OPINION: Open Space Balances Private Profit, Public Good
Recent proposals to sensibly down-zone remaining tracts of open space in Perry Hall are emblematic of the social contract that is the basis for democracy in America.
Pdfs
Recently, there have been two announcements of proposals to permanently limit the development potential of a series of properties in Perry Hall. Instead of these parcels potentially being available for dense residential or commercial redevelopment, they would be preserved as open space. These proposals, put forward by Baltimore County Councilman David Marks, represent sound and sensible policy making.
I have been mystified to read some of the caustic comments posted to Perry Hall Patch in response to these announcements. It seems that some people happily defend the "right" of individual property-owners to have the potential for unlimited profit. Of course, these naysayers cloak this view with the notion that a down-zoning of specific properties somehow "devalues" the land, leaving the owner with a financial loss.
A look at the basics of real estate appraising dispels this misguided view. At the time that any property is up for purchase, its overall value is determined. This process looks at: the size and location of the parcel, the condition of any buildings on it, and yes, the current zoning classification. Thus, at the time of transfer, the seller is able to set a reasonable price (allowing for an appropriate rate of return), based on current market conditions. In this manner, someone who buys a house, sells it years later to a new resident owner, has their right to reasonable profit assured.
The real reason some folks disagree with the concept of downzoning is because it denies certain property owners the future possibility of winning the development lottery, so to speak. How many times in Perry Hall's history did an individual property owner sell their home or other holdings to a developer, for a price far in excess of their actual value (based on existing neighborhood conditions), knowing full well that their old property had a very different future in store.
In these cases, developers like this leveled the existing individual homes, and replaced them with large-scale, dense residential complexes, or sprawling strip malls. As a consequence, such land sales required vast sums of public money to be spent to fund the infrastructure necessary (schools, roads, public water) to support this sprawl. One need only to look at the principles upon which our nation was founded to see that individual profit potential must be balanced against the broader needs of the community at-large.
American democracy puts the social contract theory of government into practice. In 1762, philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau defined this theory as follows: "the right of any individual over his own estate is always subordinate to the right of the community over everything; for without this there would be neither strength in the social bond nor effective force in the exercise of sovereignty."
Founding Fathers like Jefferson and Madison designed America to embody this belief. By virtue of being Americans, we all surrender the possibility of unlimited, self-interested rights for a guarantee that our natural rights, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (as defined in the Declaration of
Independence), are forever preserved. As a result, our elected leaders must balance the needs of the many versus the needs of the few, as they seek to promote the common good.
Tell us if you agree or disagree with open space designations in the comments.
Spring Heeled Jack
8:35 am on Monday, June 18, 2012
I like your opinion! I feel it is well stated and right on. I would love to give an example of how over development seriously hurts homeowners.
My father, in 1990, moved to a brand new single family housing community in Harford County. The farmer that owned the land sold off 95% of his property to a developer. Every bit of land surrounding the community within many square miles was farmland and some multi-acred large family homes.
The houses built were of good size with a 1/2 -1/4 acre of land each. The community held great value through the 1990's. Around 2000, another neighboring farmer sold off his land for development; then the trend took off. By 2002, every multi-acred home owner started selling off back yard lots and all the farms sold out. None of all these new housing communities could sell off all of their brand new big homes. In return, my father's neighborhood house values dropped big time. Why? Because no one would buy a house 20 years old when they could buy a new home for almost the same price. Eventually the value of the newly built communities dropped. This left home owners who just bought these brand new homes having devalued homes. Today, all of the home prices have dropped significantly. (It hurt every one!)
The housing market is like any other product, supply and demand. When there is no demand, value holds or slightly drops. When there is too much surplus, value drops. Why risk over development that will eventually crush neighborhood values?
Spring Heeled Jack
8:43 am on Monday, June 18, 2012
I know I may not be like everyone else in the housing market; but, I would prefer a single family house with an acre of land any day over these new crammed 1/5 acre lots with houses 20 feet apart. Like I said though... thats me. If developments were limiting houses and offering 1/2 acre or more lots with a brand new homes that would be more acceptable to me.
