To: Yankton County Planning Commission

Re: 7:45 Discussion of Possible Ordinance Changes

The issue or topic of the two-acre rule to a reduction in acreage requirement is long overdue. Here are the facts:

• An owner of agriculture land will be the one to decide IF any parcel of any size is offered for sale;

• Most likely the parcel will not be “prime” agriculture land;

• Most likely some form of ‘right to farm’ agreement will be made between both parties, maybe as a covenant on the sale of the parcel;

Apply the economics to this situation:

• Cost of the land, being it 1, 2 or 5 acres;

• Cost of importing the infrastructure to the parcel;

• Cost of building either a home or business structure on the parcel;

• Ability to obtain realistic financing for such a project;

• The realistic number of actual prospects that could feasibly do this is quite low;

Invalid Arguments:

• That hundreds will move to the county — Highly unlikely due to the cost or amount of capital investment one will have to make;

• That people choosing to live in the country are drug dealers and no-gooders — Maybe true if they are occupying rental property;

• That people that move to a rural resident/business will be a constant thorn in the side of the agricultural enterprise — We are in an information age and to think that there are not watchful eyes on any situation is not realistic. If an agricultural enterprise, or for that matter an owner of a smaller parcel of land, does something that, let’s say, “is not right,” most likely it will become public knowledge.

Economic Development/Government Budgets: Government budgets are being squeezed more than ever. The public outcry for “no new taxes” is constant.

A change in the size requirement is a “BABY STEP” in moving the country to a more pro-active economic development stance. Everything cannot be a “NAPA” project. Taxes generated on smaller parcels are significantly higher. These smaller parcels in their own right are economic generators. Can there be problems? Of course, but what is the trade-off — more taxes, no economic development, squeezed budgets.

This change in acreage size is a step in the right direction to provide a “possible opportunity” for Yankton County citizens. Complacency and inaction are not a solution.

 

(2) comments

skyjarrod01

This is just another ploy by this group to limit farmers. If more acreages are in the county, the set backs for farmers will be harder to comply with.

3prolson

[thumbup]

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.