Hudsonville/Jamestown

[GRDadof3]

no offense taken . .didn't say he came up with the theory . . just had heard it somewhere . . good thing we have your brilliant mind in here to clear things up.

Thank you, I think , but I think GR Town Planner wins that award on this topic

I think many of the PDR programs will go unfunded. Although they are one mechanism, I (and many other people) have some issues with the fact that the land, even though our tax dollars go toward putting non-development restrictions on the land, prevent that land from being used by the pubic. For those of you unfamiliar with PDR's, they go something like this:

Farmer Brown's land is worth $xxxx.xx as agricultural land (usually low like $8000/acre)

His land is worth $xxxx.xx as developed (a lot more like $20 - $50,000/acre)

The PDR Program(Private Development Rights), which is funded by Kent County, pays the farmer the difference to permanently set aside his land for preservation and the deed is restricted from ever changing to residential/commercial, etc.

He does not have to keep farming it (who would), the land stays as his, he can do whatever he wants with the land, it doesn't matter, he just can't seek rezoning for development (and neither can any potential buyers). And although possibly $100s of thousand or maybe $Millions of Kent County taxes go to that farmer, you cannot use the land as a taxpayer. However, it would basically preserve the land as open space in perpetuity.

I hope I summed up the program correctly, or that's at least how I understand it.

[torgo]

There is also a TDR, which I think might work better than a PDR. In a TDR (transfer of development rights), certain areas would be designated as sending zones and others as receiving zones. Farmer Bob who owns land in a sending zone sells the development rights to Developer Joe, who owns property in a receiving zone. Developer pays farmer for those rights. The farmer gets his money, the land stays undeveloped, and developer Joe can build on his land at a higher density than would be otherwise permitted by traditional zoning.

However, there is a lot to be worked out with this one, such as:

Are the transferred rights gone forever, or do the development rights ever come back? Currently, it would be forever.

Since this would be a transaction between farmer and devloper, it would be market driven. It would be a useless program to have too many properties in the sending zone, because no one would ever buy them. If you have too much in the receiving zone, then those development rights get to be overvalued. Furthermore, the rights would sell well when the market is good, and when the market is not-so-good, no one would buy them.

What kind of density bonus does the purchasing developer get? An extra two houses per acre of land? Five? Ten?

And getting back the zoning part, while zoning and master planning are prime contributors to sprawl, changing them isn't easy. Going back to the 70 year old farmers, some are on planning commissions or township boards. If you screw them (and you would by not letting them develop) the politicans will pay for it. Most politicians are not willing to pursue something so restrictive.

Getting rid of sprawl will not happen over night. It will take a long long time to change the current way of building things, and there will only be substantial progress when our current sprawling method of building becomes impossible.

Yikes...that was long.

[Mark Miller]

I think that both GRDadof3 and Andy112129 give very good explanations on the PDR and TDR.

In both cases, the removal of development rights create some problems. Most notably in regards to the land that is left over and no longer farmed. If it is no longer farmed, it reverts back to a woodland over time, but it is not public land and can not be developed, so what happens to it? It is better to have a far reaching masterplan that works out the proper type and quality of the open land (reserve and preserve). Keep in mind that in the TRANSECT, land in the reserve (rural) can still be developed

The real intent of these mechanisms is to maintain agricultural land. If it does not remain in active agriculture then these mechanisms are failures.

I can not stress enough the importance of preservation of viable, active farmland within close proximity of our urban areas. Food production will become more important in the future (it may become the most important activity). We need localized food production that is accessible to the masses living in the cities. If we pave from GR to Lake Michigan that will not happen.

But we need to have meaningful open space. Not some left-over wetland or a private park. We need real open space that is one of two things. Agricultural or recreational preserve (ie-Siedman Park). These swaths of land need to be larger than two acre residuals. All open space is not created equal.

And getting back the zoning part, while zoning and master planning are prime contributors to sprawl, changing them isn't easy. Going back to the 70 year old farmers, some are on planning commissions or township boards. If you screw them (and you would by not letting them develop) the politicans will pay for it. Most politicians are not willing to pursue something so restrictive.

When we did our work in Coopersville, this was exactly the case. A 70-something farmer was very upset about not being able to sell his land to Walmart, because our masterplan had planned it for something else. The reality is that this guy did not even know how is land was zoned (argricultural) or masterplanned (agricultural), meaning that he had no right, within the current system, of building a Walmart. We were actually upzoning his property and thus giving it more "value".

The enabling legislation that talks about masterplanning has a clause about the health, safety and welfare of a community. It may be argued that the long term health, safety and welfare of a community is tied to smart growth and appropriate planning.

The politicians need to start to lead. We need leadership. Leadership is making the tough decisions.

"The purpose of government is to ensure that there is an open field and a fair chance." - Abraham Lincoln

"The loss of a forest or a farm is justified only if it is replaced by a village, not when it is replaced by a housing subdivision or a shopping center." -- Andres Duany

[Yankee Fan]

I wonder how much this growth will effect the current infrastructure out there. I am sure that Hudsonville is scrambling to plan ahead.

[MJLO]

I often wish we could subscribe to the canadian way of planning, their infrastructure is much more controlled, new houses are still spaced about four feet apart with very little yard space. It seems to support the core cities. ex. Calgary Alberta, has an amazing skyline. But not a tremendous population. I think this kind of strict regulating on our side, could have greatly reduced the decline of Detroit. Why do you think sprawl goes so unregulated? do you think it may partly be, because of the decentralized way of governing we have.

[Mark Miller]

I wonder how much this growth will effect the current infrastructure out there. I am sure that Hudsonville is scrambling to plan ahead.

The city of Hudsonville is currently working on a new masterplan in conjunction with the Ottawa County Planning Department's Urban Smart Growth Demonstration Project.

The new masterplan will be a citizen driven process, with a variety of citizen input.

In conjunction with the new masterplan, there will be a zoning ordinance update, most likely structured as a form-based code, in lieu of the typical use-based codes. Between these two documents, there should be substantial improvements to the built environment of Hudsonville. With a strong hope that it will begin to look more like a discernable city, particularly the downtown.

Another project that is a bit further along is the beginnings of a new downtown code, again based more on form, than on use. After much citizen input, we are now creating documents that will show what is appropriate for infill in the downtown area of Hudsonville. Appropriate storefronts and two-story buildings with parking behind them will most likely be the norm, rather than the exception.

The city of Hudsonville's planner and public officials are ahead of the curve on this one as is the planning department for Ottawa County.

[Yankee Fan]

That is great to hear! It is true that it is difficult to determine the extent of the downtown area in Hudsonville. It all comes back to proper planning. It appears, from your post, that they are on the right track.