But who the hell would want to live in a community like the one around the Honeygo Shopping Center? Do those home owners realize that if 4 or 5 of those town homes went up for sale at the same time it could have big home value dropping effect on every home in that neighborhood? And once someone sells a town home for 5% off going rate... than all the homes drop in value.
We need to protect what little open spaces we have left for the benefit of the whole. These dense communities will keep growing and home values will drop!
Evets
2:15 pm on Monday, June 18, 2012
A rather one-sided view, IMO. Property values have 2 sides, the buyer and the seller. It's great, as a property owner, to see the value of my real estate steadily climb because of anti-sprawl laws and such. Limited supply = higher value, after all. But this is not such a great thing for the buyer, especially those just entering the market for the first time. Think about telling your son that he will not be able to buy real estate in the community he grew up in. He won't be able to because the people who were smart enough to be born 50-60 years ago got here first and we want to preserve the value of our property by putting a limit on the available real estate. Tell your son to move to northern Harford County, where he can be one of the first to buy a new house, then set about seeing that others stay away. And the cycle can repeat itself with your grandson...
Spring Heeled Jack
11:38 pm on Monday, June 18, 2012
This is not 1950. I would swear my life that maybe 1%, probably way less, of all children build homes on their parents lots or stay and buy homes in Perry Hall. I feel you are in touch more with the 50's-80's. New world, new era, new agendas.
Steve Redmer
1:00 am on Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Not a smart move Ronn, swearing your life on that...I know a caca-load of Perry Hall "Children" who bought homes in the Perry Hall Area...Thanks to Development and various levels of density and market values many of Perry Hall's Children are able to afford to purchase in the Community they grew up in...which makes for a better places to live since so many families are living close together and passing on community pride... In my case, both my brother and I bought homes withing a 1/4 mile of the house we grew up in...
However, just because you are almost definitely wrong, you still shouldn't sacrifice your life for such a silly "swear"
FIFA_archived
1:30 pm on Monday, June 18, 2012
Why is it always okay for the first person to buy, but then wants no one else in their backyard? That's crazy talk. Did you think they would stop having children?
One house per acre is absurd land use planning as well.
"When there is no demand, value holds or slightly drops". That's some economic theory too. Zero demand means no market for your product. Product goes away.
Spring Heeled Jack
11:41 pm on Monday, June 18, 2012
Sorry this topic was a bit too complex for you. If you love extreme population density then move to the city and allow the majority of us who love our spacious living to fight neighbors hell bent on greed.
Steve Redmer
1:01 am on Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Again Ron...This property has been wooded for at least the 30 yrs I've been around here... sooooo, really? hell bent on greed? come on bro
Paul Amirault
2:59 pm on Monday, June 18, 2012
Jeff, some de-mystification needed.
Your quote, "some people happily defend the "right" of individual property-owners to have the potential for unlimited profit." There does not exist "unlimited profit" in property owners selling their property. You even define how the value is determined.
Your quote, "somehow "devalues" the land, leaving the owner with a financial loss". If you own a common stock of a corporation and through the action of a governmental entity that stock becomes worthless, I would say you have a "financial loss". Rezoning property that is zoned DR5.5 (townhouses) to open space makes this property worthless.
Your quote, "our elected leaders must balance the needs of the many versus the needs of the few". I agree with that statement. However, if you take value from a property owner, pay them for their loss. Just like eminent domain, except in that case the government takes the ownership away.
Whether downzoning is a bad or good idea is a separate matter from taking value from the property owner. The value loss is only unrealized, that doesn't change the fact it will happen.
Kevin
3:52 pm on Monday, June 18, 2012
Thank you for your opinion piece. To add my opinion, the schools are trying to adjust to the thousands of new residents the last few years, Perry Hall HS needs many improvements before hundreds of new students could be crammed into it. Open space is necessary until our roads and infrastructure adapt to the other new houses.
Steve Redmer
10:02 pm on Monday, June 18, 2012
Mr. Smith...First let me tell you that I enjoyed reading your opinion piece, not for it's enlightenment or factual content, but for it's absolute ridiculousness. After reading through it, I think the only thing you got right was your name. Just about every one of your Points/opinions/facts is flat out WRONG... Now I can only assume that you are a friend of Councilman Marks' and that you are trying to do him a favor by defending him, However I don't think that using Jean-Jacques Rousseau's political philosophy to support Mr. Marks' Zoning Proposal is a tactic that would please David Marks (In fact if Mr. Marks has done any reading on Rousseau, the Father of the French Revolution, He is probably a bit upset right now)
I am going to go through your post and refute all of your points, but it will take some time so I will have to do it point by point over the span of several posts.
