[MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw

[Geoff Badenoch]

If you want to read a thoughtful book on the whole subject of "committed
lands" I suggest "Planning for Small Town America" by Kristina Ford, Jim
Lopach and Dennis O'Donnell, published in the latter part of the 80's and is
the first instance where I heard the term.  Kristina Ford was the Planning
Director of Missoula in the mid-80's, and Jim Lopach and Dennis O'Donnell
are professors affiliated with the University of Montana.  Not only is it a
book of uncommon sense, it lays out just how communities which are growing
should think about planning for growth.  I believe it was available at one
time through the American Planning Association.

 

Geoff Badenoch

P   Please consider the environment before printing this email. 

-----Original Message-----
From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Jim McGrath
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 8:30 PM
To: Jed Taylor; missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw

 

I'll address the second question -- the philosophical one, if you will.
First, annexation is NOT infill development (except in the case of a spot
like the old Champion Mill site which has never been annexed because it used
to be industrial). Infill development is making use of what we used to call
"committed lands" -- areas within the city that already have services but
have never been developed or need to be redeveloped.
I used to refer to what you describe as "leap frog" development-- annexing
non-contiguous parcels far out from existing services. In the case of
development far past the airport, for example, I agree it is problematic.
On the other hand, I don't consider this area that far flung. If a parcel on
the urban fringe (to use the current terminology) wants to join the city
slightly before another, that's okay, as long as the plan is annex all of it
(which I think we should)-- in fact, it makes the whole process easier and
cheaper for property owners and taxpayers alike.
The entire urban area should be part of the city. Urban=city.
That doesn't automatically preclude ag -- I'm a long time proponent of urban
agriculture.



-----Original Message-----
From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com on behalf of Jed Taylor
Sent: Sat 2/28/2009 2:07 PM
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw

Just so there's no misunderstanding, I'm a big supporter of locally grown
food, and believe that increases in transportation costs that we all will
experience in the future will make local sources that much more valuable.
And it's clear from the testimony about this project that the soil on these
lots, and especially the eastern half, is great for growing things.

So - if there's all this demand for land on which to locally grow food, and
if this land in particular is appropriate for that activity, then why hasn't
it been farmed since 2005?  Have there been people clamoring to farm it, but
have been prevented from doing so?


My other question is more philosophical.  Is the city really ready to annex
an individual piece of property a good mile west of its current boundary and
create this island of development surrounded by people who don't want it and
served by an infrastructure that really isn't ready to support it?  Is this
how growth-by-infill is going to occur - in an ad-hoc, patchwork,
one-project-at-a-time manner wherever they might pop up regardless of how
far away from the current city limits they might be?




  _____ 

"Be the change you want to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090228/0bfa8337/attachment.htm>