Category Archives: Agriculture

Nottinghill on Cat Creek by Mr. Nijem and discussion @ LCC 12 July 2011

Speaking for the Nottinghill rezoning request on Cat Creek Road, Bill Nijem said it was nothing like Glen Laurel. Nothing like repudiating your work of last year….

Commissioner Richard Raines thanked Nijem for sitting down with the neighbors.

As David Rodock wrote in the VDT the next day, Citizens speak against Cat Creek crowding: Disapprove of the proposal to build residential areas

Bill Nijem, representative of the applicant, brought forward information demonstrating his client’s willingness to work with neighbors, in that lot sizes were increased by 20 percent and that the average lot size would range from a minimum of 12,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet. Nijem also reminded commissioners that the applicant was willing to install any necessary buffers or fences to prevent children from playing in the neighboring fields and would have water and sewer installed with his own financial resources.
Carolyn Selby reminds me that Mr. Nijem didn’t say Continue reading →

Not clear houses are more important than agriculture —John S. Quarterman @ LCC 12 July 2011

If somebody puts a subdivision next to your field, beware of trash, and the same if you buy a lot in it. For that matter, why do we need more houses?

Some of what I said:

To expand a little bit on that subdivision next to our west field, one of the builders continued to push trash into our field until I had to sue him for trespass in Superior Court to get him to stop.
I meant to say in Magistrate’s Court.
I called code enforcement multiple times and they did nothing to help stop it. Now that there’s a new fire chief perhaps things are better, but anybody who’s got a field nearby might want to watch for that.

Anyone who hopes to buy houses in the subdivision might want to watch to see if there are any dumpsters in there, because the subdivision near us, the trash was buried in the yards; you can ask anyone who owns one of those lots.

As far as needing houses for Moody, there are usually ten houses for sale in that subdivision, and roughtly 10 or 15 more that are for rent. So it’s not clear we actually need more houses.

As far as lot size, this is the same issue as came up last year with Glen Laurel on Old Pine Road. … The room was filled with people for the same reasons that you’re hearing now. At that time the commission decided to say ….

You can see for yourself what happened in May of last year: Continue reading →

Sprawl is not fiscally prudent —Gretchen Quarterman @ LCC 12 July 2011

David Rodock wrote in the VDT 13 July 2011, Citizens speak against Cat Creek crowding:
Gretchen Quarterman also spoke against the proposition, citing that extending residential areas further out into undeveloped Lowndes County would create greater strain on an already tight fiscal operating budget.
She referred to a report County Planner Jason Davenport commissioned from Prof. Jeffrey H. Dorfman of UGA, Local Government Fiscal Impacts of Land Use in Lowndes County, December 2007, in which he recommended development close in to existing services for the most benefit to all parties. As Prof. Dorfman has said,
“Local governments must ensure balanced growth, as sprawling residential growth is a certain ticket to fiscal ruin*
* Or at least big tax increases.”
He noted
“The same growth done more densely and contiguously saves both money, farmland, and provides environmental amenities.”
Prof. Dorfman has even quantified national averages for Continue reading →

Traffic on Cat Creek Road at Nottinghill —Thomas E. Stalvey Jr. @ LCC 12 July 2011

Schoolchildren, safety, and farmland: three topics that often seem forgotten in discussions of development. Opposing the proposed rezoning for Notthinghill, neighbor Thomas E. Stalvey Jr. noted that traffic on Cat Creek Road is already a problem, and adding a subdivision would make it worse. He noted that it’s traffic routed down Cat Creek to Moody that accounts for a lot of it. He said school children stood out on the road and they were already in danger.
“If we put 49 more houses out there, it’s just going to up the risk.”

He explicitly linked road widening to development: Continue reading →

Now they change their minds, so we’ve got a right to change our minds —Calvin Marshall @ LCC 12 July 2011

Somebody finally called a developer’s bluff! Answering Commissioners’ questions about his opposition to rezoning for Nottinghill on Cat Creek Road, Calvin Marshall did what I’ve never seen anyone do before in opposing a subdivision: he upped the ante.

Commissioner Richard Raines said he would require Nottinghill lots to have:

“Not perhaps, but a fence around the edge of the property. … Need to make sure that bicycles and fourwheelers, that children are not playing in a field that is used to grow crops.”
Seems fair, except that he seemed to be talking about each individual eventual property owner having to put up a fence, and I can tell you by experience that that won’t happen without the neighboring landowner personally insisting to each lot owner. Unless the Commission insists that county code enforcement actually enforce such a condition, which would be a good thing for a change.