Steve Redmer
10:31 pm on Monday, June 18, 2012
Now I'm assuming that the "Caustic" comments that created your inspiration were mine...Thanks, I feel honored.
I must say that I'm happy to defend the "Rights" of individual property owners. That includes my property rights, the rights of the owner of the parcel of property in question, your property rights and those of all citizens. My first act in defending those right will be to ask you to remove your "quotation" of the word RIGHT in relation to individual property owners...The right of private property is secured in the Constitution, it is not a fictional concept to be marginalized by Quotations.
America’s Founders understood clearly that private property is the
foundation not only of prosperity but of freedom itself. Thus, through the
common law, state law, and the Constitution they protected property
rights—the rights of people to freely acquire, use, and dispose of property.
By de-zoning a property, the government is taking away the "Use" of that property without consent or compensation, and thus is against everything the Founder's stood for.
the right of a private property owner to profit from the disposal (sale) of their property is certainly a Right...You speak of "Unlimited profit potential" but that is just absurd considering property values are determined by the market, of which there is certainly a limit...
and Down-zoning DOES "devalue" the land... I'll explain the "Basics of Real estate Appraisal" to you in my next post...
Steve Redmer
10:49 pm on Monday, June 18, 2012
Jeffrey Smith's "Basics of Real Estate Appraisal" is BS...your point seems to argue that land that is privately held has absolutely ZERO value until it is "up for purchase"... Well the last time I checked, my property taxes are based off regularly re-assessed property values. So if property has no value until "Up for purchase" I would kindly ask my elected officials to kindly reimburse me all those darn taxes I paid on my worthless property.
Now of course that was to mock your "opinion" Mr. Smith... What you have clearly gotten wrong is that property HAS value, whether up for sale or not. And that value is determined largely by the properties "Highest and Best Use"... Yes Mr. Smith, this is a real thing, even has an Abbreviation, HBU, look it up sometime...
Highest and Best Use means that the properties value is based on whatever produces it's highest possible value...so if a property is zoned DR 5.5, which I believe means 5.5 houses per acre, it's value is inherently higher than if the property was zoned as "Neighborhood Commons", which means 0 houses per acre...
SO YES...Down-zoning DOES "Somehow" devalues the land, leaving the owner WITH a financial loss....so no, the real reason that I disagree with the concept is not some property owners inability to win the development lottery, it's because to me feels like theft by the hand of government policy...
Steve Redmer
11:09 pm on Monday, June 18, 2012
As for your paragraph on Development and "Sprawl" I only have a few points to make
1) without development and "Sprawl" the majority of people reading this post would not be living in Perry Hall
2) This property in question has been zoned for possible dense residential develop for a long time. why is it still a patch of trees? If property owner were only out for unlimited profit i would think there would already be houses there. My hypothesis is that market conditions and perhaps a touch of "Supply/demand" are possibly at play here. Whatever it is, it doesn't appear to be blind greed and profit potential that has kept it wooded
3) though infrastructure DOES require public funds, the very existence of that development means more revenue for the county from the boost to the economy and taxes, whether or not it equals out I have no clue,but considering that the county is still in existence I'm assuming that development hasn't bankrupt it yet
4) All previous development was done lawfully, following all zoning laws and community plans, with the approval of our County Government. So as much as you want to vilify the developers and property owners for their greed in turning pristine farmland into condos, please don't forget that our elected officials were right there to gleefully cut the ribbon and collect their taxes.
Steve Redmer
11:48 pm on Monday, June 18, 2012
But the point I REALLY REALLY want to get to is your reference of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the "Social Contract Theory"...unfortunately I doubt I will be able to fit this whole rebuttal in a 1500 word comment so it may have to be continued...
