper-to-bumper traffic. Safety concerns have arisen for people in urban neighborhoods, especially with regards to the safety of neighborhood children.
Children waiting for buses or walking to school during the morning rush hour are vulnerable to traffic accidents (Rogers, Personal Interview, 1999).
As development continues in the Urban Service Area, a second concern has also been voiced. An increase in paved area causes rainwater runoff to overburden the sewer and rainwater diversion systems. Unpaved areas allow rainwater to soak uniformly into the ground and percolate through the soil. When materials such as cement and asphalt cover the ground, excess water can no longer be absorbed and is diverted into storm drains. Oftentimes, Lexington's stormwater drains are antiquated and unable to handle the excess water characteristic of increased development. As a result, some structures in the city have severe problems with basement and yard flooding during moderate to heavy storms. Some of this flooding impairs access to homes; and/or the floodwater can be mixed with raw sewage. It should be noted that Mayor Pam Miller has vowed to correct this problem and has gone on record pledging $10 million dollars towards revitalizing the sewer and water drainage systems in Lexington (State of Merged Gov't Address, 1999). The overburdened sanitary sewer system in Lexington is one reason for oppositions to up zoning in some neighborhoods.
When approached about the need for rural land preservation, most neighborhood association presidents stated that their neighbors wanted to see Fayette County's rural lands protected; however the support weakened when asked whether their neighbors would support tax increases to fund a rural land preservation plan. Most residents want to see their infrastructure problems fixed before their tax money is used for preservation. Only one association president thought that his neighbors would agree to the tax increase (Rogers, Personal Interview, 1999).
The term "community," according to the usage of people living in Lexington neighborhoods, refers mostly to the immediate neighborhood and the people living in that neighborhood. Residents have a desire to feel connected to their neighborhoods. To obtain a sense of community, people in Lexington want more "social infrastructure." They want this infrastructure to include shopping facilities, churches, schools, and parks within close proximity to their homes. The ability to walk or conveniently drive in order to obtain the amenities needed to conduct day-to-day life is an important part of this concern over social infrastructure (Tibbs, Leonard, Moore, Personal Interviews, 1999). Members of some neighborhood "communities" do not feel a connectedness to the city at large, and some feel an outright disenfranchisement from Lexington (O'Connell, Atkinson, Kemp, Personal Interviews, 1999). Reasons for this incongruency are said to stem from a general distrust of government or, at the very least, a sense that city officials are performing inadequately and are wasting tax money (Tibbs, Atkinson, Personal Interviews, 1999).
Infill was also an acknowledged concern for neighborhood associations. One of the proposed ways that growth can be accommodated inside the Urban Service Area is to infill sections of the city that are currently unused or abandoned. Neighborhoods that are near these new developments can be affected. According to interviews, the majority of neighborhood association presidents felt that infill must occur in a manner that blends with the existing neighborhood (O'Connell, Adams, Leonard, Personal Interviews, 1999). Residents are concerned about the building of rental properties that do not blend with the current look of the area in their neighborhoods. Neighborhood residents who have stone or brick veneer single-family homes do not want to see vinyl clad duplexes or quadraplexes built in their neighborhoods. This concern is especially valued to the people living in older and more historic neighborhoods. Another concern involves rental properties that are not owner occupied. People living in the surveyed neighborhoods have a fear, whether legitimate or not, that tenant occupants do not make the best neighbors. Issues of concern may range from wanting their neighbors to have similar concerns regarding the appearance of the homes, to worries about safety. Many residents believe that infill may be a part of the solution to alleviate urban sprawl; nevertheless, guidelines and zoning laws to limit types of infill are a indispensable portion of this solution (O'Connell, Adams, Leonard, Personal Interviews, 1999).
As it is evident from dealing with infill concerns, growth inside the Urban Service Area creates an issue within neighborhoods regarding changes in housing densities. In connection with infill as well as separate issues are the concepts of downzoning and upzoning. Down- zoning and up zoning are often discussed as alternatives to urban sprawl. Upzoning is defined as creating higher density living areas. Duplexes, apartments, and small lot sizes for houses are common in areas that implement up zoning. Downzoning, conversely, is the lessening of population density and housing density in the area, but is also discussed as the maintenance of current density levels in a neighborhood. Upzoning can occur as an attractive quality in a neighborhood, such as the high-density areas of Ashland Park and Chevy Chase. A high-density plan may also be unwanted in an area because of concerns regarding changes in the neighborhood’s character. Like all forms of growth, the manner in which density levels are controlled is valuable in maintaining an attractive city and neighborhood.
Although many agree that upzoning can be attractive, fears of unwanted and uncontrolled development persuade many residents to push for downzoning or making neighborhoods less dense. This movement includes limiting or prohibiting apartment buildings or duplexes. Bruce Simpson, a Lexington attorney who has represented neighborhood associations in the past, sees that many neighborhoods have concerns with regard to change. Oftentimes people have a certain level of comfort with what is currently in the neighborhood and what has been there in the past. Even beneficial improvements, according to Simpson, are often unwanted. This mentality is a major deterrent to upzoning (Personal Interview, 1999).
Obviously, there are two sides to this debate: upzoning and downzoning. The conflict over different interests may, of course, also be examined through a continuum. Don Pratt, an East Side property owner opposed to downzoning, claims that this plea for down zoning is a prejudice against University of Kentucky students who have limited housing options (Personal Interview, 1999). Conversely, James Ryder, president of the Eastside neighborhood association, claims that up zoning "changes the character of our friendly streets." He argues that the focus of absentee landlords is purely financial and their concerns do not account for maintenance of the character and safety of the neighborhood (Personal Interview, 1999). Both viewpoints are valid; however, upzoning is looked upon favorably by many planners as a strategy for controlling growth and sprawl. Frank Mattone, a Lexington developer, states that neighborhoods that enforce down zoning should pay impact fees. His reasoning stems from the fact that downzoning in these neighborhoods place more pressure on areas that are undeveloped, willing and able to absorb infill, or outside of the Urban Service Boundary (Personal Interview, 1999).
Along with infilling and upzoning, redevelopment is another method through which the Urban Service Area can accommodate growth. Both terms, "infill" and "redevelopment" are used in many different contexts. This report assumes infill and redevelopment in suburban areas to mean filling in vacant lots scattered throughout the Urban Service Area or razing unoccupied buildings to build buildings with current uses. The Reynolds Road area has been undergoing increased developed over the past few years. Initially, neighbors in this area wanted the undeveloped land converted to city parks and were opposed to other types of development on the property. More importantly those living in the Reynolds Road area did not want commercial development. Frank Mattone, a Lexington developer, says that after two years of deliberation, a suitable plan was finally chosen. Residents of the surrounding neighborhoods decided upon a plan that would include schools, churches, parks, and limited residential areas. Unwanted by the residents, but included in the plan, will be a large retail center. According to Mattone, people are wrong in thinking that they can "pick and choose" what type of development they want to have and then discard the rest (Personal Interview, 1999). Emma Tibbs, president of the Fayette County Neighborhood Association, states that there is a fear that the two smaller shopping centers in the area, Clays Mill Shopping Center and Stonewall Shopping Center will be driven out when the large retail center is completed (Personal Interview, 1999).
One of the newest developments in the Reynolds Road area is the relocated Lexington Christian Academy. This project is interesting because it takes infilling and redevelopment a step further than any other structure in Lexington. This school was built on the foundation of an old tobacco warehouse that was razed in order to accommodate the needs of the multi-million dollar educational facility. Because the old foundation was used, it is estimated that one third of the cost of building the school was eliminated (Drakeford, Personal Interview, 1999).
The North Park neighborhood is another site where infill and redevelopment efforts have been pursued. For example, the owners of the North Park shopping center recently announced plans to place a new Wal-Mart in the current facility. In accordance with many classic cases of redevelopment, the property was barely large enough to accommodate the store’s demand for space. Functional problems, such as those in the North Park case, are a reason for redevelopment concerns (Mattone, Personal Interview, 1999).
An example of an infill site in Lexington is the newly developed Headly Green neighborhood. This area is behind the Campbell House Inn off Mason Headly Road. It is built on a former golf course. The homes built in this area are primarily one-story, designed with the needs of older buyers in mind. Demand for this type of residence is increasing as the population begins to age. Low-maintenance and small lawns are ideal for many older couples who can have difficulties maintaining a lawn, climbing stairs, or who simply wish to live in a smaller house. James Barlow, the developer of Headly Green, says that he has had little trouble selling the homes and he would like to continue to develop sites such as these; however, he mentions that "the real problem with infill projects is always the battle with the neighbors" (Truman, Lexington Herald-Leader, 1999). Bruce Simpson, an attorney who represented the interest of the neighbors opposed to Headly Green, says that residents of the older neighborhoods in the area wanted Headly Green to remain a golf course or green space. As previously mentioned, Mr. Simpson has concluded that people want their neighborhoods to remain the same and to not change. Although Simpson represented the interests of the residents of these established neighborhoods, he reasons that the area would have changed regardless of the new subdivision (Personal Interview, 1999). Although development of the new neighborhood was not stopped, there was some consideration of the concerns of the people living in adjoining neighborhoods. This compensation came in the form of the inclusion of a retention basin to better control storm water drainage (Calvert, Personal Interview, 1999).
Downtown Issues and Interests
Lexington's downtown area faces many of the same concerns as residential neighborhoods. Revitalization of the character of downtown is a major concern to many. This movement to maintain and develop the character of downtown likens itself to the desire of neighborhood residents to maintain their neighborhoods’ character. In the past downtown Lexington, as with any city's downtown area, was a place full of life; filled with thriving retail centers, restaurants, businesses, and entertainment. Today, that has changed. Much of Lexington's downtown retail and its people have moved into the outer portions of Fayette County, or the suburbs, leaving downtown Lexington with empty buildings.
Many people are concerned with the current state of downtown. Mayor Pam Miller has commented on her desire to see this area revitalized:
So out of this debate of urban sprawl grows an interest to investing in the revitalization of downtown. According to William H. Hudnut, Senior Fellow at the Urban Land Institute,
While most downtown areas already contain significant public buildings and services, the inner city, or downtown residential area, maintain several advantages. According to Michael Porter in the Harvard Business Review (May-June 1995), inner cities and downtown areas have several advantages that support business and growth. First, they are strategically located. Location offers a proximity to business districts and a logistical infrastructure that provides a competitive advantage to relocating businesses. Secondly, they have local market demand. Inner city areas lack services such as retail, personal, and financial services. This presents numerous opportunities for small business and entrepreneurs to serve inner city residents. Lastly, the inner cities contain a large pool of human resources. Within inner city neighborhoods are hundreds of people who need jobs close to home. They present future employers in the area a work force that is ready and willing to work. Along with a viable downtown, each of these characteristics provides the tools to spark economic redevelopment.
Downtown Lexington fits the description described by the authors above. It is an area with a large number of banks, law firms, and government offices, which bring people into the city everyday. It also has an inner city surrounding the area that lack services and retail opportunities. Some feel encouraging retail is one strategy to enhance downtown areas. According to Richard Schubert, "past attempts to revitalize this area have failed because events have bypassed downtown as a retail center focus." (Lexington Herald-Leader, 1994). But then again, according to Bob Drakeford, director of the LFUCG Mayor's Office of Economic Development, the trend in retail has been to create big, so-called, "super stores". Downtown Lexington is not able to support this trend because past styles were much smaller. Much of the land downtown is already built upon, making large stores difficult to incorporate into the area (Personal Interview, 1999).
The current trend in Lexington's downtown is to create more office space. For example, the Ben Snyder tract, an old downtown department store, was torn down to build a new courthouse. Victorian Square, the Civic Center, and Festival Market are also increasingly being used for office space as opposed to their original retail establishment. Therefore, what we are seeing is a two-fold approach (Drakeford, Personal Interview, 1999). First, buildings are being razed and rebuilt for different uses. Second, existing buildings are being converted into different uses, which brings us to the idea of redeveloping condemned and abandoned buildings as a way to revitalize downtown Lexington.
An examination of Lexington reveals that downtown and its surrounding area are encircled by many so called inner city and abandoned areas that are overlooked assets. As one developer pointed out, old warehouses line up and down South Broadway (Mattone, Personal Interview, 1999). There are also old industrial sites, such as Irish and Davis Towns, along railroad lines that have long been abandoned. Each of these areas are places capable of being redeveloped into economically viable institutions such as industrial, commercial, and retail centers. With significant downtown characteristics and a surrounding inner city, Lexington's downtown meets the framework of an area that can be redeveloped into a thriving urban center.
A third approach to revitalizing downtown Lexington is to improve and increase housing opportunities in the area. There seems to be a higher demand for downtown housing opportunities. One downtown landlord stated that it only takes one day to find new tenants when she has a vacancy (Adams, Personal Interview, 1999). Also, one apartment shopper said that he had been looking for an apartment that has character and a unique feel provided by the downtown environment. He was tired of apartment complexes that all looked and felt exactly alike, but was unable to locate any vacant housing in the downtown area (Lay, Personal Interview, 1999).
Mayor Pam Miller has also expressed the need for residential opportunities downtown. In a session with the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, the Mayor and the Chamber met with several successful high-tech entrepreneurs about what the area needs to stimulate an environment for their types of business. They expressed a keen interest in the availability of downtown lofts and warehouses that offer creative space to work and play (Lexington Herald Leader, 1999). The abandoned warehouses the surround the area present developers with an ideal project to increase residential opportunities in the area. In fact, a developer in Atlanta renovated an 110,000 square-foot building into apartment lofts that are making more than 25% in return annually. He says, "don't miss the boat on this new market-twentysomethings who want to live and work downtown and are looking for small, reasonably affordable, private, trendy, loftlike apartments" (Hudnut, Urban Land, 1992).
