Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Erase 'Dividing Linc' <br />And in a more sophisticated version, hI'! <br />$aid, the proposal also could eliminate lhe <br />\'('0' "dividinll: line" problrm itself, <br />That problrffi always arises in toning <br />when an artificial line divides two similar <br />.. properties and says (lne can be developed <br />and one must remain as open space. <br />Under Strang's concept, plannl'rs, land- <br />owners and developers would have much <br />grE"ater flexibility. If planners want a <br />i:ivcn area to remain-for instance, 50 per <br />c("nt oprn space-they could simply issue <br />every landowner in the arca a permit to <br />develop 50 per ccnl of his land. <br />If each owner developed his SO per Cf'nt, <br />there would be many small open spaces. <br />Rut many would probahly prefer to <br />remain in farming or ranching. They <br />could then sell their right to another <br />owner 50 lhe second owner could develop <br />all of his. <br />That might result in an urban clU5ter <br />surrounded by a larr;e open space. <br />But in any ('vent, the SO per cent open- <br />"pace ralio would remain. <br />State gen. Bill Garnsey. R-Greeley, <br />pointe~ out one problem in the proposal, <br />but Stud he was glad to see the issue of <br />compenS<ltion discussed. <br />Garnsey noted Ihat "preservation of <br />prime af::rieulturalland" was an obje<:tive <br />of many land-use proposals. Under a <br />negotiable permit system, some agricul- <br />tural land could still be transferred 10 <br />olher uses _ becau.'\e if none was avail- <br />able for development, then tbere would be <br />nt>hnOv to llurchase development ri~ts. <br /> <br />.........~.- <br />'Police Power' Urged <br />Rtale Rep. Dkk Lamm, D.-Denver. :;aid <br />the Strang.Wl"lborn propoAAI m;~hl be im. <br />possible to use in practice. Lamm has <br />suggested simply using the state's "police <br />powers" to enforce such zonings. <br />Lamm has consistently argued that <br />denying landowners the right to specula- <br />tive profits from changing the use of their <br />land is not the same as taking away its <br />present value. <br />"I ean't put a pig farm In my back <br />yard in Denver," Lamm has said. "and <br />that zoning restriction cOsts me speeula- <br />Hn' profits too." <br />A different approach to the compensa. <br />tion problem .....as oHered in the last legis- <br />lature session by Sen. Fred Anderson, R- <br />Loveland, and Hank Brown, R-Greeley. <br />The Anderson-Brown proposal would <br />have crt'ated a "conservation lrust fund" <br />to buy land or development rights and <br />preserve open space, That fund would <br />have been financed by a tax on building <br />I pprmits. <br />We1?orn. also suggested soch a trust' <br />fund In hiS Thursday proposal - which <br />might be a \'('hide 10 rewh:e Garnsey's <br />concern for pre~rving speeial areas of <br />prime l\~rlcultural lam:! by outright <br />purchase or leasing of dc\'elopment rishts.1 <br />'Goins Tax' Proposal <br />':l And a dHfer('nt way ttJ linance that <br />~ trust lund was proposed by Herrick Roth,. <br />prpsident of the Colorado Labor O:luncil, <br />I AFL-CIO. <br />Roth proposed a "development gains <br />_,tax." <br />L i k e the Welbom-Strang proposal,1 <br />Roth's idea would permit sociely to recap- <br />ture aU or part of the unearned increase <br />in the value 01 land that results froml <br />state land-use law!; or other social actions <br />such as building major freeways nearby: <br />Revenues from Ihat special capital- <br />gains tax could be usrd to finance state <br />land-use programs. Roth said. <br /> <br />011-0 <br />_~v <br />