First of all, American is not a Democracy, it is a Representative Republic. Yes there is a difference, and yes it is important. Secondly, American "Democracy" did not put THE "social contract theory" of government into place...The reason that I am SURE of that is because there is no ONE "Social Contract theory", many political philosophers had "Social Contract Theories" including but not limited to Socrates', Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and yes Mr. Rousseau. Interestingly, or not, all of these philosopher's theories varied greatly...in fact Rousseau had more than one theory...so wrong, no ONE social contract theory of government was put into practice...but if any had a great influence on the Founders, it was the philosophy of John Locke and the difference between the two if HUGE.
You argue that the Founding Fathers "designed America" to embody Rousseau's beliefs...THAT IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS...The "Peer-reviewed Academic Resource" article that you linked even proves my point for me. Rousseau argued that individuals must be made to conform themselves to the general will, by force if necessary(and by force I mean execution)...
Steve Redmer
12:09 am on Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Rousseau argues that an "Extremely strong and DIRECT form of democracy" is necessary...and that "One cannot transfer one’s will to another, to do with as he or she sees fit, as one does in representative democracies." So considering that what the Founders "Designed" was a Representative form of government, that means that they in NO WAY put Rousseau's Theory into practice, since the whole "Theory" Relies on the WHOLE DEMOCRATIC BODY (i.e. Every citizen) periodically coming together to decide "Collectively" on how to live and what laws to enact.
In fact Rousseau was one of the first modern writers to seriously attack the institution of private property, which is pertinent to the current issue...Rousseau believed that the invention of private property was the downfall of human kind...
Rousseau's beliefs did however influence A Revolution, just not the one you suggest...He is sometimes referred to as the Father of the French revolution, due to the heavy influence he there... One of his big followers was Maximilien Robespierre, who was one of the most influential figures of the French Revolution. He was also instrumental in the period of the Revolution known as the "Reign of Terror", which was marked by Mass executions of over 40,000 political dissenters... So really Mr.Smith? Rousseau?
Spring Heeled Jack
11:51 pm on Monday, June 18, 2012
SO to all the haters of this commentary...
Would you be in approval if the owners of one of those open spaces decided to sell to the county for a new prison to be built? or how about a new half-way house? or how about section 8 housing? or maybe a sewage pumping station (which we already need due to so much development)? or maybe a community center for disadvantaged youth?
I know you all are thinking and want... Wealthy Condos, Rich Homes, Sprawling Town Centers, or more churches... and I guarantee it! You could actually careless about the rights of the owner to sell land to development.
If one of these land owners sold land to the county for a new prison every one of you would be crying, whining, and spouting BS! Then you would find every way to crush the landowners rights. Tell me I am wrong!
Steve Redmer
12:50 am on Tuesday, June 19, 2012
YOU'RE WRONG....and just to clear your argument up... was that a "Red Herring" or "Straw Man" fallacy?
In the "REAL WORLD" The highest and best use of a DR 5.5 zoned property would of course be Townhouses...seeing as this property benefits from being in a good location, I doubt that the County would purchase it at market value to build any of your above suggestions.
But all-in-all, if that were to be the case, at least the property owner would be justly compensated, and not robbed of their financial asset...after the counties purchase of said property, and then upon their announcement of the "New Prison" to be built, I would be opposed to such a thing as anybody would...however I would ultimately have no say in the discussion so I would have one of 2 options, live with it, or move away...that is the reality, but that does not mean that I am now in favor of government trampling private property rights
Just for fun though Ronn, since we are now playing the "logical fallacy" game, now that I have answered your question, please answer mine...
Ronn, since we are so badly in need of open spaces to combat the developmental sprawl that is Perry Hall From this point on to be known as Perry "Sprawl"), Would you be in support of the county rezoning your land and sacrificing your home and property to become a new "Neighborhood Commons" area for the greater common good? I'll even raise money to plant the new trees :)
and yes I expect an answer since I humored you!
Spring Heeled Jack
10:42 am on Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Do you realize all the tax payer money spent to expand Honeygo Blvd. because of all those atrocious townhomes, condos and Honeygo Plaza? How about all those new red lights, sewage, sidewalks, and other infrastructure? How about the overcrowding in our local schools now? The affects of a few people selling their land for these massive projects hit every tax payer in the pocket.