So why haven't developers been investing in redevelopment projects in the downtown area? In order to redevelop existing structures and lands, tens of thousands of dollars are needed for additional costs such as demolition and infrastructure improvements. According to Frank Mattone, a Lexington developer, the infrastructure is either not there, or it has collapsed. No developer is going to spend millions of dollars to fix city infrastructure to make the land capable of development. The fact is redevelopment is far more costly to developers than suburban housing developments (Table 2).
Table 2: Development Costs of Infill vs. Suburban
Source: "Infill in the Marketplace: Alternatives to Sprawl, Fall 1994
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The costs of infill/redevelopment are much larger than building from scratch. Among developers, there is an interest in creating some sort of incentive program to offset the additional costs of redevelopment projects. In order to spark infill or redevelopment of the downtown area, certain polices and programs must be in place. In the past, the city has used an urban renewal program to provide downtown with a new look and facilities. Currently, there are no government programs that solely deal with the development of downtown, although the policies already exist within our government.
In the early 1970's, the federal government sponsored urban renewal programs for cities across the nation. These programs created incentives using federal money to redevelop and improve urban centers. During that time, the Lexington City Government had an Urban Renewal Authority that instigated the redevelopment and renewal of Vine and Water Streets. Since that project, the Urban Renewal Authority has become non-existent. An issue unbeknown to most is the fact that the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (LFUCG) has the authority to create and maintain a separate entity that is in charge of urban renewal. The Lexington Charter says that the LFUCG "shall furnish, provide and maintain all services rendered by the County of Fayette and the City of Lexington on the effective date of this Charter. Among those services and activities to be furnished, provided, and maintained within the General Services District" is urban development and renewal (LFUCG Charter, sec. 2.05). The LFUCG has the power to create, and the responsibility to provide urban renewal and development for the citizens of Lexington.
The local government must realize that infill or redevelopment places huge risks on the developer without guaranteeing any returns; at the same time doing a public service by repairing urban corrosion. The creation of an Urban Renewal Authority delegates the power to create incentives for developers to partake in redevelopment of abandoned buildings and sites. Other cities, such as Phoenix, Arizona, employ infill housing program incentives such as the waiving of up to $1000 in building plan review and building permit fees (City of Phoenix, Infill Housing Program, 1997). Other incentives could include reimbursement for infrastructure repairs and replacement. By offsetting additional costs created by redevelopment, local governments can create the potential for developers to "renew" downtown areas.
The creation of an Urban Renewal Authority would also relieve the Urban County Council the burden of making redevelopment decisions. Council members would not have to make decisions that may or may not please their constituents. The Urban Renewal Authority would have full knowledge of the costs and benefits in partaking in redevelopment projects. They therefore are more suited to making decisions that would reshape downtown's image.
In the Urban Service Area, there are various proposals to manage growth. An expansion area has added land. Redevelopment, infill and revitalization are also proposed answers to growth. Along with handling growth, people in Lexington are concerned with maintenance of their quality of life. Both growth and concern regarding the character of the city and city neighborhoods must be addressed.
Current Issues
Consequences of urban growth are evident through a decrease in the Bluegrass's unique characteristics. When the Urban Service Boundary was created in 1958, the area within the boundary, known as the Urban Service Area, was approximately 58 square miles . In 1998, the Urban Service Area had increased to 85 square miles -- 30% of the land area within the county. Hence, this expansion of the Urban Service Area has diminished the amount of land within the Rural Service Area. This affects horse farms and pasturelands, Fayette County's prize attributes, as well as other agricultural lands and rural areas. However, the loss of farmland has brought this issue into the spotlight. According to the Kentucky Agricultural Statistics Service, over 460,000 acres (an average of 135 acres a day) were permanently lost to competing non-agricultural uses in the state (Coleman 14). In Fayette County particularly, the land in farms has decreased 8% from 1992 to 1997 (KY Census of Agriculture, 1997). Similarly, full-time farms in Fayette County have decreased 12% from 1992 to 1997 (KY Census of Agriculture, 1997).
Along with this loss of Kentucky's heritage, other important rural greenspace is diminishing. Crop and livestock farmers within the agricultural community are feeling pressure to sell their land to development due to profitable economic incentives. Additionally, aesthetic views are being swallowed by the continued urban push to expand. Land that is developed can never be completely restored to its natural state ("Bluegrass Conservancy" 1). Protecting farms and rural greenspace secures the Bluegrass's "uncommon wealth," as well as its environmental and economic health.
The issue of rural development and unattenuated population growth is almost a double-edged sword. Most individuals agree that population growth in the region is inevitable. However, farmers in particular feel that uncontrolled population growth hinders their industry. One crop farmer in the county commented that he sees preservation stemming from the economic laws of supply and demand. If there is more demand for subdivisions, such developments will be supplied. "We have to make sure preservation is profitable for farmers to stay in business" (Kevan Evans 1999). A boon to developers, as the population of Fayette County continues to increase, there must be housing to shelter these new individuals. Yet, the amount of land in the county itself does not change. This ultimately leads to the further expansion of the Urban Service Boundary into the rural lands, in order to build more residences to house the population. Again, this places intense pressure on the farming community. As one tobacco/cattle farmer phrased it, "As the urban sprawl takes over, farming is pushed to the edge of the city" (anonymous 1999).
On the other hand, some rural landowners do not believe population growth and/or development is an issue at all. According to lawyer Pat Madden, whose family owns Hamburg Farm, the whole idea of growth in the Bluegrass and rural preservation is nothing but a misconception. "Putting a house on a 10-acre lot is not development," he stressed (Madden 1999). In his opinion, if a person flies over Fayette County, all he sees is horse farms. Further, Mr. Madden insisted that Lexington is a very difficult city to develop: "If you're not in the Urban Service Area, you can't develop at all." Mr. Madden believes the recent expansion of the Urban Service Boundary will provide enough land to accommodate growth for the next 20 years.
As with most counties, economics play a large role in influencing individuals' opinions. Stakeholders have commented that rural land management in Fayette County will be, could be, or must be based on economics. For those stakeholders who believe growth is a problem, they have mentioned three main economic factors that show, financially, the importance of the rural lands: tourism, agricultural revenues, and employment.
Tourism is important to every county, and Fayette County is no exception. The Lexington Convention and Visitors Bureau tracks tourism productivity through hotel/motel room sales, in addition to surveying individuals who call or visit the bureau. From these data, the top five tourist attractions in Fayette County have been determined (Figure x). The top attraction in the county is the Kentucky Horse Park, followed by horse farm tours, walking/driving tours of the county, historic homes, and horse racing (Meredith Moody 1999).
The Preston-Osborne Research Group recently conducted a survey of 400 Fayette County residents, chosen at random. From the survey, it was found that respondents who have lived in Fayette County for more than 20 years believe tourism has a significant economic impact on the county (Preston-Osborne, page 6). Moreover, 37% of the individuals surveyed believe that increasing tourism will preserve the local culture within the county; 43% of individuals believe that tourism, maintained at its current level, can still keep Fayette County heritage alive (Preston-Osborne, page 9). The table below illustrates tourism development activities that Fayette County residents would support, oppose, or are indifferent to (Figure x). As seen from this table, 94.5% of the individuals surveyed believe that rural land and horse farm preservation is one way of attracting more tourists to Fayette County (Preston-Osborne, page 10).
In 1998, 61.1% of visitors came to Lexington because of the "horse attraction" (Visitors Bureau 1998). During that same year, 30.6% of visitors' primary reason for traveling to Lexington was "scenic beauty" (Visitors Bureau). Overall, tourism generated $600 million for the county in 1998 (Meredith Moody 1999). Additionally, tourism provides 14,600 jobs for Fayette County (Chris King 1999). The total number of jobs in Fayette County predicted for the year 2000 is 155,898 (1996 Comprehensive Plan, page 3-3). This equates to almost 10% of the Fayette County population relying on tourism to make a living.
Revenues generated by agriculture are also an important reason why individuals want to preserve the rural lands. In 1996, cash farm receipts totaled $330 million (Rural Land Management Plan, page I-4). Of that total, crop production generated $27 million (Rural Land Management Plan, page I-4), and livestock production generated $302 million (I-4). In 1998, the equine industry brought $607 million in public sales (David Sweitzer 1999). Thus, agriculture yields large amounts of money for the county. Agriculture also provides numerous jobs. Further, related agribusiness is maintained by the preservation of the farms and rural land. As long as farms stay in business, other businesses -- farm equipment stores, fertilizer stores, and so forth -- will stay in business, too (Terry Nichols 1999).
Current Interests
Underlying the issues of growth and development in the Bluegrass are many conflicting, personal interests. A dichotomy seems to exist within each rural landowner's opinion. Basically, there is strong motivation to preserve existing rural greenspace. Yet, ironically, few want to pay the price for such preservation. Most rural landowners strive to hold onto their right to sell their land if the need arises. Additionally, even though landowners want to preserve rural aesthetics, they do not want to pay an extra percentage of taxes in order to do so.
In general, the majority of rural stakeholders support preserving ample rural land in Fayette County. Yet, when it comes to farmers' individual needs, many times it truly boils down to money: having enough money to live viably, having enough money for their children's educations, or having enough money for their own retirement. This, further, is why rural landowners want to maintain their development rights -- in case they do need to sell their land in the future for these financial reasons. Hence, financial decisions are ultimately based on land value. Land within the Urban Service Boundary is worth more, dollar wise, than the rural lands outside the boundary (Maner Ferguson 1999).
As a consequence of such economics, land value indirectly creates an incentive to expand the boundary and develop rural land. Only the truly wealthy are currently able to afford new farmland. The interest on acreage is expensive, and the present market value of crops is relatively small, so individuals with small farms often cannot break even (Brad Green 1999). As growth causes the price of land to skyrocket, small farms cannot increase their production base due to increased prices (Evans, Green 1999). However, as land diminishes in Fayette County, the adjacent counties' undeveloped land increases in value and ultimately attracts growth (Terry Nichols 1999).
The current Rural Land Management Plan under review in Fayette County proposes to increase the 10-acre minimum lot size to 40-acres. Of all the individuals we have spoken to, none believe that this is a wise decision. Many negative comments have been made about this proposal, ranging from "What a nightmare!" to "That is ridiculous." Obviously, a 40-acre rule is something rural landowners do not want. Although a few individuals have commented that the 40-acre rule may possibly slow down growth, most still oppose the change (Terry Nichols 1999). The primary reason why increasing the 10-acre rule to a 40-acre minimum is disliked involves finances. "The rule is a separation based on income," is the way Dr. Bill Thom described it. In other words, only more wealthy individuals would be able to buy land. Many other people share this exact sentiment; the 40-acre rule will inhibit the average person's ability to buy land (Gordon, Bell, Nichols, Ambergy interviews).
Another worry this proposal causes is that an increase in the minimum lot size will ultimately take development rights away from the farmer without paying for them (John Grove 1999). Currently, a farmer is able to sell 10 acres lots -- that is his right. However, by increasing the minimum lot size to 40 acres, the farmer has technically lost the right to sell four 10 acre lots, which equates to a loss of funds. So, this 40-acre minimum lot size does not pay the farmer for those additional 10-acre lots he could have sold. In other words, his development rights are squandered. As a local farm appraiser commented, each farm's development rights is one stick in the "bundle of rights" (Kirkpatrick 1999). When this stick is taken away, and the right eliminated in perpetuity, it diminishes the value of the land.
Monetary compensation is an incentive built into the upcoming proposal. The government trusts that this compensation to farmers will be reinvested into the land. For example, much of the green space within the Rural Service Area is beautiful because someone has spent, and is spending money, to make it aesthetically pleasing (John T.L. Jones, Jr 1999). However, money to farmers can be used for numerous purposes besides land preservation. The money can be used to pay off debts or to set up a retirement fund -- both attractive ideas for farmers in need. Secondly, selling development rights reduces the value of the farm for estate tax purposes, making it easier to hand the farm down to the next generation. In the short-term, these ideas may preserve land. On the other hand, this form of tax break may not be as valuable in the long run. In short, a one in-flux in cash and a de-valued tax break will not keep farmland alive for the next 50 years (Valerie Vantreese 1999).
A bonus built into the Rural Land Management Plan proposal is the preservation of the rolling landscape and aesthetic views that give the Bluegrass its character. However, this raises the question of access. Everyone has their own reason to preserve. Often times, people will not pay for aesthetics when they do not have open access from which to directly benefit (Valerie Vantreese 1999). When money is coming from the general populace's pockets, the interests seem to skew the optimistic views of preservation. "In order to preserve pristine views, we must preserve cash flow" (Valerie Vantreese 1999). Yet, this desire of the public's for open access generally contradicts the farmer's needs. Many rural landowners do not want to allow public access onto their private lands. For example, the owners of Gainesway Farm disagree with the proposed designation of greenway space adjacent to their property (Steve Rochelle 1999). If Gainesway Farm is designated Greenway Space, there will be no regulation/protection of their land from the public. It would invite unwanted guests that could harm their livestock (Steve Rochelle 1999).
Scattered developments ("piano keys") are another concern of rural landowners. Piano key developments destroy the aesthetics of the countryside. Further, "they make a mess for people trying to farm" (Kevan Evans 1999). Another common complaint about scattered development across rural lands is that the developments are a danger to the equine and livestock industry. The accessibility of farms by small children and dogs, thanks to nearby development, causes greater worry among farmers (David Sweitzer 1999).
Some horse farmers want to be included in the Urban Service Area as a way to protect their animals and land value. This partly stems from children and dogs encroaching their property. Several Masterson Station residents complain of no buffer area to shield encroachment. Thus, these landowners face issues of subdivision liability when children and dogs interact with their horses (Thomas Allen Woodward 1999). They are left out of the Urban Service Area, which lowers their land value, and yet they still have to deal with growth and its accompanying problems. If included in the Urban Service Area, the land can be sold for development, which technically means liquid capital (Ralph Packer 1999). Some areas, such as the Masterson area, are closed from the Urban Service Boundary and are considered low priority for the proposed PDR program (Thomas Allen Woodward 1999). However, some citizens publically criticize the labelling of any rural land as low priority (Robin Osgood 1999).
