Farm Real Estate | Landmarketer.com

News

Back
Zoning Does Not Protect Ag Land In Scott County Zoning Does Not Protect Ag Land In Scott County Originally Appeared On : "qctimes.com" January 8, 2013 Eastern Iowa’s world-renowned farmland is under attack, Iowa State University Extension researchers wrote in 2001. “Iowa’s growing cities and robust nonagricultural economy are consuming land at an unprecedented rate,” according to the paper titled “Preserving Iowa’s Farmland: Why Is it Important? How Can it be Done?” “The loss of its basic input — land — represents an issue that Iowans cannot ignore, no matter how trivial the annual loss may appear. What seems like ‘no big deal’ today may exact a price on our successors that will be difficult for them to pay.” The researchers touted a solution: Iowa’s agricultural preservation zoning laws. They allow landowners to bank their farmland by agreeing to rezone it as ag preservation, making it impervious to future development. Today, ag land remains under attack. But this time it is from Iowa farmland owners. Twice within a year, Scott County landowners who agreed to preserve their farmland asked that it be rezoned for development. In August, Scott County’s Planning and Zoning Commission voted against rezoning preserved land for Orascom’s massive fertilizer plant. But county planning staff supported it. Until Orascom took its proposal back to Lee County, our Scott County Board of Supervisors appeared prepared to overule its zoning commission and grant the landowners’ request. In November, the same commission voted for rezoning preserved land for a fertilizer distribution center. The full county board will consider the rezoning request Jan. 17. These two episodes leave us wondering: What use is agricultural preservation zoning if it can be so easily reversed? In both cases, the merits of the development certainly warranted consideration. But in both cases, the ag preservation zoning was barely a speed bump for landowners willing to take their property out of production. The agricultural preservation zoning offers the illusion to Iowans, and, specifically, adjacent landowners that farmland was somehow protected. That illusion certainly discouraged investors and landowners from even considering rural development. The illusion began to disappear when Orascom came calling with its billion-dollar deal. It vanished entirely when county planners supported rezoning preserved land for a much, much smaller ammonia distribution center that offered no job or investment guarantees. The sole economic rationale? “This development will create a positive impact upon existing agricultural activities and farmers, by reducing the cost associated with anhydrous ammonia transportation in the region.” So marginal savings for farmers on one input is sufficient for removing the agricultural preservation zoning? If that’s the standard, then agricultural preservation offers zero protection to landowners when their neighbor is prepared to sell. The zoning distinction simply raises the developers’ ante. We share Iowa State Extension Services’ 2001 concerns about farmland encroachment. But we also support landowner rights. If local leaders are prepared to reverse farmland preservation zoning at the first inkling of development, perhaps Iowa should consider other ways to preserve farmland. These two examples suggest that agriculture preservation zoning is effective only when there are no development offers.
Back