You are not a fan of "Property Rights or Freedom", stop the tea party talk. You are a fan of becoming rich at all costs using no responsible decision making. Sounds like those mega-corporations that love bailouts at the tax payers cost.
What the point is here, land owners need to think about the greater good of their neighbors, and community as a whole. Every new 5.5 = me paying for new roads, sidewalks, expanded police protection, sewage, and other infrastructure. I know I am responsible with my land and will preserve it permanently for the greater good of everyone.
Steve Redmer
1:39 pm on Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Ronn, or the person now known as "Neither (D) or (R), I'll assume that since you didn't answer MY question, that you would not be in support of the County rezoning your property to "Neighborhood Commons"...so much for the greater community good...
I don't know why I feel the need to answer all of your questions since you won't do the same for me, but what the hell...why not
Yes I am aware of taxpayer funds that are spent on infrastructure...I also am aware that the development that was built was done so with the support and encouragement of the County Government... I am also aware that same space has been a great addition to the community, offering dining, retail, a grocery store, medical professionals, fitness facilities etc. along with a whole lot of new families that have made this a better community....As for the OVER-crowding in schools, well Perry Hall has been overcrowded for 20 years, maybe the Government should be more concerned with building new schools instead of limiting individual property rights. I know it is expensive and is not a simple process, but we've all known this has been a problem for decades, it didn't just sneak up on us...NOT TO FORGET, that the County's zoning laws ALLOWED this construction by zoning it at such a high density....hmmm, almost seems like the Government encouraged that development.
to be continued...
Steve Redmer
1:48 pm on Wednesday, June 20, 2012
I also find it funny that you think you know who or what I am a fan of...you don't know jack$%# about me. I am for Property Rights and Individual Freedoms, come over and check out my bookshelf, I've been studying, reading and researching this stuff long before the "Tea Party" made their first sign...truth be told, I think the tea party has no clue what they are doing or what they believe in...
your suggestion that i'm about getting rich at all costs and likening me to "mega-corporations" is again just plain stupid and wrong...If I was all about getting rich at any cost, I don't think that I would be doing what I do, I know for a fact I will never get rich as a public servant, yet I proudly do it because I love to help people...as for the taxpayer bailouts that you link me too...I was against them with ever ounce of my being...so like always, WRONG AGAIN
What the real point IS Ronn, is that private property owners have rights...as with most rights in this country, those rights are held by the individual... The wants or wishes of the community DO NOT override the individual's right to their property... If in your seemingly "Communist" utopia, you want to infringe on an individuals right to their property for the GREATER COMMON GOOD, you best be prepared to step up and reimburse that individual for their loss, otherwise it is theft, or a tyranny of the Majority, or just an over-powering government...
Steve Redmer
12:26 am on Tuesday, June 19, 2012
I contest, and if anyone cares to do the research themselves, that the Founders were primarily influenced by the writings of John Locke. Locke wrote of the importance of property rights, arguing that property was the "linchpin" for the social contract and civil government because it is for the protection of their property that men seek to form governments...Locke argued for individual rights and Liberty, and that the reason that men united into "common-wealths" (i.e. governments) is for the preservation of their wealth and preserving their lives, liberty, and well-being in general...
In closing (I think) I must quote from your last paragraph;
" By virtue of being Americans, we all surrender the possibility of unlimited, self-interested rights for a guarantee that our natural rights, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (as defined in the Declaration of Independence), are forever preserved. As a result, our elected leaders must balance the needs of the many versus the needs of the few, as they seek to promote the common good"
This is the most absurd statement I have ever heard... Our Rights are inalienable, we do not have to give up ANY Rights to preserve our Right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" And if you are suggesting that Councilman David Marks believes that, Then I may have to find a new candidate to vote for next election....( Yes Mr. Marks, I DID vote for you)
Laurie Wallace
7:26 am on Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Hi Mr. Redmer!! Your words are beautiful, and thank you for pointing me to John Locke. I am doing research here in northern California, because our county planning commission is going to be inserting words like "high density housing, open space, and infill" into our general plan. The United Nations sees private property as a means to create wealth, and therefore contributes to social injustice. The whole word is converting to sustainable development right now, and it is up to us and our local cities to kick it out right now, or we will soon be in dense population centers living near transit without our cars, and that is not freedom to me. Laurie
Steve Redmer
3:36 pm on Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Thank you Laurie for your kind words
David Marks
7:02 am on Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Mr. Redmer, I hear all the time from people on Patch and elsewhere who do not want a single new home to be built in Perry Hall. I have repeatedly commented that there must be a level of development to expand our tax base, and that we live in a system of private property rights. However, that must be balanced with the need to protect a degree of open space, and to accommodate our schools and infrastructure. The arguments you have laid out are fiscally unsustainable for government (i.e., subsidizing landowners for their "lost value"). They are just as unsustainable as allowing virtually unlimited development that requires hundreds of millions of dollars in new infrastructure.
