by Dick Pilling | Nov 26, 2019 | Letters to the Editor
Did you ever notice that those politicians that are publicly wringing their hands over a lack of affordable housing are the same politicians whose actions created this lack in the first place.
And their creativity continues unabated with their very latest ploy called a “Conservations Futures Fund”(1) whereby they purchase land which is then forever classified as “farmland”, and which cannot ever be used for residential purposes. This action effectively “retires” the land and further exacerbates the housing shortage.
Furthermore, to add insult to injury, they then raise our taxes to obtain the necessary funding since, as we all know – or should know – politicians have no money save what they extort from us taxpayers,
They’re hitting us with a double whammy… they make houses more expensive and they use our money to do it. And we let them, for gosh sakes!
But this is nothing new as our politicians, through intent or ignorance, have been systematically raising housing costs for quite some time.
Yet another one of their favorites is “discovering” a slightly soggy area that, in past, was considered merely a large puddle left over from a rainstorm but is suddenly determined to be an official wetland – replete with boundaries and set-backs – and is now sacrosanct and forever placed in a non-developable status. Bingo, another “retirement”.
Obviously, these politician-driven “retirements” contribute to a scarcity of land and, consequently, housing. Since land “retirements” create these scarcities, maybe we should stop retiring land. Maybe, instead, we should retire some politicians.
- http://websrv7.clallam.net/forms/uploads/2019-11-05_082109_Nov_4_DRAFT_Conservation_Futures_Ordinance.pdf
by Dick Pilling | Nov 19, 2019 | Letters to the Editor
Hey County Commissioners! What the heck are ya thinking? You gonna’ raise my taxes? To create a “Conservation Futures Fund”? (1) And purchase land to preserve for agricultural purposes. To sustain the nation’s food supply? Really?
Do you not know that in the 1800’s, fully 90% of the population lived and worked on farms but that today, this figure has decreased to about 1% and, therefore, the arable land in Clallam County makes a minimal contribution to our food supply? (2)
A farmer should be allowed to sell his land as he sees fit but don’t use my tax dollars to subsidize him so that he can place his property in a status that is not the highest and best possible use of the land. Which, likely, is not agriculture.
And, incidentally, this plan will further reduce the land available for housing which further increases housing prices thereby placing homeownership further out of reach for many of our citizens and, consequently, further intensifying the homeless problem…
So really, this whole deal is to extort money from me that I really don’t want to give you and that you really don’t need in order to address a farming problem that we really don’t have and thereby further exacerbate the homeless situation that we really do have and, for good measure, add to our budget deficit.
I know that you are trying to do the right thing but, in this case, you are merely trying… Very trying…
- http://websrv7.clallam.net/forms/uploads/2019-11-05_082109_Nov_4_DRAFT_Conservation_Futures_Ordinance.pdf
- In the 1800s, 90 percent of the population lived on farms; today it is around one percent. Over the same period, farm size has increased, and though the average farm in 1995 was just 469 acres, 20 percent of all farms were over 500 acres.
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1QJDB_enUS635US635&sxsrf=ACYBGNQ5Zlb0VfN6JHfDd5DSJb3pOnMyUA%3A1573951992781&ei=-JnQXb2uL4rZ-gTZ7aiYCw&q=percentage+of+land+in+farm+production+1800&oq=percentage+of+land+in+farm+production+1800&gs_l=psy-ab.3…12389.17139..20454…0.1..0.88.986.14……0….1..gws-wiz…….0i71j33i10.LDe9mR85uAU&ved=0ahUKEwi9irGLhPDlAhWKrJ4KHdk2CrMQ4dUDCAs&uact=5
Recent Comments