One of the most common interests for stakeholders in this issue of rural land management is an immediate distrust of the government and government regulations. The governments has promised citizens many things, although few have been received (Don Cutter 1999). According to Terry Nichols of Wafare Farm, "This is such an evolving issue down the road. We don't want the government to tell us what to do with our land." Even though the drafted Rural Land Management Plan has a positive goal, people still view the plan as a "restriction" on the land that they own.
This fear of government restrictions can be attributed to a gap in communication and perception. In the words of Arnold Kirkpatrick, a farm broker, "Political perceptions are not reality." Political ideas come about with little forethought to the people they ultimately affect. From his standpoint, none of these opinions are a big concern to local officials (Arnold Kirkpatrick 1999).
Rezoning to accommodate growth puts the smaller farms in danger (Terry Nichols 1999). Low economic returns leads many small farmers to give up their land as a last option. They must gain as much money as possible to keep from going completely bankrupt. Small farms are unable to afford conversion to a different type of agricultural production when their crop fails (tobacco, e.g.). Furthermore, the carrying capacity of the land will only support a given amount of homogeneous farms. Thus, there is also a limit to the number of crop farmers feasible in the county. As a result, small family farms are endangered (Brad Green 1999).
Throughout our interviews with stakeholders, one message clearly came forth: As a solution to the rural land management controversy, promote the image of horse farms. Even the rural landowners who admitted personal dislike of horses offered this as a solution. By keeping alive the motto "Horse Capital of the World," agriculture will be promoted and greenspace perpetuated (Terry Nichols 1999).
According to Meredith Moody, Vice President of Information Services for the Lexington Convention and Visitors Bureau, "The world knows Lexington because of its horses."
As explained earlier, tourism is a large money maker for Fayette County. And a large portion of that money comes from the tourist's interest in the horse. Two main attractions of Fayette County are the Kentucky Horse Park and the opportunities for horse racing in Lexington. The Kentucky Horse Park is the world's only park dedicated solely to the horse (1999 Visitors Planning Guide, page 7). In 1998, 741,646 people visited the Kentucky Horse Park, making it the most visited attraction in Fayette County for that year (Visitor Bureau 1998). The race track at Keeneland is only opened for six weeks out of the year. However, in 1997, for those six weeks that Keeneland was opened to the public, 404,417 people visited (Visitors Bureau 1998). These numbers indicate that horses bring considerable money into Fayette County which, in turn, suggests that horse farms generate large revenues for the county, as well as bring many interested tourists in for a visit. Racing is a growing industry in Fayette County. Purses on the race track have increased in recent years (Terry Nichols 1999). Consequently, these are the main reasons why rural landowners believe perpetuation of the horse farm image will ensure rural lands are preserved. The more people who want to visit Fayette County because of the horse attraction, the more pull generated economically to make sure lands are preserved and the horse industry continues undeterred. Additionally, farmers of all commodities believe, too, that preserving horse farms will ultimately filter over into saving their farms as well.
Cluster housing should be explored in more detail as a solution to the problems stirred by the concept of rural preservation. Higher density infilling in the Urban Service Area would slow growth on rural land. Instead of erecting ten houses with one house per acre, ten houses per one acre could be developed, thus preserving nine acres as greenspace (David Sweitzer 1999). It's a solution, or alternative, to rural development, and as such, is a key to preserving the rural land that is left (Bell, Grove 1999).
Rural Views about PDR
The Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program is an option being considered by the Lexington-Fayette County Planning Commission as a method by which to preserve rural lands. When this proposal was recently presented to the public and city council, Chris King, a city planner, described in detail the elements of the plan. He also enumerated the groups he consulted when formulating the proposal. Among the groups who contributed to the PDR proposal and Rural Land Management Plan draft are: the Lexington Farm Bureau, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Fayette County Nature Club, the Lexington Convention and Visitors Bureau, Bluegrass Tomorrow, Land and Nature Trust, the Nature Conservancy, and the Bluegrass Conservancy. But what about the individual rural landowner? Was the individual landowner consulted during the formulation of this plan?
This exact question -- Were farmers asked about the proposal? -- was raised during the Planning Commission meeting on March 11, 1999. And the answer to the questions was simply, "No" (King).
During our investigation into the rural landowner's perspective about PDRs, we talked to a wide range of individuals. The response we heard was almost unanimous: "What are PDRs?" Most of the landowners we spoke to had no, or very limited, knowledge of the PDR proposal. Mr. Maner Ferguson, an agricultural extension agent for Fayette County, was very aware of the logistics of the PDR program (interview). As an agricultural educator, he talks to numerous farmers of Fayette County on a daily basis. Mr. Ferguson admitted that most farmers in Fayette County are not aware of the program being proposed, or the reasons behind PDRs.
Several plausible reasons emerged as to why individuals had not heard about the PDR proposal. Apparently, the main source of information about the PDR proposal is the Lexington Herald-Leader. However, the farmers we spoke with commented that most of the articles in the newspaper are ambiguous (Nichols, Ferguson, Bell interviews). A few individuals had learned of PDRs via television reports and agriculture-related magazines (Ambergy, Green interviews). Dr. Bill Thom, an extension agronomist in the University of Kentucky's College of Agriculture, hypothesized that, because the PDR program is going to provide only limited funding, there is limited interest in the program (interview). For example, if the PDR program will only accommodate 5-10 farms, wide interest is not generated; if the PDR program is able to buy development rights from 200 farms, it would stimulate greater interest within the rural community.
When we talked to someone who did not know much about PDRs, we explained to them the elements of the proposal. Of course, there were individuals in the county who were very aware of, and very interested in, the program. Several questions/issues arose about PDRs during these interviews. One of the most common sentiments expressed by landowners regarding PDRs was that the program appears to infringe upon private property rights. People should be able to do what they want to do on their land (Kevan Evans 1999); it's a question of civil liberties (Wynne Wright email). To some stakeholders, the PDR program is reminiscent of the unfavorable concept of eminent domain (John Grove 1999). Others question who would be on the board to appraise the value of horse land, rural agricultural land, and so forth. Overall, because most landowners believe they should be able to personally decide the outcome of their land, there will not be 100% participation, even if the program is passed (Bill Thom 1999).
As previously mentioned, a significant interest arising from PDRs and private property rights is just compensation. This factor alone causes anxiety among landowners. The fifth amendment claims no one can lose private property without just compensation. However, who can clearly define the term "just compensation"? Land may have more than economic value; it may have a deep-rooted nonconsumptive value as well. This makes one wonder how and who will decide an adequate price-tag for the purchased development rights. One farmer spoken with wonders if the increase in taxes will be able to generate enough money to compensate farmers (Kevan Evans). Whose land would be purchased with those tax dollars is another concern (Evans). One farmer spoken with believes compensation for development rights should not be a one-time deal; the farmer needs to be sustained, if the land is to be left for future generations (anonymous interview). Overall, agreement was heard among many landowners that, whatever legislation is passed to help preserve the rural lands, the farmer must be paid. Thus, it is obvious that an issue involving money must be clarified for the public.
Many individuals question how PDR can render development rights given up for "perpetuity," when no one can predict the future. Indeed, this is one aspect of the PDR program that is generating some negative feedback. "The idea of halting development on land in perpetuity is hard to swallow," says Kevan Evans. And Terry Nichols wonders if there will be future codicils to the proposal which could totally alter the meaning of the program after its instatement (interview). Frank Penn, a representative of the Farm Bureau, stated at the March 22, 1999, Planning Commission meeting that PDR affects our grandchildren just as much as it affects us now.
Yet not all the hype about PDRs has been pessimistic. Many landowners agree that PDR is a viable option for small farms. Mr. Brad Green, owner of a tobacco farm, believes PDR is the only program available that could possibly save the family farm. With the equine industry generating millions of dollars, large horse farms, especially breeding farms of Kentucky Derby hopefuls, generally do not have to worry losing their land (Green). Thus, the large horse farm will not be taken over by subdivisions. However, the family farm cannot compete with the equine industry. The comments of Mr. Terry Nichols, the farm manager of Wafare Farm, were very similar. Nichols believes PDRs would be beneficial to the small, 40-50 acres farms. "These are the farms that have the toughest time making ends meet," he said, "so a PDR program may actually help them." Moreover, Nichols commented that PDRs would be of no benefit to large horse farms. A representative of Calumet Farm, perhaps the most well-known of all horse farms in Fayette County, commented that PDR is a viable option for rural preservation -- though not necessarily for horse farms (email). However, Carol Lander of Gold Springs Farm, whose horse farm is only twelve acres, believes horse farms can benefit just as much as any other farm can. To Ms. Lander, it is a question of farm location in the county, not what commodity is being produced (interview).
There are many issues and interests present in Fayette County when dealing with planning and zoning. There are also many issues and interests that stretch beyond county lines and are present throughout the region. While questioning planners and other informed sources in each of the 6 surrounding counties, there were some issues consistently mentioned. Given the fact that many of the counties are at different levels of planning and zoning not all issues were of interest to every county. Below are some of the main issues, interests found to lie beneath those issues, and some possible tools to use when dealing with these issues.
Control of Pace and Direction of Growth
Every county is required to review and update their comprehensive plans on a regular basis. Some areas, however, do not have planning and zoning throughout the entire county. It was evident through information obtained from planners in the region that the development of these plans is a necessary first step in the control of the pace and direction of growth. No matter the exact desires of the community regarding growth and development, there was concern over being able to control the pace and direction of growth to ensure community needs were met. Every area will soon have planning and zoning and some counties with separate county and city commissions are collaborating more to mold future growth. This is done through Urban Service Area (USA) boundaries, rural lot size limitations, cluster housing, and other planning tools to be mentioned later. There was a consensus in the region that there is increasing growth in the area and to let it develop without proper control would not allow communities to form in the manner desired. In Madison County, for example, a comprehensive plan has been developed where before there was none. This is due to the fact that they have continued to grow and "have reached a point in which they need some sort of plan to form their future growth" (anonymous, 1999).
Transportation Issues
Access Roads
"Growth follows access to markets" (Garkovich, 1999). If a community has limited access then it will not experience growth pressure similar to a community with a high level of access. Many times this refers to industrial growth yet many "bedroom" communities have access to job markets and therefore have increasing levels of growth. Improved access to major interstates and highways increases a community’s ability to attract growth, both industrial and residential. The widening of Paris Pike between Paris (Bourbon County) and Lexington (Fayette County) will improve the access to Paris and therefore more than likely increase growth in that county. In the past, the rate of growth has been low (0.6% over 7 years) due in part to this lack of access (US Census, 1999; Garkovich, 1999).
We must also consider areas that already have a high level of access, yet desire a moderate or limited level of growth. In this situation other planning tools are usually necessary to limit development and offset the high level of access that is so effective in attracting growth. Urban service areas, corridor protection, and rural lot size limitations are beneficial in these circumstances. According to planner Patricia Wilson of Woodford County, "We (Woodford County) went to 30-acre rural lots because we are so close to Lexington and have such good roads" (Wilson, 1999). They upheld their goal of a "moderate growth rate" in light of a very high level of access. The 30-acre lot size restricts the minimum size of rural lots to 30-acres. This allows Woodford County to retain some of the rural character yet also allows growth at a rate the planning commission has determined is appropriate.
Rural Road Quality
Similar to level of access, rural road quality more specifically refers to improvement of existing rural roads which results in a more "attractive" location for residential development. Currently, we have many rural roads in the region that are at capacity for traffic. There is at least one community group in Woodford County that would prefer little improvement be done to the rural roads in that area. They feel that to improve the roads and therefore access to the area they would be opening the area up for a higher level of development (Garkovich, 1999). They request that improvements not be made to the rural roads in their area for the effect of the increased access would be one of increased desire for residential development.
The opposite interest of that issue is the improvement of rural roads to carry more traffic to promote residential and possible industrial growth. Once again, the desired interest will determine how the issue is viewed and what steps may be taken in each area of the region.
Efficiency of Basic Services
Another of the factors driving planning and zoning regulations are the economic factors involved in providing services. Services can include, but are not limited to, sewer, water, electric, gas, police and fire, and schools. When growth occurs away from centralized locations the cost of providing these services can become more expensive. Sometimes existing services are stretched to meet the increased demand, there is less efficient use of the services, and it is costing more to provide that service due to the lack of centralized and controlled growth (Wilson, 1997). There are many tools used throughout the region to help maintain efficiency by keeping new service costs lower and utilizing existing services in an efficient manner.
When growth occurs in urban areas there is not as great of a concern for service efficiency for it will usually be in close proximity to existing urban development and therefore existing services. If, however, there is an area that may experience growth, and services are not going to be readily available without a high level of cost, changes can be made. Shifting an existing urban service boundary area to include an area with adequate service availability in exchange for an area with limited services will increase efficiency. Woodford County shifted its Urban Service Boundary to allow better use of existing services. The shift did not change the amount of land within the USA, yet it allowed more land within the USA to have access to services such as sewer and water. There are also plans within the region to identify "crossroads communities" and to allow more development in those areas for in the future it will be a prime location for improvement or installation of services. Crossroads communities may consist of a rural area containing a few houses already, possibly a store or church. Clark County is planning to establish a committee to identify the crossroad communities in that county and begin providing incentives to locate in those areas, with the hopes that future placement of fire protection, water, sewer, and other services can be done efficiently (Hayes, 1999). These planning tools not only increase efficiency of services; they concentrate growth and therefore reduce growth in other rural areas, maintaining rural character important to many people in the region.
Inter-County Concerns
Communication
Each community realizes the influence neighboring counties’ zoning has on growth in their respective counties yet there seems to be little effort to influence the planning and zoning of a neighboring county. Many groups throughout the region communicate concerns and have a strong desire to develop regional planning strategies, yet there are also entities with little or no desire to collaborate or organize regional strategies. A planner from Madison County stated that they have little concern or care over what everyone else is doing in the region. The focus in Madison County is to develop a plan to meet their county’s needs first, and maybe someday collaborate with other entities outside their jurisdiction (anonymous).
