Spread cost of keeping rural atmosphere
Source: Orlando Sentinel, by Lowrie Brown
August 26, 2007
Anyone who is a property owner in rural Lake County should be aware that the value of their land may be severely reduced as a result of policies currently being proposed under the new comprehensive plan.
Members of the Lake County Commission have remarked numerous times that it is in the public's interest that the county retain its rural character. While there may be some merit to this concept, the method being proposed to accomplish that goal is a point of contention.
The Local Planning Agency, an appointed group of citizens developing the plan, has drafted a policy that sets aside about 70 percent of the unincorporated area as Rural Preservation Districts. The intent is that the property within those districts stays rural, at least through 2025, the term of the new plan. Development in the districts, if any, would be limited to either one lot per 5 acres or, in certain areas, one lot per 3 acres with an allocation of 35 percent open space subject to a conservation easement.
Many factors affect the value of rural property, including location, elevation, road frontage and the availability of utilities. The primary factor is what appraisers call a "higher and better use." Property in those rural districts, however, would have that "higher and better use" reduced, which could limit the value of the land.
How should the county balance the desire to maintain its rural character with the need to protect private-property rights? I wish there was an easy answer, but there is not, at least not one that is politically popular. Any solution should take into account private-property rights. It should also place the cost of any policy to keep large areas of Lake County rural on those who benefit from the policy, and not on the backs of the rural property owners.
Both the county and state have programs to acquire property for preservation. However, both programs are severely underfunded, and the majority of the money has already been appropriated.
If the desire to maintain the rural character of Lake County is truly the will of the people, perhaps it is time to consider a significant tax increase or to fund another bond issue to buy more preservation land or acquire conservation easements.
Rural Preservation Districts are not the answer. They place the cost of satisfying the desire for maintaining the county's rural character directly on the affected property owners and not on the general public. If it is to the benefit of the general public that large areas of Lake County remain rural, then the cost should be born by the general public.
