[MissoulaGov] Chickasaw

[ERIN TURNER JON TURNER]

Jed-

 

Others have given their input on your second question but I see no one has responded to your first question.  The eastern 5 acres, which were being farmed under a lease, were sold to the current owner in the spring of 2006 and he discontinued the lease to the farmer for the 2006 season.  Two of the neighbors, in the northeast corner (one of which is me), offered various times thorughout the last 2+ years to purchase 1, 5 and even all 10 acres for agricultural purposes.  But no deal was made.  According to Montana State codes, the city can not annex active agricultural lands so it is my assumption (and I may be wrong) that the current landowner discontinued the lease to the farmer in order to not have the land qualify as ag land.  I just want to clarify, since you inquired, that there are persons interested in that land for agricultural purposes.  Obviously, for us and the surrounding neighbors who also have active ag lands, we would prefer to see the ag land on the north boundary (and it has been stated that ALL the land is prime not just a portion of it) where it would be adjacent to the main irrigation ditch and would flow into other ag activities thus putting human development (houses)next to human infrastructure (e.g. 7th Street, services, etc).  But the governing body has the ultimate say on this decision.  Thanks for being part of the conversation!
 

> From: missoulagov-request at cmslists.com

> Subject: MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 37, Issue 1

> To: missoulagov at cmslists.com

> Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 12:00:04 -0700

> 

> Send MissoulaGov mailing list submissions to

> missoulagov at cmslists.com

> 

> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit

> http://www.cmslists.com/mailman/listinfo/missoulagov

> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

> missoulagov-request at cmslists.com

> 

> You can reach the person managing the list at

> missoulagov-owner at cmslists.com

> 

> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific

> than "Re: Contents of MissoulaGov digest..."

> 

> 

> Today's Topics:

> 

> 1. A question - or two - on Chickasaw (Jed Taylor)

> 2. Re: A question - or two - on Chickasaw (Jim McGrath)

> 3. Re: A question - or two - on Chickasaw (Geoff Badenoch)

> 4. Re: A question - or two - on Chickasaw (Eric Taylor)

> 

> 

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

> 

> Message: 1

> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 14:07:13 -0700

> From: "Jed Taylor" <mcc at offthedial.com>

> Subject: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw

> To: <missoulagov at cmslists.com>

> Message-ID: <3E23390949004DD5BD284CABAA53F7F8 at ryan>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

> 

> 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/20090228/270ada54/attachment-0001.htm 

> 

> ------------------------------

> 

> Message: 2

> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 20:29:30 -0700

> From: "Jim McGrath" <jmcgrath at missoulahousing.org>

> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw

> To: "Jed Taylor" <mcc at offthedial.com>, <missoulagov at cmslists.com>

> Message-ID: <92B4830B2B5E6E43B04109A6DFB96F96A5B60C at mha1.MHA.local>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

> 

> 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/20090228/27f9ec29/attachment-0001.htm 

> 

> ------------------------------

> 

> Message: 3

> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:01:13 -0700

> From: "Geoff Badenoch" <geoffb at ism.net>

> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw

> To: "'Jim McGrath'" <jmcgrath at missoulahousing.org>, "'Jed Taylor'"

> <mcc at offthedial.com>, <missoulagov at cmslists.com>

> Message-ID: <374ACC25DF8A420EB45E2B5D45C7DE65 at Edradour>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

> 

> 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-0001.htm 

> 

> ------------------------------

> 

> Message: 4

> Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 11:16:09 -0700

> From: Eric Taylor <ectbo at hotmail.com>

> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw

> To: <geoffb at ism.net>, <jmcgrath at missoulahousing.org>,

> <mcc at offthedial.com>, <missoulagov at cmslists.com>

> Message-ID: <BLU104-W6BC95D04896DF30BB6AB0B0A80 at phx.gbl>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

> 

> 

> All,

> 

> I appreciate the perspective, that the current discussion before the council is one that planners, property owners, and developers have been having in the valley since the mid-80's.

> 

> The other day I was upstairs in city hall. There are a couple of great photos of water works hill, one taken in the late 1800's and the other taken in the early 1900's. Both of these photos show how heavily tracked the path on the hill was over 100 years ago. In one of the photos there is a big area that has been excavated, it is approximately 300 yards from the current trailhead, on Water Works hill. I think this is the cut that is today, the transition from the road to the footpath, where wood steps have been installed on the trail. Trees have grown in the cut giving it a much more natural look today.

> 

> I suspect the discussion of developing the urban fringe has been going on in Missoula for quite some time.

> 

> Another observation I had, was how the interstate running at the base of the North Hills, affects the transition from urban to fringe environment. The interstate is like a DMZ- a no mans land if you will, separating the town from the country. In the early photos you could walk out the back door of the highland brewery, and right into the rattlesnake wilderness!

> 

> Jim, what do you think the deal is--with the city not wanting to annex industrial land? Are you saying the Champion mill site os still not annexed into the city, kind of like a little island of county land in the urban core?

> 

> From: geoffb at ism.net

> To: jmcgrath at missoulahousing.org; mcc at offthedial.com; missoulagov at cmslists.com

> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:01:13 -0700

> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> RE: [MissoulaGov] A question - or two - on Chickasaw

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 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

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> _________________________________________________________________

> Windows Live? Contacts: Organize your contact list. 

> http://windowslive.com/connect/post/marcusatmicrosoft.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!503D1D86EBB2B53C!2285.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_UGC_Contacts_032009

> -------------- next part --------------

> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

> URL: http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090301/7c6b0e4f/attachment-0001.htm 

> 

> ------------------------------

> 

> _______________________________________________

> -------Please delete extra content when replying to messages--------

> Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of Missoula. But posts to this list may be entered into the public record. 

> Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org 

> List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com. 

> 

> End of MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 37, Issue 1

> ******************************************


_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: Life without walls.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_032009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090301/0f7fd638/attachment.htm>