Thinking about the development of a sustainable mixed use community and potential locations. This is looking at the area of Vallejo and some of the issues arising that necessitate the preservation of some of the best farmland in America.
“Ideas for ChangeThe destruction of another 900,000 acres of Central Valley farmland is not inevitable. Neither are its implications, from a potentially crippling loss of agricultural capacity to more traffic congestion and air pollution, and a degraded environment in general. There is a window of opportunity remaining for the Valley to fulfill its unique potential as a diverse mix of cultivated, natural and built environments, rather than as just another California region characterized by undistinguished and costly urban sprawl. But, as we have seen, the time to bring about meaningful change — is now.Potential Farmland Savings from Immediate ActionIf public officials and other community leaders begin immediately to change the land use plans, policies, rules and incentives that shape development, a significant amount of farmland can be saved. The chart at the right [click on it to enlarge] shows what can be accomplished if action is taken in the near future to increase the efficiency of development in the Valley.If land use patterns in the Valley do not change, the combination of urban and rural ranchette development will consume another 900,000 acres. A relatively modest increase in the efficiency of urban development — taking the Easy Path — would save 238,000 acres of farmland (red area on chart), 42% of what will be lost by the year 2040 if curent trends are allowed to continue. During the next decade, the number of people accommodated per urbanized acre would have to increase from an average of 8 to less than 12 people per acre, and reach about 17 people per acre by 2025 — less than the average in coastal Southern California today. An additional savings of about 204,000 acres (orange area on chart) could be achieved by reducing the size of new rural ranchettes from an average of 4 to 1.75 acres (or by reducing their number by two-thirds). The total loss of farmland would be cut in half, saving around 440,000 acres. If 70% of the land saved were high quality irrigated cropland and the remainder rangeland and less productive land — for saving the best land is and eqully critical objective — it would also save roughly $550 million (in 2002 dollars) in annual agricultural production capacity.How to Do ItTo minimize the loss of the Valley’s best farmland, many challenges must be met. And there is no one-size-fits-all policy prescription. It will take some experimentation to find effective solutions for each community. Nonetheless, there are some common challenges each community should try to better understand and some universal solutions that they could apply as appropriate to local circumstances. [1]Challenge:Uncertain Boundaries Between Urban and Agricultural Land Uses Potential SolutionsIn many communities, farmland is viewed simply as open space waiting to be developed, and agriculture as a temporary use of it, rather than as an irreplaceable resource for an essential industry that requires long-term stability to prosper. Many city spheres of influence are much larger than required to accommodate future population growth, and their boundaries can be changed almost at any time, as can both city and county general plan designations of land for development. These uncertainties contribute to what has been called an “impermanence syndrome” that encourages land speculation (driving land prices above what agriculture can afford) and discourages long-term commitments of land to agricultural use (like Williamson Act contracts). Under the circumstances, one cannot blame farmers for wanting to keep all their land use options open. But this desire merely helps perpetuate the cycle of uncertainty that could ultimately undermine the agriculture industry itself. The uncertainty also affects developers (at least those who are not betting that they can get the rules changed in their favor). Neighbors who are surprised by changes in rules to accommodate a development project are more likely to oppose them politically and in court.”
American Farmland Trust: Resources – The Future Is Now – Ideas for Change