We don't live in Philosophy 101. It's real world economics and balance, the type of moderation your uncle Al Redmer sought while President of the Perry Hall Improvement Association and state delegate. He dealt with an awful lot of development, and he tried his best, just as I have. That's all I'll say here.
Steve Redmer
2:05 pm on Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Mr. Marks, you speak of balance...well let's discuss that then...but first let's correct you misleading quote "(i.e., subsidizing landowners for their "lost value")"
"subsidizing"
Verb:
Support (an organization or activity) financially.
Pay part of the cost of producing (something) to reduce prices for the buyer.
Oil Companies get subsidies...to lower the cost of fuel, to invest in expansion of production etc...
What we are talking about here, and what I'm arguing for, is NOT a "Subsidy" The owners of this property have a LEGAL right to the ownership and use of this property, in that they also hold developmental rights in that property... The Property has an intrinsic value value, based on it's highest and best use. If you, or anyone is going to rob the owner of their developmental rights, and therefore the value of their property, you should COMPENSATE (not a subsidy) them for that loss...kinda like when government takes private property for "Public Use" the owners are COMPENSATED...
next post will discuss this "Balance" that you claim to be searching for....I'll show you where to find it
Steve Redmer
2:15 pm on Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Philosophy 101...ahh yes, Philosophy is fun... Though my arguments are not philosophical, they are real...and they are common sense "balanced" approaches...Mr. Mark's The only reason my posts contained references and quotes from/about Rousseau, Locke, Hobbs and Socrates is because your friend, Jeffrey Smith, tried to use them to dispute me...of course as you can probably see, His attempt failed miserably...he thought he was gonna get away with blabbering on about something he knows nothing about, or at least nothing FACTUAL about, probably figuring nobody on the patch would have a clue about Jean-Jacques Rousseau or his Social Contract Theory...oops Wrong.
anyway let's move on to solutions and balanced approaches...
Steve Redmer
2:30 pm on Wednesday, June 20, 2012
So, Mr. Marks...Seems like we have a problem here...As County Councilman, you are faced with balancing the property rights of landowners (Protected by The Constitution, and federal/state laws) and the wants and desires of some vocal constituents who wants to drive past somebody else property and see trees instead of houses...Now when trying to solve a problem, you first must begin with your personal principles and values, since I won't speculate what yours are Mr. Marks, I speak of mine...
To me everything begins with the Individual Rights & Individual Freedoms that this nation was founded upon...I have read a whole lot of history and documents, and I never recall seeing anything written about "Community rights to someone else private property" or "Community Rights to open spaces" I'm just saying
So that's where I come from...That's MY foundation, so on to problem solving and finding a compromise...The Problem is Balancing Individual Property Rights with Community Wants and Desires... and to me there are 3 options; 2 extremes and 1 balanced compromise....