The Bluegrass Area Development District (ADD) and Bluegrass Tomorrow are two organizations promoting regional communication. Those organizations try to involve all planing in the region to share the concern of growth and possibly develop alternatives that could benefit everyone within the region. The sharing of information is a first step, but beyond that will require more education and involvement of and by the counties (Scott, 1999). There is currently a regional planning collaboration organized through the Bluegrass ADD. Another form of sharing is done through comprehensive plans. All counties are already required to provide a copy of their comprehensive plans to the counties adjacent to that county. These organizations are attempting to bring together regional planning concepts, yet "there is much still left to be done" before reaching the next level (Scott, 1999).
Impacts
Given the close proximity of the counties in this region, sometimes there are impacts felt between counties when changes are made to planning and zoning. Some of these impacts are due to present zoning regulations while others are possible impacts that may result from changes currently being considered.
With so many different planning tools being used throughout the region there are impacts that stretch across county lines due to lack of uniformity and collaboration. For example, if there are two counties with large differences in the minimum rural lot size then the smaller lot size may be more appealing due to the land cost and future maintenance costs of the smaller lot. This may be a tool to draw more development into an area, or the alternative, to limit growth in an area and/or maintain rural areas. Woodford County established a rural lot size of 30-acres many years ago. Fayette County has been at a 10-acre minimum lot size but is facing a possible increase to 40-acres. There has been little affect from the proposed change in Fayette County, but now Woodford County will be on a more level playing field and the lots will compete with Fayette County’s. "This is not a major concern," says Patty Wilson of Woodford County. "Scott County has a rural lot size of 5 acres and therefore are more likely than us (Woodford County) to feel overflow from Fayette County growth. Other counties around Fayette may also experience more growth from the rural lot size increase. Depending upon the impacts there are actions and tools that can still be used to control growth.
There are neighboring counties that feel this could have quite an effect. "If homebuyers and builders have to purchase a 40-acre tract to build a house, or can drive ten minutes further and get a one or a five acre tract for less money and less maintenance costs, then they will drive the ten extra minutes" (anonymous 1999). One way to handle this possible increase in development is through corridor protection and transfer-of-development rights (TDRs) programs. Clark County has recently developed a plan in which development rights can be transferred to other areas of the county and, dependant upon the section the rights are transferred to, may allow incentives to decrease growth between Winchester and Lexington. Transferring development rights to certain parts of Clark County that have been designated by the planning commission will allow more development rights in the new area than the original area. This is merely speculation, however, and some feel the number of ten-acre lots already designated in Fayette County will meet demand for years to come.
Regional planning would be better tailored for development if communities and inter-county planing were more active. Some counties may find that similar or complimentary interests exist in bordering counties and planning would be more effective with collaboration and the sharing of ideas. It allows for making effective growth planning solutions that would otherwise not be possible by a single county.
CURRENT PROPOSALS
Purchase of Development Rights
Overview
When an individual owns a piece of land, s/he also owns a bundle of
rights that are part of the land. This bundle includes air, water, and
mineral rights, the right to pass the land to heirs, the right to use it,
and the right to develop it. Normally, when the land is sold all of the
rights are passed to the buyer, however, transfer or selling some or all
of these rights to another individual is possible.
A purchase of development rights (PDR) program works along this concept in that it is aimed at purchasing the development rights to the farmland in exchange for some sort of financial incentive. The seller only gives up the right to develop the land (usually into perpetuity) and retains all other rights and responsibilities associated with land ownership. This would include farming or selling the land, passing it along to heirs, and liability for taxes. Furthermore, the program is voluntary and non-regulatory and is supported by many states. Eighteen states have enacted PDR programs, and forty-six have passed legislation to allow state and local governments to attain the development rights to private property (Bowers and Daniels 1997).
In Fayette County, Kentucky, the PDR program will be the recommended cornerstone to the preservation of its rural land. However, the resolution of several issues is vital if such a program is to be implemented in this region. These uncertainties include: where will the funding of such a plan come from, what type of structure will it consist of, and what education processes will occur to inform citizens.
Structure of the Program: Hierarchy - Related Processes
As all governmental programs do, the proposed Purchase of Development Rights program will be implemented, run, and enforced by a governing body. The range of people that would be involved in the functions that come with the PDR's would range from the common citizen to the Mayor. Since the current governing body, LFUCG, has been elected by the public, they are the most powerful group of people involved. Within the council, a Purchase of Development Rights Program committee would be delegated. It has been suggested that a totally separate selection committee would originate for the program as well. All would work together but separately to avoid corrupt pressures from the outside world that would hurt the integrity of the program.
Starting with the Mayor and Council, options are unlimited in the directions that they may choose to take. Some may keep the Mayor and Council atop the authoritative chain and other options offer separate staff and appointed bodies. The proposed plan offers suggestions that are similar to the committee put in charge of the public library here in town. This is a logical and good suggestion but interests of the public may be looked over if the committee is put together in the same manner. "I am worried that the same people will always be in charge of the program and that only certain people will be involved," (Anonymous1999).
The PDR program committee should represent all parties that are affected by the implementation of the program. It has been suggested that the members be selected and represent on a term basis (Edgens 1999). This would keep members in touch with the public and interested parties. Other suggestions from interested parties include the use of government employees on the committee. Employees from the NRCS or USFS would be ideal because of their backgrounds (Anonymous and Edgens 1999). Using more than a few government employees "won't accomplish anything. Citizens don't want sprawl, citizens should make the decisions," (Edgens 1999). By allowing the public to make the decisions with some guided and professional influence is the most suggested option available.
It has been stated to us that the general public has a vague idea of what is proposed and no real efforts by the LFUCG have been made to better their knowledge. Council member Dick DeCamp feels that he represents his district based upon his district's concerns and his original platform when elected (DeCamp 1999). He ran supporting general preservation along with rural preservation but feels that it is not his direct responsibility to educate all the voters in his district. Other council members feel the same (Anonymous 1999). That is evidence in support of a separate committee to oversee the PDR program.
The Purchase of Development Rights Program Committee would serve as an intermediary between the selection committee and actual top authority. This committee would play an intricate part in the process of selecting the people for the selection committee. Unbiased and educated citizens should make up this committee. Mr. Terry Nichols is aware of the program and has many concerns but specifically, his worries are directed at the selection process. Who would be on the board that appraises land? What is the appraiser's knowledge of land and what will be the difference between horse and agricultural farms along with environmentally sensitive lands? (Nichols 1999).
Tasks of evaluating the economics of the program along with monitoring the selection process would be the duty of the PDR Committee. Allocation of revenue collected would be overseen by this committee. Direct contact between the citizens and the LFUCG would also be done through the PDR committee and the education of those citizens through programs or other means would fall on the shoulders of the PDR Committee.
The Selection Committee is the most crucial part of the Purchase of Development Rights program. If the wrong people are chosen for the job, the whole program becomes jeopardized. Certain qualifications must be levied to ensure a pure committee. As Dr. Edgens and Mr. Nichols previously pointed out, certain individuals should be included and conversely not be included on the committee. Both the committee and the actual process of selecting the land will require specific and strict guidelines. There are many ways to achieve a honorable program. The proposed plan outlines both a point value system for land evaluation and positive and negative correlation factors for the process. It has been suggested that the selection of the individuals for the committee also be judged on a point value system or positive/negative aspects as well (Dale 1999). Mr. Dale does not want to see a committee made up of the same type of people. As of now, he is not in favor of such a program but is still concerned for the welfare of farming population and those that may become involved.
Involvement of concerned and very interested organizations from the area has been suggested (Anonymous 1999). Some have agreed with this suggestion and others have been in total opposition to it. A bias would be created because of underlying interests or predetermined agendas that would negate all the positive things that the program may create. The focus of the program would not be maintained if other factors cause a bias in the either the committee or land selection process.
Selection Process
LESA (Land Evaluation Site Assessment)
The key to any PDR program is the establishment of a procedure that rates sites on a point-based system in order to create priority distinctions. That is exactly what a LESA can do. With preservation as the objective in Lexington-Fayette County, a LESA will allow for fair assessment in representing the goals of the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan. Most important to this procedure is objective criteria or factors that will result in a point ratings system that is not unfairly weighted or biased. A list of positive and negative factors as taken from the Rural Land Management Plan Report #3 are as listed:
Positive Correlation Factors:
Agriculture Related:
- Size of farm (+)
- Length of public road frontage and visibility (+)
- Proximity to another property with PDR or conservation easement,
or "batch" applications (+)
- Quality of soils for agriculture (+)
- Farm product sales (+)
- Scale of agricultural improvements (+)
- Percentage of property in cropland or pasture (+)
- Land stewardship (SCS conservation practices) (+)
Environmental Considerations:
- % of environmentally sensitive land, especially riparian areas, tree
areas, etc. (+)
- Designated rural greenway and/or focus area (+)
- Special natural protection area (+)
- Proximity to and ability to be linked to areas of high environmental
value such as parks, nature
preserves and sanctuaries (+)
Other:
- Consolidation/elimination of undeveloped 10 acre tracts (+)
Negative Correlation Factors:
- The converse of positive factors above (-)
- Location in a rural land category other than CARL or NAT (-)
- Proximity/Adjacency to the existing Urban Service Area Boundary;
except for rare cases of
overwhelming importance as a community icon, or in designated
focus areas (-)
- Proximity to existing or planned urban services (-)
Problems Associated With Selection Process
One of the biggest concerns with the selection process is bias. People are worried that interests other than preservation will come through in site assessments. It is feared that developers and wealthy landowners will be able to influence decisions about sites under consideration. In doing this, they will either be able to keep property rights from being bought or cause property rights to be bought. Developers could use their influence to keep lands from having their PDR rights bought, which would leave the land available for development. Wealthy landowners might try to influence the ratings of their property to have a lot of positive factors. This would allow them to receive money for their PDR’s, even though they never had any intentions of developing their land anyway. It is for this reason that the criteria need to be as specific as humanly possible. The criteria factors are going to be where most of the debate is going to come from once debate between potential sites arises. Each criterion needs to have a range of values so that it can adequately be represented. If this can be done, bias and unfair ratings can be kept out or at least not noticeable.
The idea of "perpetuity" and a PDR program is something that bothers most landowners. People who own land feel that is unfair for them to sell their rights of development forever. Jim Calvert, president of Mason-Headley Greenspace Neighborhood Association, questions the idea of someone willing to help the community having to give up their development rights indefinitely (1999). All programs that have been implemented around the country have escape clauses in their PDR's, except for New Jersey. They give the landowners the opportunity to repurchase the PDR's that they gave up originally. What is interesting about these other programs is that nobody has yet to buy back their PDR’s once they sold them. In Massachusetts, no landowner of a preserved farm has attempted to repurchase his rights after looking at what he had to do. Similarly, you have to wait 25 years in Pennsylvania and Maryland before you are able to attempt to repurchase your PDR’s. Since neither of those two programs is 25 years old yet, we don’t know if people will attempt to repurchase (Daniels and Bowers 1997). What seems characteristic of all these other programs is that it is difficult and extreme reason must be provided as to why a landowner should be allowed to repurchase his/her PDR’s. At least this gives landowners a feeling that they aren't giving up their development rights for perpetuity. In allowing for this, land owners who are afraid of giving up their rights forever can temporarily give up the rights of development for the good of the community without the fear of losing that potential income forever.
What seems to be missing in all this assessment process is consideration of the social impact. No criteria are mentioned about how each area under consideration would affect the surrounding community socially. Some method for establishing a social criteria seems essential. The purpose of this program is preservation of rural land. But let me ask you this question: "Are we just saving rural land or are we saving rural land and the way of life that it supports?" It seems that this PDR program has created two opposing views. People within the city who live in urban areas seem to see preservation as the saving of rural farms which include both agricultural and horse farms. One of the reasons that people move to Lexington is its closeness to its rural surroundings. The opposing view is that of the rural landowner who sees the PDR program as a way of saving their lifestyle. This second view sees it as saving a lifestyle that has existed and developed with families and close communities. Rural landowners that are in financial need can use the PDR program to get money to help them get things in order and insure that their family and heritage are secure. It is this discrepancy that needs to be addressed. A social impact criteria would take into account the affect that development would have on the surrounding community. A way for the public to voice their opinion is also necessary here. Somewhere in this social assessment, public thought needs to be heard. Even though it doesn't have to do with them directly, they are affected by choices made on land within these rural communities. If we are to help preserve rural land and the way of life that it supports, then social impact assessment with public opinion seems essential.
Who's Included and Who's Not In The Selection
Everyone who plans on living in or near the Bluegrass Region should be concerned with PDR's and the planned growth of Fayette County. The major people concerned with this issue right now are developers and rural landowners. These are the main players because it is the rural land that is needed for future development and the developers are the ones who are going to be developing it. However, many more people are directly affected by urban growth. Some people want growth because they see it bringing money and jobs to the area. Others see growth as bad and feel that it is destroying the region and all that it has represented. The horse industry worries that sprawl will ruin those special conditions that allow the Lexington and the Bluegrass Region to be called the "Horse Capital of the World." Whether you have a bumper sticker that says "Growth is Good," Growth Destroys Bluegrass Forever," or you are some where in between, it's up to you to decide if you want to be included the selection process. If you wait too long, somebody will make the choice for you whether you agree with it or not.
Economics
Cost of Implementing a PDR Program
According to the Rural Service Area Land Management Report, the goal
of the PDR program is to preserve approximately 50% of the eligible lands
(40,000-50,000 acres). The program would be implemented over 20-30 years
and should generate at least $100 million dollars. This cost, per acre,
is expected to amount to $2,000-$3,000. However, it is important to note
that the exact price, per acre, is yet to be known because no development
rights have been purchased and therefore, there is no understanding to
the true value of a development right in Fayette County. The basic formula
used to determine the easement value is as follows (Daniels and Bowers
1997):
Divide this total by the number of acres and one has the value of the development rights per acre. However, it is important to understand that this is not necessarily the value that will be paid because some negotiation may occur.
