|
<br />taxes. It provides open space without having tax dollars paid for it. It also represents something that people who move
<br />to Colorado truly enjoy. It's part of our culture that we can live in Denver, Colorado Springs, or in Pueblo, and in a few
<br />a short minutes be out in a place where it is open and we can try to imagine what it must have been like coming over in a
<br />covered wagon and looking at those mountains.
<br />
<br />Let me talk a little bit now about what is going on now with the Smart Growth planning process out of the way. What is
<br />being accomplished? like I said, I think Colorado will grow. The only question is how, in which direction, and how
<br />will it affect us? It could be a positive experience or it could be a negative experience.
<br />
<br />The Governor appointed a group of people, 17 leaders of agriculture, local government, development and the
<br />environment, to try and wrestle with ag land questions and what we should do about it as we grow. That group came up
<br />with 22 recommendations (which are available to you in the back of the room)to preserve our ag land base and 8SSlU'e
<br />that there is some viability in agriculture. It is important to have viability in agriculture if you've got growth because if it
<br />is a viable business, the owner will be less willing to sell out and have it subdivided. But what we tried to do was focus
<br />on some voluntary, incentive based approaches, and rm going to highlight some of them now.
<br />
<br />FirSt, one of the hot controversial issues was the 35-acre parcel question. A compromise position was strock by the ag
<br />community, the development community, and the natural resources community. And that was, let's go ahead and assume
<br />that there is going to be an opportunity for 35 acres and if you want to subdivide the 35 acres you have to do it in a safe
<br />way. It has to, for example, be safe to the person who is living there, have good water, and have the access for fire
<br />trucks to get there or emergency equipment to get there if somebody gets in trouble. If they met those standards, they
<br />would save the opportunity to go ahead and subdivide to the 35-acre density.
<br />
<br />But a lot of people in the community may want to have 35-acre development done a different way to enhance wildlife
<br />migration, aesthetics. And so the compromise said okay, can go ahead and build the 35-acres, but if the community
<br />wants also to impose some other restrictions that benefit everyone, that they go ahead but create an incentive for that
<br />landowner to modify his subdivision. H he were to provide for wildlife migration or riparian preservation, maybe instead
<br />of getting one housing opportunity for 35 acres he would get 1 per 30 acres. That is just simply negotiable within the
<br />community.
<br />
<br />Another recommendation by the ag land task force was the right to farm. In places where there's high growth and
<br />development, it's getting harder and harder to stay and farm. One of the biggest problems in this circumstance is the
<br />threat of nuisance lawsuits. A right to farm law would protect him when he's bailing his hay at 3:00 in the morning to
<br />catch the leaves. The neighbor that has built his house next to him can't shut him down because he doesn't like the noise.
<br />As long as it's a normal practice, it's a reasonable practice, it's an acceptable practice, it should be allowed. An example
<br />that I have specifically in mind happened north of Denver. A person was bailing his hay, a neighbor in a subdivision
<br />sues him for a nuisance, and he had to go to court to defend himself. It cost him $2,000 and a day in court. He won.
<br />Now all of sudden, the next time another neighbor does the same thing to this guy; the plan v.:as they would rather not
<br />have the farmer bailing his hay in the morning.
<br />
<br />What happened is he effectively said I can't do this. I mean, fin farming land that is worth much more subdivided, so
<br />why am I fighting both sides of this coin? Maybe I should sell this out and go on. I think to keep agriculture in place you
<br />need the right farm opportunity and that's being entertained, as a matter offact right now, for legislation this year.
<br />
<br />Let me talk about the controversial enterprise zone issue. In the task force's view, that enterprise zone should be
<br />preserved in areas where it was necessary to creating incentives. Perhaps we have to restructure it a little bit. To me, I
<br />think we can use the enterprise zone to creative advantage. In my travels through the state, Lamar has said and Pueblo
<br />generally has said "We like growth, we need it, we want to diversify our economy. You go to Denver, Colorado and
<br />they say, "I don't want any more growth because I can't get to work any more. There are so many cars there that I can't
<br />get to work. So I really don't want any growth." The enterprise zone question, if it's revisited, has the possibility of
<br />redirecting growth. Although it's controversial, I think it has possibilities. Right now, for the economic condition that
<br />we're in, I think maybe it's used too broadly.
<br />
<br />Arkansas River Basin Water Forum
<br />
<br />43
<br />
<br />"A River of Dreams and Realities"
<br />
<br />
|