Steve Redmer
2:40 pm on Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Option 1; Maximize Private Property Rights
This option would be to protect and preserve the rights of individuals...now some would argue for UNLIMITED RIGHTS TO PROPERTY, which I think is how you are trying to frame MY stance...in a world like that, we would have no zoning laws at all, and I do not argue for that...my argument is a balanced approach....but this argument would say that people can do whatever they want with their property but they would be responsible financially for all of their land use decisions, including roads, water and sewer lines etc...in this option there would be no zoning rules and people could build whatever, wherever...Residential, commercial, industrial whatever... I do not support this option
Steve Redmer
2:48 pm on Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Option 2: Maximum Community rights as related to zoning and planning
This option seems to be what you and your vocal supporters on Patch seem to be arguing for... We all have a right to OWN property, but it's use is limited to us by the "Greater Common Good" in this world we are limited to our properties use by what the community wants and desires...again I have no contention with smart zoning and and basic community planning... but what your argument says to me is that property ownership only means that you hold the deed, but the community controls the use...in this option, we really have no property Rights as related to it's use, all we have is the right to own it... this is an argument that runs afoul to our laws and Constitution, in my opinion, and I won't go into great detail about it because I think I already have in previous posts...so let's move on to the balanced solution
Steve Redmer
3:08 pm on Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Option 3: The Balanced Approach
This Option protects the individuals constitutionally protected right to private property while recognizing the public's interest in how land is used. This approach also insures that the government's regulation of land use does not constitute an uncompensated "taking" of private land.
Land use plans and zoning ordinances are already in place...and they seem to be working fine, but now we have the Community that wishes to impose their will on private property owners... I suggest, as I have stated numerous times, that if the communities desires or plans collide with the current zoning laws and land use plans, and is against the will of the property owner...and that if those community desires would result in lost economic value to the property owners, which they certainly would, that the Land owner should be justly compensated for that loss.
The economic value/security and/or the right to the use of your property are the MOST important characteristics of land ownership. Thus, compensating the land owner for the community imposed restriction of his/her property's use and/or value is the only way to minimize the infringement upon their private property rights
Community and public interest's are already expressed in the land use plans and zoning regulations... if they community/public wish to further infringe upon land owners rights then they should be prepared to compensate them for it....to be continued
Steve Redmer
3:21 pm on Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Option 3: The Balanced Approach, continued
you claim that this compensation approach is "unsustainable" and you may well be correct...however I would contend that your infringement upon individual property rights is unsustainable...used to be that private could only be taken for "public use" and that was acceptable...roads, highways, infrastructure etc..and that was all fine and dandy, and lawful...then we started getting into Government taking property for "Public Benefit" which is not supported by the Constitution, and is much more vague, but nonetheless has become a popular tool to infringe upon property rights....now I see government taking private land and selling it to developers, I guess they claim that the increased revenue provided is of "Public Benefit" but come on now, this is getting way out of control... but throughout all of those instances, the property owners were compensated to some degree...
but now Mr. Marks you propose to take away a property owners ALREADY RESTRICTED right to the use of their land, WITHOUT COMPENSATION? I'm not gonna get into a "slippery slope" argument here...but I Contend that YOUR policy is unsustainable...My suggestion is a very FAIR & BALANCE approach...balancing a property owner legitimate right to their property with the community's desires... to be continued
Steve Redmer
3:34 pm on Wednesday, June 20, 2012
We have already restricted land use with zoning, and I think that is perfectly acceptable...but now I say, if you want to infringe further, time to pay up...If the community wants open spaces, then ask their government to purchase it, if they don't have the funds, then the community should start the "Perry Hall Open Spaces Foundation" and start raising money...have a bull roast, hell I'll even supply the band, set up a booth at the Perry Hall Town Fair,Start a donation website, run a 5k..I don't care how you do it, but if you want open spaces, then raise the money, and go to the property owner and negotiate a price to buy away their "Developmental Right"...if you are not willing to do that,tough luck
This approach is FAIR and balances Rights vs interests...it is a "Moderate" approach and though I have know clue if my uncle, Al Redmer, would agree with me, but I'm sure he would be very proud of me for voicing my opinion and for challenging something that I don't think is right...Uncle Al is a great man, thank you for bringing him up...he did A LOT of great things for this community, he didn't always toe the party line and he is an inspiration to me
Mr Marks, I argue that your proposal is NOT FAIR and is only looking out for the interests of the community's desires and not the individuals rights...please stop labeling my argument as some kind of "Extreme" view...it is logical and fair, if you disagree please, by all means, explain to me and everyone else how I'm wrong
Steve Redmer
3:50 pm on Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Oh and one last thing...
