Table of Contents
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).
Table 1: depicts the growth in population and density since
1900 with substantial growth occurring since 1950.
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).
Figure 3
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:
(1) Improving traffic and road conditions
(2) Alleviating storm water flooding and facilitating drainage
(3) Creating a sense of community
(4) Neighborhood Infill
Although this survey was limited in scope, there is not a single issue overshadowing all others. The common thread among these three issues relates issues to how they are tied to urban development.
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:
We can truly leave our children a great legacy by turning downtown into a great city¼ a downtown where people want to live and work¼ where they want to play¼ where there are crowds of people on the sidewalks, coming and going from restaurants, stores, and offices¼ a downtown that everyone is proud to show off¼ a downtown that is the center of business and intellectual activity (State of Merged Gov't Address, 1999).
Bruce Simpson, a Lexington attorney and native, also sees downtown revitalization as an issue that needs to be addressed. He sees downtown revitalization to include a variety of nightlife, including restaurants, clubs, bars, and cafes (Personal Interview, 1999). As one Lexington resident put it, "does Lexington, once called 'Athens of the West,' have the will to regain its cultural and educational heritage?" (Schubert, Lexington Herald-Leader, 1994). There is a citywide interest in revitalizing downtown - not only for economic benefits, but also for education, cultural opportunity, and sense of pride.
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,
the downtown is the heart of a region. Infrastructure is already in place. The significant public buildings that provide a sense of place are located downtown: museums and cultural institutions, government offices, courthouses, medical and financial centers, convention centers, and sports arenas. Suburban-serving businesses are rooted downtown. A study of Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago has shown that suburban companies depend primarily on their region's central city for actuarial, banking, auditing, and legal services.
As Mr. Hudnut points out, each these characteristics exist in downtown Lexington. They are cornerstones of a downtown foundation are already in place (Urban Land, 1992). We must now build on and around them to revitalize the area.
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
|
Development Costs (per floor area ratio |
Infill |
Sprawl |
|
square foot) |
|
|
|
Land |
$15-20+ |
$8-12 |
|
|
|
|
|
Site Preparation |
$5-10+ |
$5-10+ |
|
|
|
|
|
Hard Costs: Construction |
$60-65 |
$45-55 |
|
(wood frame only) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parking (infill-structured; sprawl included |
$15-18 |
|
|
in site preparation) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soft Costs (40% of hard costs-includes |
$32-37 |
$20-26 |
|
permits, architectural fees/engineering etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contingency (5%) |
$6-7 |
$4-5 |
|
|
|
|
|
Subtotal |
$133-157 |
$82-108 |
|
|
|
|
|
Profit (15%) |
$20-23 |
$12-16 |
|
|
|
|
|
Marketing |
$10-11 |
$6-8 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Cost |
$163-191/s.f. |
100-132/s.f. |
|
1600 s.f. unit |
$260,000-305,000 |
$160,000-211,000 |
|
1100 s.f. unit |
$179,000-210,000 |
|
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):
Fair-Market Value – Agricultural Value = Easement Value
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).
|
Table 1- Local Agricultural Conservation Easement Programs (1996) |
|||||
|
State |
Year Established |
Acres Preserved |
Number Farms |
Funds Spent to Date |
Average per Acre Costs |
|
California |
|
|
|
||