Costs of PDR Programs in Other Regions and Associated Concerns
As mention above the average cost, per acre, for development rights
is expected to be in the range of $2,000-$3,000 in Fayette County. How
does this compare with other counties that have implemented similar programs?
The first PDR program was started in Suffolk County, New York and its program
was able to preserve almost 7,000 acres at an average cost of $5,000. In
Maryland, most farmers, are currently making bids of between $1,800 and
$2,200 an acre and the average in King County, Washington and Montgomery
County, Pennsylvania is more than $4,000. However, these values are lower
in areas that are more rural, as in Vermont where the cost has been below
$1,000 an acre. Many other local governments have implemented conservation
programs aimed at the purchase of development rights with similar price
ranges (see table 1).
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| California | |||||
| Marin County |
|
|
|
|
|
| Sonoma County |
|
|
|
|
|
| Colorado | |||||
| City of Boulder |
|
|
|
|
|
| Florida | |||||
| Green Swamp |
|
|
|
|
|
| Michigan | |||||
| Pennisula Twnsp |
|
|
|
|
|
| New York | |||||
| Southhampton |
|
|
|
|
|
| Southold |
|
|
|
|
|
| Suffolk County |
|
|
|
|
|
| North Carolina | |||||
| Forsyth County |
|
|
|
|
|
| Pennsylvania | |||||
| Buckingham Twnsp |
|
|
|
|
|
| Virginia | |||||
| Virginia Beach |
|
|
|
|
|
| Washington | |||||
| King County |
|
|
|
|
|
| San Juan County |
|
|
|
|
|
| Wisconsin | |||||
| Dunn |
|
|
|
|
|
A study conducted in the Connecticut River Valley of Massachusetts showed that farmers who were a part of an Agricultural Preservation Restriction (APR) program expressed satisfaction with the program. The majority (62.7%) of these farmers were very satisfied while only 2.7% were very dissatisfied (Sherman et al. 1998). Furthermore, 92% of these farmers said they would be either "very likely" or "somewhat likely" to participate in the APR program again.
Those farmers that were not satisfied stated that their main reasons for dissatisfaction were based on the ideas that either their property values were reduced, had problems with the local government, and/or because of the assessment of capital gains taxes on the development rights sold. Some farmers, and local tax assessors, did not understand how land values were effected by the sale of their development rights, thus leading to some tension between the farmers and some in the local government. When the development rights are sold, most places reassess the value of the land because it no longer has the ability to be developed. When this is done the value of the land decreases and thus can be beneficial to the farmer because it reduces the amount of taxes owed on the land. This sometimes does not only confuse farmers, but also some local government officials. In turn, they assess the farm at the previous land value because they believe the farm should continue paying the original tax value, which leads to friction between the farmer and the local government until the problem is cleared. In addition, farmers did not like the fact that they were "penalized" by a capital gains tax from their sales and believed that this would hinder further cooperation by farmers as would the miscommunication of perceived tax beliefs of farmers and local government officials (Sherman et. al. 1998).
Another concern that has surfaced in many communities trying to implement a PDR program is that there are too many farmers and not enough money. For example, in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, at one point there were as many as 170 landowners willing to sell their development rights despite the efforts of the Lancaster County Agricultural Preserve Board and the Lancaster Farm Trust to preserve 23,000 acres (Daniels and Bowers 1997). In Marin County, California, the Marin Agricultural Land Trust was able to preserve over 25,000 acres of land; however, county voters have turned down recent legislation to pass a temporary property tax to gain more financial support for the program. As a result, there is a backlog of landowners with an estimated $10 to $12 million in development rights to sell (1997).
Despite the acceptance of many communities to implement a purchase of development rights program, there are some that do not feel it is appropriate. When McNenry County, Illinois, was trying to put together a protection program they initiated a public survey of 400 people to determine if people were concerned with protecting farmland in their region. More than half (53.6%) responded that they were very concerned while 32.7% stated they were somewhat concerned. However, when asked if a PDR program should be used the majority (51.6%) was opposed, while 32.9% supported the idea (Paulson 1997).
Sources of Funding
A PDR program requires long term commitment from governments, taxpayers, and landowners and dedicated financial sources. In order to preserve faith in such programs there needs to be a consistent flow of funds that preserve a certain minimum acreage of land per year. The Rural Service Area Land Management Report identifies the following as possible sources of funding:
How Fayette County Plans to Fund the Program
Since this is a long-term program aimed at raising more than $100 million dollars, Fayette County will need to raise approximately five million dollars per year. The majority of the funding for the PDR program is expected to come from one or more of the following new tax levies: a real estate tax, an occupational tax, and a transient room tax.
Possible Citizen Reaction
From interviews conducted with various district representatives, neighborhood association presidents, and local farmers it was discovered that there are a wide range of views held on this taxation. Emma Tibbs, the president of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council, felt that there would be support in the community for the PDR program, however, this statement goes against what some district representatives believe. They stated that some people in Fayette County would only look at this issue in terms of money. The representatives feel that the majority of citizens do want to protect the rural heritage of this region, but not at the taxpayer’s cost.
Education
It has become clear that there is a definite lack of knowledge within the general public about the benefits that a PDR program may actually hold for the Bluegrass and Fayette County. It is important to remember that this program can only be instituted if the public votes for it. Therefore, it is imperative to make sure that the majority of the public voters realize the importance of PDRs and are willing to enact legislation that will fund such a program. This will be a challenge because of the very nature of the program and those responsible for setting it in motion. Residents within the Urban Service Area are so embroiled in issues such as storm water and sewer drainage improvements, that they are not likely to have knowledge of the proposed zoning changes and mitigation benefits of the PDR program in rural Fayette County. If they don't have an understanding of how this program could work, they certainly will not be willing to pay extra taxes for them. There is an education gap that needs to be planned before the referendum is put on the November 2000 ballot. If the gap remains, the referendum will not pass, and we will be right back where we started.
There are many methods used by organizations and governments to inform their constituents and residents. Committees for citizen involvement, the media, mail notices, town meetings, flyers, and newsletters are effective methods of educating the public in one fashion or another. Surveying and public meetings are all effective tools in obtaining information from the public. This information can then be used to determine where special efforts are needed to obtain the level of knowledge needed to make an educated decision (Rohse and Ross 1992). Fayette County, though, is in the process of instituting a full-blown political campaign, incorporating most or all of the methods of reaching the public.
Those groups who have moved to the forefront of the PDR campaign have realized that the proposed program will not be passed unless a substantial effort is made to place rural land protection near the top of the voter's importance list, including the urban public. Ned Shehee, from the Lexington Chamber of Commerce, indicated that there is a group meeting to discuss strategy for the passing of the PDR legislation. This group is made up of representatives from organizations that have a vested interest in rural development and preservation. Some of these organizations include: Kentucky Thoroughbred Association, Farm Bureau, Greenspace Commission, Planning Commission, Bluegrass Conservancy, Bluegrass Tomorrow, Lexington Homebuilders, Urban County Council, Chamber of Commerce, and the Neighborhood Council, to name a few. Once the legislation has been proposed, the group plans to petition to become an official political campaign organization with the State Register. Once this has been achieved a campaign organization will be formed consisting of a steering committee, strategy committee, chairman, co-chairman, treasurer, etc. Their mission will be to spread the propaganda supporting the PDR program to the public, in hopes of a positive outcome on the upcoming ballot (1999).
Mr. Shehee also indicated that there is a polling process in the works, which will reveal valuable information on how the public perceives rural land preservation and development, and their willingness to pay extra taxes for it. Preliminary results indicate that there is a significant percentage of Fayette County residents who value the rural land as a valuable commodity worth preserving. Percentages decline sharply when the survey recipients were asked how much they would be willing to pay for it. The group is faced with the task of convincing the already receptive public that preserving the rural land in question is important enough to pay for it, that is the benefits far outweigh the costs. They plan to do this through an extensive television and radio ad and letter writing campaign. These avenues will highlight the unique features of the rural Fayette County lands and provide information on the upcoming referendum, in an effort to pull at the heartstrings, so to speak (1999).
Timing is everything. As with any other political campaign the message has to be sent and received at the most beneficial point in time. Mr. Shehee expects to see an intensive effort starting in February 2000. It is imperative to hit the airwaves and mailboxes at just the right moment, so people have enough time to hear the message, but not get bored with the cause. The height of public sentiment will try and be reached just as the ballot is voted upon in November (1999). If the referendum is passed it will be the PDR committee's responsibility to provide information to farmers on how they can apply for PDR funding.
What PDR Solves and What It Does Not Solve
From the surface the PDR program looks like a great way to protect the rural heritage of Fayette County, but that does not mean that there are no inherent flaws present. PDR's will protect land from being developed, but which land? Do the people of Fayette County only want to protect the small farmer, horse farms, and large profitable farms or do they just want greenspace and open space protected? Furthermore, just because the development rights are bought from a farmer does not mean that the land will be kept as farmland. No development will be taking place, but, possibly, neither will be farming. So does this mean that are program has failed?
Some citizens may feel that it has not, but many environmental groups and others would think otherwise. Their belief is that this preserved land has value for creating cleaner air and water, keeps agricultural areas viable which in turn keeps locally grown food available, maintains scenic and historic landscapes, open spaces, watersheds, pastoral scenes, and wildlife habitat. Margaret Graves, of the Bluegrass Conservancy made similar remarks at the March 11, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting.
One thing that PDR clearly solves is that it allows for the protection of land from development without having to buy the land outright. The only other way to stop farms from being developed, other than incentives to landowners, is to buy the land, which would even be more costly than the PDR program.
An important idea that one should remember is that PDR may help preserve land if done properly, but by no means is it the final answer to Fayette County's growth problem. PDR programs will not stop growth, they will only protect the land that the citizens want protected. This program is only a stepping stone into a much more encompassing issue.
BEYOND THE BLUEGRASS
Fayette County is not the only community in the U.S. facing the issues of urban growth and development. Atlanta, which has been called the "fastest spreading human settlement in history," develops 500 acres of field and farmland per week (Lacayo 1999). There are other cities such as New York that are similar to Atlanta in that they have no growth management plan. They just let it happen at will. It is believed that all growth is good. There are others who believe growth should be planned and controlled. The way communities perceive growth and decide to deal with it depends on the culture of the members of that community.
The communities that are discussed in this section are not against growth but feel that growth should be controlled. These communities have growth management plans and programs, which can be compared to that of Fayette County. The communities that are addressed in this section were chosen because there is some type of similarity that can be found between them and Fayette County. Portland, Oregon and Lancaster County, Pennsylvania both have urban service area boundaries, like Fayette County, that were established to keep growth within a controlled area. Tucson, Arizona is like Lexington and Lancaster County in that they all want to preserve a way of life. Fayette County, Portland, Lancaster County, and Reston, Virginia want to preserve their agricultural and/or horse farms while Tucson wants to protect the desert environment, all which development may threaten. By discussing the success and failure of the plans and programs other communities have implemented to deal with growth and development Fayette County can learn how they may want to proceed in their process.
It is important to keep in mind that there are many facets to the issue of growth and the views of these communities is based primarily on their culture. This infers that what is important to one community may not be to the other. Therefore the programs and plans which work for one community may not for another.
In the early 1970’s, the State of Oregon determined that protecting farmland from development was in the state’s best interest because agriculture played an important role in Oregon’s economy. Currently, farmland provides Oregon with approximately $3 billion in annual sales and employs approximately 56,000 Oregonians (OSU Extension Service). It was also believed compact development was a better and more efficient use of taxpayers’ money in the construction and maintenance of public services including utilities, roads, fire, police, etc. Because it was believed that urban sprawl was costly and a waste of money, the state implemented various laws and regulations, and zoned more than 16 million acres of farmland (half of the privately owned land in the state) into agricultural preserves. In addition, over the past 25 years Oregonians have supported statewide planning mandates to limit sprawl and preserve farmland, three times rejecting attempts to repeal them. It has been state legislation that has guided most of what Portland, Oregon has been doing with their land use policies.
1. Strategies
In 1979, Portland created a regional planning entity known as Metro. Metro’s goal was not to slow growth, but to slow land consumption. Metro is a directly elected regional government that governs the three counties and 24 cities that make up the Portland Metropolitan Area. Metro provides transportation and land-use planning services and oversees regional garbage disposal and recycling waste reductions programs. It also manages the regional parks and greenspace and the Oregon Zoo. The Metro Committee for Citizen Involvement is the primary liaison between citizens and their regional government. There is also an Office of Neighborhood Involvement. Metro is funded through user fees and taxes (Metro, 1997).
Along with the creation of Metro, in 1979, Portland created an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The UGB was required by state. The goals for the UGB were to (1) plan and promote the efficient use of urban land; (2) improve the efficiency of public facilities and services; and (3) preserve prime farm and forest lands outside the boundary (Metro, 1997, Urban Growth Boundary). In addition to the UGB, development outside the boundary was discouraged through downzoning, tax incentives not to develop, and prohibitions on providing services. Expedited approval processes and upzoning encouraged development inside the boundary.
One of Metro’s main accomplishments was in 1995. It adopted a 50-year growth plan for the area known as 2040. It is estimated that the region will grow by 1.2 million people, 70% of which will live within the UGB. As such, Metro has planned to upgrade and develop the light rail system. The 2040 plan also pledged to moderately expand the boundary while funneling growth into Portland’s empty lots, oversized yards, bus and rail corridors and vacant contaminated industrial sites. Their planning estimates that air pollution will be 8% lower than if nothing was to be done due mainly to a decrease in automobile use. And, while the 2040 plan is estimated not to have a significant impact on congestion problems in the future, it promises to significantly reduce growth into the rural area and preserve farmland and open space -- Portland’s priorities.
