Some developers are swine.

[Hughman]

Not picking sides, but from the county's point of view, look at the difference in tax revenue before and after the development. I believe the phrase used is " highest and best use of the land". Their decision has very little to do with existing neighbor's feelings.

 

[EscapedSuburbia]

I’m not necessarily a pro development person but if you don’t own the property you don’t control it. Why shouldn’t the owners be allowed to develop it? I don’t blame you for being against it though.

But it's not a free for all - it depends on zoning. My previous house was in a subdivision right on the edge of the city limits surrounded by agriculture. I knew eventually the farm abutting my back yard would end up as housing and didn't complain when 30 years later it was. I went to all the planning meetings and listened to my neighbors complain but had the same feeling you did - yes, it sucks, but they don't get to say how someone else's land is used if it meets the zoning restrictions. I recently moved to an area that is zoned for Ag and large residential (minimum 5 acre lots). I feel I should have a reasonable expectation that a development of hundreds of houses on postage stamp sized lots won't be approved next door. I've been watching the meeting minutes of the zoning commission in my new town and I've seen several instances of variances getting approved for subdivisions in areas zoned Ag. That's not right.

 

[EscapedSuburbia]

You are lucky. A lot of (woke) city governments these days are passing ordinances requiring new developments like that to be multi-family, high density and Section 8 housing because they hate people living in single family housing in suburban areas.

It's not "woke", it's greed. I just moved from one extremely conservative town to another and both are encouraging or allowing this kind of unchecked development.

 

[riptides]

Not picking sides, but from the county's point of view, look at the difference in tax revenue before and after the development. I believe the phrase used is " highest and best use of the land". Their decision has very little to do with existing neighbor's feelings.

LOL.

We hear something like that a lot. BLANK will add xxx dollars to the counties revenue stream.

And yet after development our property taxes continue to climb.

 

[WinterDeere]

And yet after development our property taxes continue to climb.

... which also adds to the county's revenue stream.

 

[riptides]

... which also adds to the county's revenue stream.

Unfortunate we are at a point in my county where some farmers and long timers can no longer afford their own property.

There is a huge uproar about a generational farmer that has sold his property to a data center developer. He also sits on the county BOS.

Another approach for the OP @BravoXray may be to enter discussions with the developer for his property. Use could be greenspace? Park? Fire station? Additional housing developments?

We have seen in this area property owners trying to sell their property that abuts future developments.

 

[workinonit]

All these weekend hobby farmers have to move somewhere.

 

[Runner]

I guess the only sure-fire cure is to own property large enough that it doesn't matter what goes on around you.

 

[Oaktree]

It's not "woke", it's greed. I just moved from one extremely conservative town to another and both are encouraging or allowing this kind of unchecked development.

How is it greed? People have to live somewhere, and much of the country is experiencing a housing shortage. Old, defunct farms have been parceled out to build housing on for a very long time.
While I sympathize with the OP, what he states ls little more than NIMBYism.

 

[scootr]

I've been watching it here too. 25 yrs ago we moved to a farming community. Today we live in a housing community with shrinking farm land. We have a buffer zone between us and the houses but the real problem is too many people, cars, and the crime they brought with them. If it truly effects your quality of life it may be time to sell.