To solve the problem with infrastructure costs, I find it completely acceptable for land owners to be responsible financially for their land use decisions. If they want to develop, they should be responsible for the costs of roads, water and sewer line etc. maybe then they would be less likely to do so. Their development would then be less of a financial burden to the public
William Lutostanski Jr
5:43 pm on Wednesday, June 20, 2012
The people who buy in these new developments are the ones who pay for the cost of the additional infrastructure. Its usually called a front foot fee, although there are other names as well. The tax payers in these new developments pay the normal tax and then an additional fee spread out over 30 years to pay for the new developments , roads, sewer , and water etc....
Bart
7:31 am on Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Mr. Redmer lives in a Fantasyland. I support what Mr. Marks is doing.
Steve Redmer
2:08 pm on Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Mr. "Bart", you should copy-and-paste your comment and save it to your desktop...seems to be all that you say. Bring something good to the discussion or just sit back and enjoy the show
Emily Kimball
11:03 am on Tuesday, June 19, 2012
UPDATE (June 19)—See Perry Hall's proposed open space, in photos - http://patch.com/A-vv2q
Does open space classification needlessly devalue land, or does it provide a worthwhile community benefit? Tell us in the comments.
Martha Reed
3:25 pm on Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Our politicians should be focusing on issues like out-of-wedlock births, too.
Steve Redmer
2:01 pm on Sunday, July 15, 2012
Funny I just noticed this lovely comment... Yes I do have a beautiful 5 yr old son, born out-of-wedlock...a very intelligent child that is VERY well taken care of by myself and his mother ... is that a problem for you Martha?? and what exactly do you think the government should do about it?
Bart
4:10 pm on Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Mr. Redmer, Most people want open space and would reject your simplistic views. Stick to the band, Steve, and leave the important decisions to others.
Steve Redmer
4:32 pm on Wednesday, June 20, 2012
So Comrade Bart, I guess it's tyranny of the majority that you desire over individual rights... and just so I'm clear, how is it that my compromise approach is a"simplistic view"?...and the band is just a hobby, I'll stick to my job of protecting the public and saving lives...much more fulfilling
Bart
4:52 pm on Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Typical Republican......whine and throw out ideology, but incapable of making decisions in the real world. Isn't that what Uncle Al did with Isabel, couldn't completely run an agency when given a shot? Keep playing philosopher when you're not moonlighting in a band, Steve.
Steve Redmer
10:15 am on Thursday, June 21, 2012
No whining and Ideology from me...just a common sense balanced approach at solving a complex issue, protecting individual rights while considering community desires...just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it wrong... If you want to challenge me, by all means do so, I love a good debate...But do it by proving me wrong and/or bring your own ideas and arguments to the discussion.
Also I would appreciate it if you don't resort to insulting individuals who have nothing to do with this topic and are not involved in the discussion... I'm not sure why Mr. Marks felt the need to bring up my uncle when he has nothing to do with this topic, but I am an individual with my own views and opinion and I can protect myself...Bart, I doubt you really know many details about the Hurricane Isabel issue, and honestly I don't either, but what I do know is that my uncle worked very hard, for a very long time, to try to help Maryland residents through the worst flood this state has ever seen, and I'm sure that it was no easy task. That being said, Councilman Marks, I think you owe my uncle an apology for dragging his name into this...
Steve Redmer
10:31 am on Thursday, June 21, 2012
Comrade "Bart", I also find it interesting that you attack me personally, insult my family, and mock my job and Hobby... yet you remain relatively anonymous...seems awful cowardly to me...just sayin'
William Lutostanski Jr
5:55 pm on Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Typical Democrat .......call people names and not answer any direct questions. Bart I believe he asked " How is it that my compromise approach is a simplistic view ? " You responded with an insult about a political party then insulted the mans Uncle who has nothing to do with this topic. I would suggest bringing something to the discussion that is not sophomoric. It is possible to disagree with someone without child like name calling and with respect for ones viewpoint.
John Doe
9:57 am on Thursday, June 21, 2012
"Typical democrat...not answer any direct questions" - Have you listened to Mitt Romney lately? The guy hasn't answered a direct question since 2011.
Steve Redmer
10:16 am on Thursday, June 21, 2012
Thank you William, well said
Steve Redmer
12:05 pm on Friday, June 22, 2012
Nothing? the silence in here is deafening...I also notice Jeffrey chose not to defend his views...