DEAR EDITOR:
I have been following the ag land preservation issue via The
Dispatch. But there are some fundamental things I do not
understand.
DEAR EDITOR:
I have been following the ag land preservation issue via The Dispatch. But there are some fundamental things I do not understand.
Look at the first option. A developer basically buys two plots of land. On one plot he builds commercial, industrial, or residential projects. This is what he wanted to do. He now also owns a second plot of land. What is the developer to do with that other farmland plot? He is not a farmer. Must he sell it to a farmer? Then why did he buy it from a farmer in the first place? Does he sell it to another developer or perhaps develop it himself at a later date? I do not think that is the intention of the city.
The scheme is to keep or add another piece of farmland, but where? I can see where this could make two farmers happy, each selling plots of land to a developer. But I also see the potential to price the “preserved” farmland out of the future farm market. Farmers are businessmen. They want to make a profit, too.
Option two is for the developer to buy the development rights to a plot of farmland. Here the developer does not own two plots of land. This I expect would be a less expensive option for the developer. The argument for this plan is that a farmer can realize the equivalent of selling his land for development, but he retains ownership and is expected to continue farming the “preserved” farmland. But this also potentially devalues the land for the future. What happens when he retires or passes on? Will the next owner be satisfied with the arrangement? What happens should the city annex this land and want to develop it, too? Also what is the developer to do with his “development option?” Is he to grant this option to the city? This plan could still make two farmers happy.
Option three is basically option one except the developer off-loads the task of procuring and managing the replacement “preserved” farmland onto “the land trust.” But who is this land trust? How is the trust to be funded? Will the trust manage the land? Or will the trust convert the land to option two by stripping the development rights and then reselling the “preserved” farmland plot? This would make the land less valuable and the land trust could be a loosing proposition. Who makes up the shortfall? The expectation is the developer funds all this. Again this could make two farmers happy.
Also what is the criteria for the “preserved” farmland plot the developer must purchase? Is this preserved farmland to be in the city or adjacent to the city? Does it have to be in Santa Clara County, or even the state of California? Can the developer replace the flat, first class farm land with a “preservation plot” of hillside or flood prone property? There truly is a limited amount of good farmland.
I live in the county east of the outlet malls. I enjoy driving through the farmland each day as I go to town to shop or to San Jose to work. Currently the 660 acres ends a short distance past the outlets. But what happens in the future should the city want to expand to the east? I understand the city has zoned land on the north of town for commercial and industrial. However access for high volumes of traffic is difficult. Thus the desire to go east of U.S. 101.
I also shop at the outlets and at the new regional shopping center. I do like the convenience. I realize that development is going to happen. But I would like to see most of the farmers stay. The produce in the Gilroy stores is much better that anywhere else in the county. As I said, farming is a business. I want to see the farmers succeed. I just want everyone to the be upfront about details of these farmland preservation plans.
Doyle Kisler, Gilroy
Submitted Friday, March 12 to [email protected]