Therefore, Portland’s main strategies on controlling growth have been to increase the density of established neighborhoods by funneling housing onto vacant lots and filling abandoned buildings; building more compactly along bus and light-rail lines; providing tax breaks for farmers where land is assessed at farm use; and developing using the Portland Brownfields Initiative. Portland accomplishes this by restricting state and local funds to be used for infrastructure improvements or construction within the boundary. Incentives are given to builders who follow strict building plans that consist of smaller lot sizes to affordable housing initiatives.
Due to their development strategies, lot sizes have shrunk by one-fifth and one of every two new homes was an apartment, condo or rowhouse. One of every four new homes in the region filled in a previously empty or oversized lot. However, Portland’s amount of parkland per 1,000 residents dropped from 21 acres to 19 acres.
2. Players
As with any issue, there have been many sides to the planning process for Portland. Players included in the debate have been Neighborhood Associations who have opposed increased density; Environmental Groups such as 1000 Friends of Oregon, Sierra Club, and Audubon Society of Portland, who support the preservation of farmland for ecological reasons; the Home Builders Association, who believe that the concept of planning is okay but current restrictions unrealistic; Oregon Farm Bureau, whose majority members support incentives and assistance to farmers; and Oregonians in Action, which includes farmers and other property owners in opposition to planning which hampers property rights.
3. Issues and Interests
The issue of farmland protection has many sides. Most farmers are supportive of Metro’s efforts to keep development within the UGB. Agriculture is a large part of the economy in Portland, as soils in the area are extremely fertile. One farmland conservationist who owned property inside the UGB decided to sell 22 of his 60 acres citing the need to keep development inside the boundary. Two main reasons why farmers want protection are (1) to prevent nuisance claims by non-farming neighbors, and (2) to protect crops, livestock and soils from pollution caused by non-farming neighbors, including possible disturbances caused by kids or pets. On the other hand, some farmers along with other rural property owners who are property rights advocates disagree with the government imposing restrictions on the use of their land. If their land is designated in an Exclusive Farm Use Zone, then they are prevented from certain practices including building houses on their property. A problem with the farmland protection, according to Bill Moshofsky, President of the Oregonians in Action Legal Center, a property rights organization, is that "truly prime farmland was zoned into ‘urban growth boundaries’ and have since been developed…less productive hillside land preserved." (Bill Moshofsky).
The Oregon Farm Bureau believes the protection of farmland is very important to farmers. However, they tend to agree that there needs to be a re-evaluation of the land that is being preserved. They are also concerned that land with the best soil types are still being developed while less productive land is being protected by the Exclusive Farm Use zone and, therefore, undeveloped.
Farmers also oppose the practice of "hobby" farmers. Hobby farmers are urbanites that have moved onto a farm, start up a farming practice, and then after a couple of years let it go under. Officials have not been enforcing strict restrictions on what constitutes a farming operation, and they have also been lax in doing follow up inspections. Basically, these type of property owners are only looking to build a house in the rural area with some acreage. Their true intent is not for farming. In addition, these former urbanites are building large-scale houses, not the typical farmhouse. Hobby farmers are receiving the same tax breaks as true farmers. To offset this trend, farmers’ report buying up land to prevent urbanites from circumventing the laws and building houses on surrounding farmland.
Another issue has been the debate of the cost of living and housing prices in the Portland area, and whether the two are connected. While housing prices may be high, the cost of living could still be relatively low – which is the case in Portland. The Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland and 1000 Friends of Oregon did a joint study on the UGB which concluded that housing prices in the area are two to three times more affordable than other West Coast cities. This is because the program requires cities to designate land for all types of housing, and because developers wishing to build on that land get one of the fastest permitting processes in the nation (1000 Friends of Oregon & The Home Builders Association of Metropolitan).
In addition, while some criticize that the constraint of development within the UGB has caused an affordability problem for Portland, in reality, housing prices and cost of living in Portland is equal to or less than other cities of its size who have not implemented an UGB. Therefore, attributing Portland’s development strategies to an increase in housing prices may be unfounded.
On the other hand, higher density development within established neighborhoods has also caused alarm among residents of Portland. Neighborhood Associations have complained that the government did not do a proper study on to determine if its roads, services and design controls could handle the increased housing densities. In addition, neighbors have complained that the buildings being built next to their homes are overshadowing them. Gentrification has also pushed out low-income residents, as well as African American residents, from their historically owned neighborhoods. They are being pushed to the outskirts of the boundary away from such things as job training, social services, and affordable daycare.
4. Commonalties and Differences with Fayette County
Culture plays in important role in the way Portland views their land development -- living off the land and open spaces are a part of their identity, their heritage. It goes back to the days when the West was first settled. As such, Portland wants to preserve this "culture." Portland sees the maintenance of farmland and open space as having value, albeit intrinsic, but nonetheless, valuable. This is apart from the economic return from the agricultural land. Portland’s sense of community comes from having a thriving urban center surrounded by productive farmland. This adds to the quality of life. Lexington/Fayette County is in the midst of a debate over whether the protection of horse farms is worth it on behalf of all the residents. It will be an important decision for those in the Bluegrass Region to determine whether protecting their identity (horse farms and agricultural lands) is important enough to develop other strategies for growth, which protect the lands outside the boundary.
Lexington should also learn from Portland when it comes to higher density development within established neighborhoods. Portland has been criticized for not assessing the true impact to those neighborhoods before planning to develop them further. In other words, making sure that the current infrastructure of roads, sewers, etc., are sufficient and upgraded to handle the growth.
Affordable housing is another issue that Portland has been criticized for and from which Lexington can learn. Lexington will need to ensure a well-planned development strategy to ensure that affordable housing is located within the UGB.
Lexington should also look at Portland’s mass transportation system. Portland established a light rail system, which they continue to develop. In addition to the rail line, trolleys
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania is one of the top agricultural producers in the nation. It was originally settled by the Amish. Their way of life is founded on their religious belief which is to live off the land. In order to preserve this way of life, they must preserve their lands. Since 1959, Lancaster County has lost 102,500 acres of farmland to development (L.C.C.P., 1997).
Out of 600,000acres of land in Lancaster, 380,000 acres are agricultural land. Of this land, plain farmers (Amish and Mennonite) own 30% (Lancaster Farmland Trust, 1997). This has become a key factor in the preservation of agricultural land in Lancaster because it is against their beliefs to sell their land to developers.
1. Strategies
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania began enforcing agricultural zoning in response to development in 1975. A boom in development spurred a great deal of concern from farmers. The fear that development pressures could threaten farmland meant that development also threatened their way of life and source of economic prosperity. Easement donations were made as early as 1980 as a result of key farmers, well respected within the community, pushing for an agriculture land preservation program. Over the past 20 years, land preservation programs have been developed both locally, in Lancaster, and statewide.
Lancaster lands are currently being preserved through two main programs, one municipal and one private. Conservation easements are the main tools implemented to preserve lands. Lancaster Farmland Trust and the Pennsylvania Agriculture Land Preservation Board, under the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, use conservation easements or land donations to preserve land and constrain development. Both groups have experienced a reasonable amount of success thus far preserving approximately 25,000 acres of farmland with conservation easements over the last decade.
Lancaster Farmland Trust, L.F.T., was founded in 1988, and is funded by private donations. They have currently preserved 97 farms. More than half of these preserved farms are owned by the Amish. The Old Order sects work with Lancaster Farmland Trust because they do not work with government agencies. L.F.T.’s main goal is to preserve the county’s best soil, and do so in a fashion that contiguous tracts of farmland are preserved. Ten of the seventeen farms preserved by L.F.T. donated their conservation easement claiming that "farming was such a critical part of their family’s identity that they want them protected"(Lancaster Farmland Trust).
The Pennsylvania Agriculture Land Preservation Board, established in 1989, oversees the state farmland preservation program. The state/county purchases the development rights of farmland in an effort to preserve the economic viability and quality of life within Lancaster (Mengel, 1999). The program is statewide and receives funding from a state cigarette tax and a commissioners fund (Bailey, 1999).
Both Lancaster Farmland Trust and the Lancaster Agriculture Land Preservation Board use a ranking system to determine which lands will be accepted into their programs. Farms receive points for soil quality, development potential, clustering potential, and farm size (Mengel, 1999).
Lancaster County developed the Lancaster County Policy Plan in 1991 that provided a "vision" for the urban and rural areas, as well as a county-wide perspective. From this plan, an Urban Growth Boundary was formed. The purpose of this boundary was to direct growth to urban areas and prevent growth from sprawling into the rural lands (L.C.C.P., 1997). Currently, land preservation groups are attempting to purchase development rights on lands surrounding the urban growth boundary; however, the ranking system has more influence on farmlands preserved than location.
In 1997, the Lancaster County Comprehensive Plan was created which includes guidelines and possibilities for Lancaster’s future. Lancaster County contains The Plan suggests that all of the townships within Lancaster County also be surrounded by Urban Growth Boundaries. If implemented, these boundaries are intended to direct urban sprawl to urban areas leaving rural areas more available for agricultural practices. The Lancaster County Comprehensive Plan also encourages regional cooperation within the county among the townships to promote unified planned growth to the community.
The development of the Urban Growth Boundary has received county-wide support. A sense of community identity along with awareness of the importance of farmland preservation have resulted in successful implementation of the boundary. Farmers support the boundary because it restricts development from occurring near their farms that may pose hazards to everyday farming practices. The prevention of development outside the boundary contributes to the protection of farmers’ rights, eliminating nuisance complaints from would-be residential developments constructed adjacent to active farms.
Developers also support the Urban Growth Boundary. Although development may be restricted outside the boundary, development within the boundary rarely receives any resistance. There seems to be a general understanding within the community as a whole that farmland preservation is a must, and in order to preserve land, planned development must continue within the boundary. Lancaster County currently has enough land within their boundary to last more than fifty years if planned growth is implemented.
Conservation easements, however, do not receive the wide support experienced by the establishment of the Urban Growth Boundary. Farmers complain that a lack of funding decreases their incentives to sell their development rights. Lancaster farmers would prefer a tax break to the easements because they believe they are more reliable.
2. Commonalties and Differences with Fayette County
Lancaster County and Fayette County share several similarities. Both counties have established Urban Growth Boundaries to encourage development within the boundary and land preservation outside. Both Lancaster and Fayette are socially segregated with the urban areas dominated by poor and middle class and minorities, and the rural areas inhabited by the wealthy.
Lancaster’s and Fayette’s urban areas are surrounded by farmland that is the basis of each county’s economy. Lancaster’s factory farms and croplands generate revenue for the farmers and the state. Fayette’s horse farms contribute greatly to the economic prosperity of the county. The Amish farms of Lancaster and the horse farms of Fayette both attract tourists that also contribute to the economic viability of each county.
Although Fayette and Lancaster share similarities, they also have their differences. Land preservation in Lancaster is widely supported by the entire community. This results from a close sense of community identity. Lancaster was established as a farming community; farming is Lancaster’s foundation. The knowledge and importance of this results in the community working as a whole to protect the farmland that remains in order for their way of life to persist. Fayette, however, lacks that sense of community that brings everyone together in an effort to preserve community heritage. The awareness that the farmland in Lancaster is the backbone of their community results in an entire community effort to preserve that which makes them who they are.
Reston Va., which is located in Fairfax County VA., was chosen because it was a planned development community. We wanted to see whether a good preplanned area could be a success, and if it was a success what action and policies were implemented to make it a success. The town of Reston was the third planned community in the US. What this means is that before too many people moved in and a community was started, the founding fathers of Reston sat down and planned out the whole area before one house was built, or road was laid. So in principle the area should not be experiencing urban sprawl, yet it has to some degree. For the most part the original plan, which was fairly explicit about growth in green spaces and rural areas, has worked. I will cover what parts of the plan make it successful and I will also cover what the area has been having problems with. I will also cover who the main players are in the area.
1. Strategies
When Reston’s founding fathers created Reston, they pictured a small community outside Washington D.C.'s beltway that had a high standard of living, was pleasing to the eye, and "environmentally friendly." The founders wanted miles of paved trails running throughout the town on which a person could walk to school or look at wildlife in an undisturbed setting. They also wanted a close relationship to the rural area of Virginia, through farmers markets and Pet -A -Pet zoos. The idea was called a "new town." A new town is defined as: large scale; designed to contain a balanced mix of land uses, including employment centers and a variety of housing type controlled by a master developer; and master planned early, or previous to, the development process. New towns utilize a single master planner with a single master plan. Because they are planned and developed by a master developer, new towns exhibit physical unity, defined edges, a more efficient, less congested transportation system, pedestrian links, open space, and a sense of community pride.
The concept of "new towns" emerged in western England and Scandinavia in the late 1970s in response to the demands of modern living. The idea was simple and sound: a self-sufficient urban development, taking the form of a small - to - medium-size city with a broad range of housing and planned commercial, industrial, educational, and recreational facilities. It was a place where urban landscape in a rural setting could offer a quality of life and individual dignity. Reston was to be Washington D.C.'s utopia (Fairfax County ‘s Homepage/ www.fairfaxco.gov.com). The citizens of Reston have come to identify the area as a small utopia. In fact, many people moved to Reston to live in a peaceful place in the country where the standard of living is high, yet far enough away from the hustle and bustle of the city (Interview with Betty Harrison on 03/28/99).
The area was planned for having five small areas within the town itself, with one main town center. Each smaller town is connected to the others by a main road and three smaller ones that have many side streets built by homebuilders and contractors. The area also has many miles of trails that are all interconnected. Greenbelts are utilized to separate neighborhoods and provide bike and foot paths (Reston Home Owners Association 1998). If one were to look at a map, Reston would look like a star with the town center in the middle, and each of the smaller townships as the points to the star. One would think that at some point all the area would merge together or the outlining points would expand into the rural area. This has not happened for three main reasons: space, thought-out needs, and homeowners' laws.
