Rural life is changing

[Boondox]

My part of Vermont is dotted with picturesque old farm houses and barns. Unfortunately, as more people move up here from the Big City, these traditional structures are being torn down. It seems the flatlanders consider them shabby, and not suitable for "our kind."

I sure wish there was a way to show them what Vermont would look like in 20 years if they have their way.

Pete

www.GatewayToVermont.com

 

[s1120]

If any of you have ever been to Clifton Park in NY you know. Around these parts this is the trendy place to move to "get away from it all". Anouther few years it will be like New York City.

 

[AndyR]

Tis true. Newbies dot the landscape here as well (hell I'm one at only 11 years here) and they have a tendancy towards new stuff - and lately lots of McMansions. I bought old (always have) and am restoring. People look at me kinda funny sometimes when I talk of the work I am doing on the barn (40x83) but if we don't take care of the older structures they won't be.

Seeing as the courts have made growth control ordinances very difficult to enforce, the only protections I know of are to either A.) Buy all the land you can or B.) make it impractical for folks to build in your area. Really depends on the sentiment of the local government. There are more then enough studies that show that residences are a net drain on the taxbase when you factor in cost of services, schools, etc. Open space comes up far less costly (not too many ambulance calls for the coyotes and deer), and commercial/industrial "usually" bring money in. All comes down to quality of life.

'Course, at the same time you gotta wonder if those spiffy websites aren't drawing more folks to the green mountain state /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

Andy in NH

 

[gws]

In ohio rural farm land is be gobbled up for subdivisions. About the only way to control the growth has been to set minimum lot sizes. 5acres min per home, then the subdivisions dont become cost effective for the builders.

Gary.

 

[ecard]

You guys touched on a very hot topic with me right now. Here in central Indiana the "planners" don't have any concept of planning. They have one subdivision that is expected to grow to 12,000 - yes that is 12,000. That is a city - in fact they call the developer the mayor.

What a joke. The roads can't support this traffic, the schools are years behind, my daily commute gets longer every week with new stoplights and more traffic.

Growth for the sake of growth is destroying these smaller communities.

I think I will run for the board - any votes out there for a 30 something farm boy???

Eric

 

[alan40]

Yes Pete the times they are changing. Someday only the deepest and most remote parts of Vermont will remain Vt. Here in Fairfield they only allow 10 new structure permits a years. There already booked up untill 2004. The farm landscape is also changing from the small farm to the open stall 500 head farm. A small barn now it used for storage or left to fall down. It's a sad sight not to look out your window and see the cows on the hillside that so much remind you of Vt. Everyone up here has fourwheelers snowmobiles etc. They think I'm strange because I don't want any of those. A good tractor a woodlot and a pair of snowshoes are as good as it gets for me for recreation.
Take alot of pictures to remind you of the good old days because today is a good old day!/w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
Al

 

[Anonymous Poster]

As has been pointed out on other sites, perhaps minimum acreage for a residence is not the best approach to limiting new development. I hear the typical result of a 5 acre minimum is a one acre lawn around the house and 4 acres of scrub. You can't even hunt on the scrub because it is usually too close to the houses.

The town I live in has zoning regulations that include a 300' minimum frontage for a new residence. That way the farmers can sell a few lots while still keeping enough acreage to farm on, and the developers aren't interested in the required low housing density.

 

[gws]

Well our 5 acres minimum is really the same as your 300ft frontage. Basicly a frontage with a minimim depth, SO it comes out to about 5 acres min size. This allow the farmers to sell off the frontage, forever stopping development behind the homes. We had a lot of problem with stacking, homes 3 and 4 deep. Now ALL homes must have road frontage. So a developer must build a road to use any depth. No more 1 mile long driveways for people to deal with.

Gary.

 

[GlueGuy]

I hear you loud and clear Pete.

Around here, I have come to to calling the "new" monolith homes "California gothic". They are essentially all the same: pink stucco, and big columns around the front door. Only huge, 10K square feet or so. No character, no architecture.

Now the neighbors want to pave the driveway. Want to name the driveway. May have to be over my dead body. All the city things are moving to my sanctuary. I don't want it.

The GlueGuy

 

[Anonymous Poster]

There are so many people wanting to move to the country to "get away from it all", but then they bring it all with them! They want the country life, but they don't want to give up the city conveniences. We cannot have pizza delivered and cannot get cable where I live, but I don't care because I don't have to listen to the ice cream trucks anymore, or the neighbors dogs barking, or the guy across the road tuning up his Harley. I'm not sure what the answer is to keeping the country from becoming an extension of the city, but I know I'm going to buy all the land I can afford! Unfortunately, I can't afford to buy any more right now, but when I can, I will buy all I can!