Category Archives: Agriculture

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 →

Many small ponds for flood control and irrigation

So Valdosta’s ponds for flood control idea is a good start on local water issues. Rather than a few big antiseptic ponds, how about many small distributed ponds, like the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission’s Ponds Program:
Because of increased irrigation from existing ponds in Southeast Georgia due to saltwater intrusion into groundwater aquifers and moratoriums on well drillings along Georgia’s coast, GSWCC, in cooperation with NRCS, developed the Ponds Program. By helping landowners to construct new and renovate existing ponds for irrigation, the Ponds Program has been able to take advantage of rain harvesting to increase landowners’ irrigation capabilities while simultaneously reducing withdrawal from our aquifers, protecting and improving water quality, capturing sediment to reduce downstream transport, and providing wildlife habitats.

-jsq

Ponds for flood control and irrigation?

Build retaining ponds upriver to capture flood waters and use them for irrigation? That would be a start on some of the many water concerns. Tim Carroll sent the appended to a long list of people Sunday. -jsq
All,

Important news concerning storm water/flood water management in our area. As noted below in Larry’s email, much work has been done to find solutions. I made this presentation to both the local and state Chamber Governmental Affairs Council’s soliciting their support. There have also been numerous contacts with state and federal representatives concerning this issue.

As always, please let me know if you have any questions or comments.

Happy Independence Day,

Tim Carroll

From: Larry Hanson
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 4:10 PM
To: Tim Carroll
Subject: FW: Suwannee-Satilla Regional Water Plan Comments

Mayor and Council;

Any and all Georgians have the opportunity to comment on the proposed state water plan and specifically the Suwannee-Satilla Regional Water Plan that covers our region. As you know, I made a presentation to the regional water council late last year in Douglas regarding regional stormwater and the need to address this issue as part of the state water plan. The presentation was

Continue reading →