First, the spacing of the areas' townships has led to easy access to the more used areas within the township, such as stores and schools. Secondly, when the founding fathers planned out the community they located most of the communities needs within that township, a kind of one stop shopping idea. Strip developments, which produce traffic congestion, are precluded by concentrating commercial activity into centers. They also came up with a system to provide future growth that everyone in the community could have confidence in, called the Planned Land Use System (PLUS). When they came up with the system they invited all groups that showed any interest in the planning of Reston and got ideas on how to meet the future needs of the area. They came up with PLUS, which is a mission statement for the town of Reston. Finally, homeowners' laws -these laws were based on the PLUS system and were fairly strict (Reston Home Owners Association). The founding fathers were able to enact these laws by persuading the Fairfax County Board of Supervisor to pass an ordinance. This ordinance made possible the clustering of housing closely together so that open spaces with fields and trees could serve as large areas of commonly-held land to improve the physical appearance and the environmental quality of the community.
The founding fathers also added other laws such as the stipulation that anyone who wants to build or move to Reston has to use a strict code that has been enforced in all areas except the town center. The rules cover everything from the type of houses to how many trees may be removed from the property. Some examples of these regulations are : (1) There must be a minimum of five trees around any house or structure; (2) For every two acres of urban growth, there will be one acre of green space.
Another bill was proposed on the State Senate floor, but was not approved. The bill was HB2324, which was to give "special exception authority" so that people of the area could save important spaces in Reston from development. All new developments were to be voted on and brought before the city council. Then it could go to a public vote. This could have been a very powerful tool for slowing urban sprawl in the area. (Washington Post, Libbey Coppland, "County Loses Senate Vote on tool to Curb Growth," Feb. 25, 1999)
Another strategy for developing Reston was to have town centers as mentioned before. In each town center, there are assorted businesses and places to shop. The effects are great! It reduces traffic, and gives the community a sense of civic pride. Town centers also stop the spread of strip malls, which tend to make all areas look the same, as well as increase traffic on the road of the strip mall. (Washington Post, Peter Pae, "The Fading Face of Old Fairfax: As Development Persists, Popular Neighborhood Landmarks Disappear," Nov. 10, 1998). On the table now in Reston is an idea to prevent more traffic problems by putting in a rail system of some kind to run from town center to schools and other places of need. This system will run 24 hours day and will be able to take a person within walking distance to any place in Reston. (Washington Post, Seema Mehta, "Residents Eye Traffic Plans, See Crowding Ahead," Aug. 2, 1998)
2. Players
The main players in the area are the Reston Homeowners Association, which is trying to preserve the original tranquility of Reston, and the Virginia Association of Realtors, who are opposed to any laws that prohibit growth. Both groups are very active in legislation and have a lot of money to throw around. Secondly, there is Fairfax County government and Virginia State government, whose main concern is pleasing the voters, as seen by this comment by Michael R. Frey, (Republican Supervisor): "People get used to having the woods in their back yards. When they are gone, there are threats for political retribution." Finally, there are the Sierra Club and the Virginia Pediment Association who would like to see a stop to urban growth. These are both environmental groups in the area. They both have a lot of members and are active in legislation. Their best asset is the news media. Not to be left out are the people in each little township, who have mixed emotions on growth, depending mostly on what type of jobs they have and where they live in relation to the growth.
3. Issues and Interests
One of the problems that Reston faces is the difficulty in getting laws passed to support the town's interests. To get any new law considered, the town has to go to the state legislating body and get it passed as a state law. Thus, most of the homeowner laws will not stand up in court, because they are not state laws. These regulations held up well until the early 1990s when a firm came in and challenged the homeowners' code and won in court. The decision said that since these regulations were not state laws, they could not be enforced even with a contract. So this has brought a lot of unwelcome growth to the area.
Further, Reston has problems with federal laws such as stormwater run-off, which is an EPA code, and clean water standards. Complaints about these federal laws come mostly from people who want to restore an area or brownfield and find the laws too strict to comply with or too costly to reuse the area. Another problem that a lot of the homeowners are now complaining of is urban sprawl in the area. The rapid growth in and around Reston has caused over-saturation of the housing market that is driving down the resale value of their houses. Another complaint is that too many industrial parks are popping up which is turning Reston into the Silicon Valley of the East. Most of these parks are being built on old green spaces. The public believes that with the massive amounts of parking spaces and unused buildings in the area, builders should use these area for industrial parks, not the greenspaces. The builders say that it is too expensive to build in these areas. The next big problem that has been heard is that other areas were encroaching on Reston’s greenspaces and greenbelts. As stated by one homeowner: " It does no good to have a greenbelt if you have a 7-11 on the other side of it" (Interview, Harrison).
Reston is also experiencing a loss of community landmarks that have been in the area for years. These landmarks have been in undeveloped areas for years but are in a preplanned building zone such as the Virginia Gentleman distillery building and grounds near Sunset Hill Road (torn down and turned into the Fannie Mae office complex). The community has become accustomed to these greenspaces and businesses. Now they are being developed under the provisions of the original plan, but the community does not want to see the areas or businesses lost. Fairfax County Supervisor Sharon S. Bulova said, "many of the landmarks have a certain nostalgia value for many residents, many of the places aren’t old enough to be considered historically significant and, thus, subject to preservation protections." (Peter Pae, "Area Planning & Development Landmarks," 1998)
4. Commonalties and Differences with Fayette County
Both Reston and Lexington are mid-size communities, they are both a type of town where you can always run into someone you know at the store or movie theater. Lexington has more of a rural area then Reston does. Reston is blocked on its eastern side by Washington D.C. and some of its suburbs while Lexington has a pretty vast area surrounding it with no other major cities encroaching on its borders. Lexington and Reston both have a high standard of living. It is a common theme in both communities that the people want to keep this high standard of living. Most of the people in these communities are for growth but the underlying sentiment is best summed up by Mary Maclellan from Reston: "We’re not against growth," she said, "but we need the growth to be planned. We still need a quality environment to live and work in" (Washington Post, Dave Other, "Rate of Development Again Prompts Concern in Fairfax," Mar. 14, 1999).
The city of Tucson, Arizona has experienced an extraordinarily high growth rate in recent years. This high growth rate is causing the developed areas of Tucson to encroach onto the rural areas that surround the city. Due to this growth, the city of Tucson, Pima County, and the state of Arizona are considering and implementing growth control measures. The state of Arizona and the city of Tucson hope to accomplish several goals through the implementation of growth control measures. They want to control urban growth, create a compact urban form through infill and redevelopment, keep the city of Tucson and the state of Arizona prosperous, maximize benefits of growth to existing residents and minimize future tax costs while attaining community and environmental goals and save their unique desert environment (John Lawsick, 1999).
1. Strategies
Several growth control methods are being considered and implemented in the city of Tucson and state of Arizona. Proposition 303, which calls for the "spending of $220 million over a eleven year span in order to save open space" is a state bill that will be on the November 1999 ballot for approval by voters (Davis AZ Daily Star, 1998). Of the $220 million to be spent on growth control measures, $200 million would be transferred from the treasury to the state’s school trust fund to purchase school trust land and protect it from development. The other $20 million will go to purchase private or state lands or the right to develop those lands. This money will be controlled by the State Parks Board, which is a seven member board. Under this plan, no single county will receive more than fifty percent of the available money. The money provided by the state to purchase land or the right to develop that land will be matched with local funds. If this program is successful, 1,500-440,000 acres of land will be incorporated into the growth control program. This estimate has a large range because the land values in Arizona vary greatly as you travel from place to place (Mary Jones, AZ 1999). If passed, Proposition 303 would bar the state "from forcing cities to attach impact fees, air and water quality controls and highway environments impact statements to their growth management plans" (Bagwell AZ Daily Star, 1999).
In addition to the state proposal, there are two growth control measures being implemented in Pima County and Tucson. In Pima County, the Sonoran Desert Protection Plan has recently been adopted by the Pima County Board of Supervisors as a growth control policy. This policy requires a one mile buffer to be established around National Parks, state lands and other parks where development is occurring. In addition, private landowners that live on or own land within a mile of public lands are required to set aside fifty percent of their land to be left as open space. This policy also reduced the minimum parcel of developed land within the buffer zone that must set aside open space from 80 acres to 3.3 acres. Furthermore, no development is allowed within 300 feet of a protected peak or ridge. In addition, no buildings or roads can be built within 150 feet of public preserves and developers must survey their property for native plants and take measures to protect them (Sharon Bronson and Mike Boyd, Pima County Supervisors 1999).
In addition to the Sonoran Desert Protection Plan, the city of Tucson is implementing its own growth control measure, which is the planned community of Civano. This project was initiated in 1986 when then-Governor Bruce Babbitt allocated the original "seed money", but was postponed when a new, disinterested administration took office the following year. The Civano project was rekindled in 1989 when the Department of Energy granted Pima County $69,000 to hire a project manager for the community. During the next few years, the city of Tucson sought a Master Developer to purchase the land for Civano from the State Land Trust. In 1995, a developer was found and the project proceed. In 1996, the preliminary planning stage was complete, the land was purchased from the State Trust for $2.7 million dollars and the project started becoming a reality. Today, parts of Civano have been built and are inhabited, while other areas of the community are still under constructed. If successful, Civano will help Tucson protect the rural areas that surround the city by concentrating urban growth in planned areas, by increasing housing density and by creating a form of sustainable development.
The community of Civano will encompass 1,132 acres, contain 2,600 homes, and 100 acre commercial/industrial/retail centers. In addition, the community will set aside thirty percent of its land for natural spaces, contain four residential neighborhoods, and contain public recreation facilities, linear parks, and community gardens. Civano has been designed to be a pedestrian friendly community with lots of pedestrian walkways to encourage foot travel and decrease citizens dependence on fossil fuels. Furthermore, Civano has and will continue to be built to encourage human interaction through building placement and design (porches, garages in rear of home, cafes, parks). Also, Civano will contain energy efficient buildings, new water conservation methods (reduce water consumption) and active and passive solar technologies (reduce reliability on fossil fuels). The goals of Civano are to reduce potable water consumption, reduce home energy use, reduce internal vehicle miles, create one job on-site for every two residences, reduce landfill waste, provide affordable housing, to create a neighborhood with a sense of community, and to create a form of sustainable development. The price range of homes in Civano range from $93,000 to $208,000 (Lee Kelly, Civano Development Team).
2. Players
The concept of growth control is new to the Tucson area and has been a very controversial issue. Several groups have been involved in the policy development and planning process. These groups include the city of Tucson, the state of Arizona, Pima County, the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, individual citizens and developers.
3. Interests and Issues
Each of these groups contribute different ideas for growth control and bring different interests to the table. One group involved in the development of these policies is the city of Tucson, the state of Arizona and Pima County. These groups want to contain growth, protect the environment and promote continued prosperity (John Lawsick, city of Tucson 1999; Sharon Bronson 1999, Pima County; Mary Jones, State of AZ 1999).
In addition, there are two national environmental groups involved in the development process. Both of these groups are for the preservation of land and share similar interests. The main goals of the Sierra Club and the Nature Conservancy are to protect land from development, create buffer zones around Federal and State lands to protect water quality and protect wildlife habitat, prevent fragmentation of ecosystems, and protect native species of the area (Renee Guillory, Sierra Club 1999; Jim Walsh Nature Conservancy 1999). Although both of these groups are for preservation, they have taken different stands on Proposition 303. The Sierra Club does not support Proposition 303 because they believe that it does not have a enough power (Renee Guillory, Sierra Club 1999). On the other hand, the Nature Conservancy supports Proposition 303 because they believe that it will have a direct effect on development by protecting rural areas (Linda Brewer, Nature Conservancy 1999).
Furthermore, developers have several interests they want to be considered and met. They want no limitations on building permits, no impact fees, and no increased development costs. They also want the property rights of landowners to be protected. In order to get different opinions on the growth control measures, public meetings were held to discuss the urban growth issue and its solutions, surveys were given to gain public opinion on the matter and to gain first-hand knowledge of stakeholders interests and suggestion sites were set up to get public input on urban growth issues.
In addition to the aforementioned groups, individual citizens have voiced their opinion on growth control policies. Some citizens want growth control measures to be passed and implemented while others fear they will have a negative effect on the area. Some people believe that infill and reinvestment, the preservation of green space, people-oriented neighborhoods, and the protection of the desert is great, but others feel that growth control will increase housing prices, increase crime rates and create a congested inner-city.
4. Commonalties and Differences with Fayette County
I choose Tucson, Arizona as my study city because, like Lexington, they are just beginning their growth control policies. Although Tucson and Lexington share similarities, there are some important differences. One main difference is the culture of the two cities. The culture of Tucson and of Arizona in general has lead to the development of their growth control measures. Most residents of Arizona, like those of Portland and Lancaster, feel a strong commitment to their land and environment as well as to their way of life. These shared feelings will help Arizona and Tucson develop efficient growth control measures. On the other hand, Lexington residents have a "me" attitude, which could help curb their growth control measures.
5. Potential Problems
John Lawsick, who is the manager of the Sustainable Communities Program, believes that there are several problems that need to be addressed if growth control policies are to be successful. First, a majority of people need to support them. Second, all groups must be equally represented by the policies. Third, growth control polices must be adequately funded.
In conclusion, the city of Tucson, the state of Arizona, Pima County, developers, citizens and environmental organizations believe that their way of life and their precious desert environment is worth protecting. Like others, they are beginning to take action in order to maintain their way of life and protected their environment, but the road ahead will not be an easy one. In order to achieve their goals, each group will have to learn to work together in a give and take relationship.
Fayette County, like these communities, has it’s own identity – the Bluegrass and horse farms. Some measures have already been taken to preserve this identity such as the establishment of the Urban Growth Boundary and the determination of a minimum lot size. The difference between Fayette County and the other communities is that their priority is the preservation of their community’s identity which is accomplished through growth management strategies and land preservation. It is also important to note that the other communities have managed to maintain their identity while retaining economic prosperity and continued growth. Realizing that a community’s culture and identity has merit may be something Lexington can learn from these communities
Federal Programs
It is not the federal government’s job to get into the business of
local land use planning, but it is their job to support "smart growth"
efforts. Vice president Al Gore said, "it is our job to amplify citizens’
voices, and make it easier for communities to get their hands on the tools
they need to build the way they want."(The White House Press Release 1999).
