THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, August 21, 1994 TAG: 9408200116
SECTION: VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Medium: 84 lines
This letter is in response to ``Agricultural Reserve: Reaping tax money'' by Donald Babcock (Beacon, Aug. 14), criticizing proposals for an Agricultural Reserve Pro-gram.
Mr. Babcock apparently respects our city's ``business people,'' but he obviously has little respect for farmers or knowledge of the farming business. He illustrates this with his assertion that ``if existing planning tools are available, why not use them on all properties and save the taxpayers a lot of money?''
Farm parcels near major metropolitan areas have values higher than farmland because of their potential conversion to more intensive land uses. Historically (as Mr. Babcock stated), farmers expanded their operations by selling this high-priced land and then ``migrated to where land was cheaper.
The danger to Virginia Beach farmland owners is that most of the urban 95 percent of our population might agree with Mr. Babcock's statement. It is possible to prevent farmland conversion by our City Council denying the owner any other use of his land.
In addition to city officials' refusal to rezone or grant use permits, many suburbanites prevent farmland conversion by contacting federal agencies and urging control of private property to protect endangered species or wetlands.
Between the city government and the suburbanites, the land value drops below $1,000 an acre and may reach economic zero. If the farmer is prevented from harvesting field crops or timber, there is no income. If he has to put up with many ``city'' regulations, he will have less flexibility in a risky business in which he must compete with farmers in rural counties, where the local government understands these risks.
Agricultural operations and residential growth are generally incompatible, even with modest numbers of farmette parcels. Despite being good citizens, most new residents have no agricultural background and tend toward wanting to make regulatory changes concerning noise, dust, odors, spraying, etc.
Also, almost no city staff members in planning, engineering, etc., have the backgrounds to understand the adverse impacts their decisions have on farm operations. For instance, if a farmer wants to dig a fish pond, the city could require him to haul the spoil off the farm to avoid a small reduction in the size of the flood plain. But that reduction would be negligible. The dirt could be put to good use on the farm. And hauling it off could double the cost of the pond.
We hope to improve the latter situation with an Agricultural Advisory Commission, composed of local farmers and others knowledgeable about Virginia Beach ag-ri-cul-ture, to suggest changes that will minimize regulatory processes.
Economic forces are already working against our farmers. Ninety percent of our cropland is devoted to ``cash grain'' farming (corn, soybeans and wheat). The acreage of these crops has decreased in Virginia Beach and Chesapeake as the suburbs have grown. There is not a single farm-machinery dealer left in either city that carries a full line of parts and service for grain farmers. Only two local grain buyers are left. And there are no local sawmills for our timber.
Conversion to fruits, vegetables, specialty crops, horses, etc., will increase, but there are no large produce markets for supermarket bulk purchases. Current city policy is to minimize land conversion to rural residences (farmettes). If we do not take action soon, I believe some future council will yield to economic pressures and develop the southern area of our city.
Surveys have indicated that most of our citizens do not want residential development below the ``Green Line.'' Those above the line may wish to maintain open spaces or avoid the cost to taxpayers of extending infrastructure and schools southward. For every $1 in revenue from the average residential property, the city spends $1.20 to $1.25 in services. Even though revenues in land-use tax on farmland and woodlands are modest, only about 20 cents of each revenue dollar go back to that taxpayer in services (mainly in roadways). Since average residential parcels produce less tax revenue than they cost in services (especially schools), it may pay to purchase development rights to avoid charging those services to all taxpayers.
We hope a workable plan can be produced that most citizens can support. Rural landowners want some protection of their current property values, rather than have most of the property values ``taken'' through ``planning tools'' and reg-u-la-tions.
John A. Baum, Member of Council,
Blackwater Borough by CNB