Then Commissioner Raines asked Calvin Marshall:

“Is it still your position that 12-15,000 square foot lots are OK?”
Calvin Marshall answered: Continue reading →

What are they going to put for a buffer for farms at Nottinghill —Calvin Marshall @ LCC 12 July 2011

Neighboring landowner demolishes developers’ arguments; explains agriculture to Lowndes County Comission.

Neighboring landowner Calvin Marshall, speaking against rezoning for REZ-2011-10 Nottinghill, said neighbors,

“We’re not interested in a Bluepool, We’re not interested in a Chatham Place. And we’re certainly not interested in what they built out on Val Del Road. We’ve also looked at what they’ve done with Old Pine, and we’re definitely not interested in that, either. Too small lots, small homes.”
That last one is presumably Glen Laurel, which had a roomful of neighbors opposing it last year.

Calvin Marshall asked for the Commissioners to deny the Nottinghill rezoning request.

He also asked:

“The other thing that we asked the developer … what you going to do about the neighbors that have got a farm on each side? What kind of buffer are you going to put there?
…
We farm that land, we grow crops, we run cows, we run goats, we run hogs, and we’re going to continue to do that.
…
We don’t have an answer as to what they’re going to do for a buffer.”

Calvin Marshall continued with the economic argument:

“There’s three or four generations of property owners in this room tonight. These people go back for three or four generations. And these people have worked hard.
Continue reading →

Portugal as forerunner for U.S. states repealing drug prohibition

If Portugal can do it, Washington state or even Georgia can do it.

For comparison:

Population
Portugal 10.632 million
Washington (U.S.)6.664 million
Georgia (U.S.)9.829 million
California (U.S.)36.962 million
So Portugal, which has successfully decriminalized drugs, is similar in scale to a mid-sized U.S. state. Somewhat bigger than Washington state, which just almost got marijuana decriminalization on a ballot, and of whose voters almost a majority support it. With a little more work, people against prohibition could get Washington to be the first state to end marijuana prohibition. Too bad they’re not going for all drugs, like Portugal did, but marijuana offences account probably for the most drug-related lockups, so that’s a good place to start. Still, the problem won’t be solved until the drug cartels and the prison-industrial-complex are deprived of their drug-related income by legalizing the rest, and taxing them so states derive income from them.

Meanwhile we could refuse to participate by declining a private prison in Lowndes County, Georgia, and spending that tax money on rehabilitation and education instead.

-jsq

License and tax marijuana —Washington state poll

Richard Wagoner wrote in the Seattle Times 5 July 2011, Elway poll: Washington voters favor legalizing pot:
A new Elway poll released today found that most Washington voters supported or were inclined to support legalizing marijuana. However, the level of majority support was within the the poll’s margin of error.

Thirty percent of those polled said they “definitely supported” legalizing marijuana, while 24 percent said they were “inclined to support, but needed to know more.”

Thirty-two percent of the voters were “definitely opposed” to legal pot, and 11 percent were “inclined to oppose, but could be convinced” otherwise, the poll found.

Was this enough? Continue reading →

GA HB 87 ridiculed in California editorial

The Ventura County Star in California editorialized Sunday:
Laws sometimes have unintended consequences, and laws hastily passed in time of high political passions inevitably do.
Continue reading →

Only city can stop biomass —VDT

VLCIA has once again passed the buck on biomass, and the Valdosta City Council could pick it up and finally deal with it.

VDT editorial yesterday: after the

In a recent Valdosta council meeting, longtime councilman Sonny Vickers asked if there was any way to put the biomass issue to rest once and for all. The good news, Councilman Vickers, is that there is and it’s all in the city’s hands.

The Industrial Authority signed an agreement with Wiregrass Power LLC which allows the company to purchase the land from the Authority and proceed with the project on its own. Although the Authority hasn’t yet voted on the issue, it appears that they don’t have a choice and may be compelled to honor the agreement.

Compelled? Give me a break! VLCIA has an attorney, and one of its board members is an attorney. If they can’t find a way to break a land purchase contract because conditions have changed, they need new legal counsel.

Why didn’t they discuss that in their yet another special called meeting Thursday morning, in which they apparently discussed that offer from Sterling Planet to buy the proposed biomass plant site?

VDT continued:

And once the land is purchased, as long as the company complies with existing zoning laws, there is not a way to prevent the plant from being built.

Oh, but there is.

Continue reading →