Many communities, including Fayette County, could benefit from the rewards
of federal programs.
The Community Development Block Grant Program, which is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, is one federal program that Fayette County is already benefiting from. This program assists cities and urban counties with annual direct grants that they can use to revitalize neighborhoods, expand affordable housing and economic opportunities and/or improve community facilities and services. Fayette County has been using these grants to build sidewalks and for housing rehabilitation in low-income areas. They also use some of these grants to address storm water drainage problems. Fayette County also takes advantage of the Transportation Act for the 21st Century, which has changed the nature of transportation. Most of the money goes toward improving highways and adding lanes, but there is some money that goes toward transit funding and improving transportation corridors. These programs that Fayette County are using help to make the city of Lexington more livable. They help to prevent urban sprawl by making the city more attractive to citizens by improving the sidewalks and traffic, and making housing more affordable.
There are also many federal programs that can help to protect farmland. The Farm Land Protection Program (FPP) provides funds to help purchase development rights to keep productive farmland in agricultural uses. Working through other programs the United States Department of Agriculture joins with state, tribal, or local governments to acquire conservation easements or other interests from landowners. There are other programs that are similar which do not necessarily have to do with farmland but forests or wildlife habitat. They all, however, have the commonality of protecting open space from urban development.
The first large effort to address "urban sprawl" is the Clinton-Gore Livability Agenda. This federal initiative, announced on September 2, 1998, is an effort to help the country achieve "smart", sustainable growth in cities, suburbs and rural areas. As communities continue to transform themselves and adopt policies, which offer more livable conditions, the Clinton administration will continue to assist these efforts (Livability Agenda 1999). There are many goals of this Agenda yet the programs are still being developed. This agenda aims to help citizens and communities preserve green spaces, ease traffic congestion, restore a sense of community, promote collaboration among neighboring communities and enhance economic competitiveness. If this does develop into something it sound that Fayette County could greatly benefit from this Agenda.
By using an interest based approach our class has been able to draw in many stakeholders on this issue of growth and development in the Fayette County area. This approach has helped us to speak to many individuals whose voices have never been heard. A sector of the farming population feel disenfranchised from recent proposals such as the PDR. Others living in rural areas feel population growth is not a problem. These rural landowners value their property rights and freedom to develop their land. On one hand, they are distrustful of the government yet on the other hand they look towards the government to preserve their way of life. When speaking to urban residents, primarily neighborhood associations, their concerns focused on traffic, stormwater, and their social infrastructure. One thing that deserves further examination is how much of the urban residents value both tourism and the aesthetics that the surrounding farmland provides. Regionally, the need for surrounding counties to exchange ideas among one another is necessary to prevent competing effects of growth strategies. The region as a whole will grow better if communication between communities is more developed. In the communities we chose to examine we found that culture plays a major role in defining the interests and how development will occur. For Fayette County culture also plays a major role, the underlying question is whether it is willing to develop to preserve this culture. The process that is now being used to make decisions only allows the key players who have the time, money, and information to be involved in the decision making process. Communication and education are key tools to integrating the different interests with regard to growth and development. In general, improving these tools within the decision making processes will encourage participation among all stakeholders.
1000 Friends of Oregon & The Home Builders Association of Metropolitan
Portland,
“Managing Growth to Promote Affordable Housing: Revisiting Oregon’s
Goal” 10 February 1991.
1996 Comprehensive Plan. Lexington, Kentucky: 1996.
Adams, Katherine. President, Southern Heights Neighborhood Association. March 24, 1999.
Ambergy, Rob. Agricultural Extension Agent, Jessamine County. Personal interview. 8 March 1999.
Atkinson, Dan. President, Joyland Neighborhood Association. 17 March 1999.
Bagwell, Keith. “Governor’s plan for growth OK in Senate”. Arizona Daily Star 14 December 1998: 1A+
Bailey, Ronald. Interview, 5 April 99.
Baniak, Peter. “What is a Purchase of Development Rights Program.” 4 April 1999. Kentucky Connect. 5 April 1999.
Bowers, Deborah and Tom Daniels. Holding Our Ground: Protecting Americas Farms and Farmland. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1997.
Boyd, Mike. Personnel Interview. 15 March 1999
Brewer, Linda. Personnel Interview. 14 March 1999
Bronson, Sharon. Personnel Interview. 23 March 1999.
Building Livable Communities For the 21st Century” 11 January 1999.
Calumet Farm. Personal email. 8 March 1999.
Calvert, Jim. President, Mason-Headley Greenspace Neighborhood Association. 17 March 1999. Interview conducted by M. Widmer.
Clark, Steve. Farmer. Personal Interview. 15 March 1999.
Coleman, Steve. "Preserving Kentucky's Rural Lands." Lexington: Bluegrass Conservancy, 1998.
Crane, Hope. USDA Organic Farm Certifier. Personal Interview. 26 February 1999.
Cutter, Don. Public commentary at Planning Commission Meeting. 22 March 1999.
Dale, Land. Interview. 15 March 1999.
Davis, Tony. “Growth controls take a major step forward”. Arizona Daily Star 30 July 1998: 5A+
DeCamp, Dick. Telephone Interview. 12 March1999.
Drakeford, Bob. Director, Lexington Fayette Urban County Government,
Mayor's Office of
Economic Development. 26 February 1999.
Edgens, Jeff. E-mail Interview. 23 March 1999.
Embry, Clarence. President, Bracktown Neighborhood Association. 18 March 1999.
Evans, Kevan. Crop farmer. Personal interview. 21 February 1999.
Fairfax County ‘s Homepage http://www.fairfaxco.gov.com
Farm Bureau representative. Public commentary at Planning Commission Meeting. 11 March 1999.
Ferguson, Maner. Agricultural Extension Agent, Fayette County. Personal interview. 4 March 1999.
Flint, Timothy. Recollections of the Last Ten Years. 1826.
Garkovich, Lori. Professor, University of Kentucky Rural Sociology
Department. Personal interview. February 1999.
Green, Brad. Tobacco farmer. Personal interview. 2 March 1999.
Grove, John. Personal interview. 24 March 1999.
Guillory, Renee. Personnel Interview. 23 March 1999
Harrison, Betty, Personal Interview, Mar 28, 1999.
Harvard Business Review. May-June 1995: 55-71.
Hayes, Ron. Clark County Comprehensive Plan Update Committee Chair. Personal Interview. March 1999.
http://.kentuckyconnect.com/heraldleader/news/040499/front/docs/04pdrprimer.htm
http://farm.fic.niu.edu/cae/wp/wp97-14.htm
http://www.ci.phoenix.az.us/BUSINESS/infilpgm.html.
http://www.lfucg.com/mayorspc/smg99sm.htm.
http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/articles/infillalt.htm.
Hudnut, William H. "Public Policy Forum: Battle or Partnership." Urban Land. August 1992: 19-22.
Infill Housing Program. City of Phoenix. World Wide Web. 22 February 1999.
Jones, John T.L., Jr. Personal email. 16 March 1999.
Jones, Mary. Personnel Interview. 17 March 1999.
Kelly, Lee. Personnel Interview. 16 March 1999.
Kemp, Jim. President, Beaumont Park Neighborhood Association. 12 March 1999.
King, Chris. Public comments at Planning Commission Meeting. 11 March 1999.
King, Chris. LFUCG Planner. Personal Interview. 25 February 1999.
Kirkpatrick, Arnold. Personal Interview. 16 March 1999.
KY Census of Agriculture. 1997.
Lancaster County Comprehensive Plan(L.C.C.P.). Lancaster County Board of Commissioners, October, 1997.
Lancaster Farmland Trust. http://www.lancasterfarm.com
Lander, Carol. Personal interview. 31 March 1999.
Lawrence, Erin, Personal Interview, 19 March 1999.
Lawsick, John. Personnel Interview. 10 March 1999.
Lay, Logan. Personal Interview. Lexington Resident. 4 April 1999.
Layco, Richard. “Before America Turns Into One Giant Paved-Over Subdivision, People are fighting back. Is there hope?” Time Magazine 22 March 1999.
Leonard, Cindy. President, Northside Neighborhood Association. 24 March 1999.
Lex-call. Personal Interview. 3 April 1999.
Lexington Fayette Urban County Government Website. April 13.
http://www.lfucg.com
Lexington Herald-Leader. "Time to Prepare Ground so Businesses Can Take Root." Personal Interview.
Lexington United, Inc. Greater Lexington Business Location Prospectus.
June 1997.
LFUCG – 1996 Expansion Area Master Plan, Department of Housing &
Community
Development.
LFUCG Council Meeting, April 8, 1999.
LFUCG Division of Planning. “Draft #1, February 1999, Rural Service
Area Land Management
Plan, Report #3.” Our Rural Heritage in the Next Century. February
1999.
Lovan, Tracy. President, Bryan Station Neighborhood Association. March 12, 1999.
Madden, Pat. Personal interview. 25 March 1999.
Mattone, Frank. President, Lexington Homebuilder’s Association.
Personal Interview. March 1,
1999.
Mengel, June. Interview, 03/26/99.
Miller, Pam. State of the Merged Government Address. World Wide Web.
Moody, Meredith. Lexington Convention and Visitors Bureau. Personal interview. 17 February 1999.
Moody, Meredith. Lexington Convention and Visitors Bureau. Personal interview. 17 February 1999.
Moor, Diana. President, Chevy Chase Neighborhood Association. (March 17, 1999).
Moran, Tom. President, Pickway Neighborhood Association. (March 24, 1999).
Moshofsky, Bill, “Oregon’s Land Use Planning: An Overview,” 1998
Nichols, Terry. Horse farmer. Personal interview. 25 February 1999.
O'Connell, Germaine. President, Castlewood Neighborhood Association. March 18, 1999.
Office of the Vice President, The White House. “Clinton-Gore Livability Agenda: Building Livable Communities for the 21st Century”. January 11, 1999.
Osgood, Robin. Public commentary at Planning Commission Meeting. 22 March 1999.
OSU Extension Service. 1994. Oregon Agricultural Commodities: Farm Values and Processed Values, EC 1233.
Ott, Cobern. President, Southeast Neighborhood Association. March 24, 1999.
Packer, Ralph. Public commentary at Planning Commission Meeting. 22 March 1999.
Paulson, Jerry. “Protecting the Farmland on the Edge: What Policies and Programs Work?” American Farmland Trust. April 14,1999.
Porter, Michael E. "The Competitive Advantage of the Inner City."
Pratt, Don B. “Exclusion No Way to Build an Area.” Lexington Herald-Leader 24 February 1999.
Preston-Osborne Research Group. 1998 Survey.
Reston Chamber of Commerce, E-mail.
Reston Home Owners Association Guide, 1998.
Rochelle, Steve. Public commentary at Planning Commission Meeting. 22 March 1999.
Rogers, Boyd. President, Andover Forest Neighborhood Association. March 12, 1999.
Rohse, Mitch, and Kim Ross. Putting the People Into Planing: A Primer on Public Participation in Planning. Chapter 6. 1992. http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~pppm/landuse/docs/toc.htm University of Oregon. March 23, 1999.
Rural Land Management Plan. Lexington, Kentucky: 1999.
Rural Land Management Plan. Lexington, Kentucky: 1999.
Ryder, James. “Downzoning is Rational Way to Protect an Area.” Lexington
Herald-Leader 25
January 1999.
Sargent, Tom. "Infill in the Marketplace: Alternatives to Sprawl." On The Ground.
Schubert, Richard. "Focus on Retail." Lexington Herald-Leader. 12 June 1994: B2.
Scott, Jean. Bluegrass Tomorrow. Personal interview. February 1999.
Shehee, Ned. Personal Interview. 25 March 1999
Sherman, Robin L. Investing in the Future of Agriculture: The Massachusetts Farmland Protection Program and the Permanence Syndrome. Massachusetts: American Farmland Trust, 1998.
Simpson, Bruce. Attorney. Personal Interview. 24 February 1999.
Sweitzer, David. Class lecture. 19 January 1999.
Thom, Bill. Personal interview. 26 March 1999.
Tibbs, Emma. President, Fayette County Neighborhood Association. 18 February 1999.
Truman, Cheryl. Location Near Perfect.” Lexington Herald-Leader 7 April 1999.
United States. The Bluegrass Conservancy. Lexington: GPO, 1998.
US Census, 1997. Populations for all Kentucky Counties for 1990 and 1997. http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/county/co-97-1/97C1_21.txt 20 February 1999.
US Census, 1999. KY County Profiles. Data compiled from KY County profiles. http://www.census.gov/datamap/www/21-1.html 22 February 1999.
Vantreese, Valerie. Public commentary at Planning Commission Meeting.
11 March 1999.
Vol. 1, No. 1, Fall 1994. World Wide Web. 24 March
1999.
Walsh, Jim. Personnel Interview. 24 March 1999.
Washington Post, Libbey Coppland, "County Loses Senate Vote on tool to Curb Growth”.
Washington Post, Seema Mehta, "Residents Eye Traffic Plans, See Crowding Ahead,"
Washington Post, Dave Other, "Rate of Development Again Prompts Concern in Fairfax.” March 14, 1999.
Washington Post, Peter Pae, "The Fading Face of Old Fairfax: As Development Persists, Popular Neighborhood Landmarks Disappear.” November 10, 1998.
Wilson, Patricia. Versailles/Midway/Woodford County Planner. Personal interview.
Woodward, Thomas Allen. Public commentary at Planning Commission Meeting. 22 March 1999.
Wright, Wynne. Personal email. 29 March 1999.
Yokel, Robert. President, Carriage Land Neighborhood Association. (March 18, 1999).