2010 a strong year for land preservation programs in Washtenaw County, 1,604 acres protected
Land preservation programs in Washtenaw County protected an additional 1,604 acres of farmland, natural areas and open spaces in 2010, local officials said today.
Officials give credit to a number of local preservation millages — including those that fund Ann Arbor's Greenbelt Program, the Washtenaw County Natural Areas Preservation Program, and programs in Ann Arbor, Scio and Webster townships — as well as efforts of the local Legacy Land Conservancy, formerly the Washtenaw Land Trust.
Partnerships
Administrators of Ann Arbor's Greenbelt Program said the key to success has been the willingness of land protection organizations to work collaboratively. For example, collective efforts of the Greenbelt Program, Webster Township and the Legacy Land Conservancy led to more than 1,300 acres of farmland and open space being protected in Webster Township.
The city of Ann Arbor's Greenbelt Program purchased the development rights to this 286 acres of farmland owned by Bill Nixon of Webster Township for $2.14 million.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
Ann Arbor Township and the city of Ann Arbor also collaborated to protect the Charles and Catherine Braun farm, a high priority due to its prime farmland soils and scenic views along Whitmore Lake and Joy Roads. Five years ago, the property was planned to be developed with hundreds of manufactured houses and an onsite wastewater treatment plant.
Officials said the treatment plant would have discharged just upstream of the city's water intake site that supplies 85 percent of the city’s drinking water.
Farmland Preservation and Leveraging Federal Funding
Local programs with a focus on farmland preservation leveraged almost $4 million from the Federal Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program to protect more than 1,100 acres. FRPP provides matching funds to keep farmland in agricultural use.
An additional 161 acres of farmland was protected through local millages, landowner donations and local land conservancies. Officials cited four examples:
- Five farms protected by the Greenbelt Program, totaling 610 acres. The projects include $1.7 million from local partners and $1.9 million from FRPP grants.
- Three farms protected by Ann Arbor Township, totaling 345 acres. In combination with two Greenbelt projects completed in the township, there are currently more than 1,000 acres of protected farmland in the township, halfway to the goal of 2,000 acres.
- Three farms protected by Webster Township, totaling 160 acres, one of which is adjacent to two previously-protected properties. The other two projects are nearby and are starting a new block of protected land along the scenic Mast Road.
- One project completed by Scio Township, totaling 50 acres. The property also features a wetland treasured by local birders.
Natural Area Preservation
Washtenaw County’s NAP Program completed five purchases, adding 277 acres to the nature preserves managed by the county's Parks and Recreation Commission. The purchases include additions to existing preserves and establishing two new preserves.
- The Brauer Preserve, located in Freedom Township, was expanded by 39 acres and now totals more than 225 acres.
- The Goodrich Preserve, located in Ann Arbor Township, was expanded by eight acres and now includes more than 36 acres. The preserve is connected via trails to Horner-McLaughlin Woods, a 96-acre property owned by the University of Michigan.
- In Superior Township, 44 acres were added to the Meyer Preserve. The newly expanded preserve, now totaling more than 180 acres, is a recognized destination for birding. The wooded portion of the recent purchase includes a plant type classified as "threatened” by the state of Michigan. The preserve is located within an area known as the Superior Greenway, a joint project of the of the Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy, city of Ann Arbor, Superior Township and Washtenaw County Parks and Recreation Commission.
- The Clarke & Avis Spike Preserve was established in Sharon Township through the purchase of 103 acres from the Spike property. The property is adjacent to the Grass Lake Sanctuary. It will be available for public access once trails and an access point have been developed.
- The Sharon Short Hills Preserve was established through the purchase of an 84-acre property in Sharon Township. Exhibiting steep topography, which is the source of its name, the preserve will be available for public access once trails and an access point have been developed.
With the completion of these purchases, the NAP Program has established 19 nature preserves in Washtenaw County, totaling more than 2,000 acres.
Comments
John Q
Sun, Jan 16, 2011 : 9:46 p.m.
"MANUFACTURED HOMES? Oh my god! We need to save the world from affordable housing and use tax dollars to accomplish it? The City of Ann Arbor has only paid lip service to affordable housing. This is just further evidence." The property isn't located in the city, it's in Ann Arbor Township. The Township doesn't have the tax base or the infrastructure to support the demands that would have come with a development that size. It was clearly an example of "stupid" development and would have had negative impacts in so many different ways. This was pretty obvious to anyone who was actually paying attention at the time.
John B.
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 4:13 p.m.
I think Speechless' previous comments are appropriate here: "The 'purpose' in question is called prevention being proactive. When past housing booms were in progress, sprawl speculators inevitably moved into rural areas previously assumed too distant for suburban-style development. This might begin as exurban development, where small islands of suburban construction pop up amid a sea of farmland. The city's greenbelt program, for example, is a voter-approved, 30-year initiative that gradually purchases development rights for open space properties. The program's full effect won't be apparent for another 20-25 years."
Mike58
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 1:53 p.m.
By reducing development it keeps the property values around Ann Arbor artificially high. As a property owner in Ann Arbor this millage has been well worth it for me personally.
Arboriginal
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 11:44 a.m.
If this land is to be protected forever then the Mayor & Council should give their right to sell parkland without voter approval.
DBlaine
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 11:25 a.m.
I really don't support buying up open space. That's socialism! I'd rather live in a world where the only species are corn and cockroaches. I can watch nature all day on my big screen teevee!
John Q
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 10:33 a.m.
The City and Townships are following a very clear plan for acquiring development rights. One of the primary goals is to create blocks of at least 1000 acres of properties that are covered by development rights. It is felt that this size is the minimum necessary to ensure that farming can continue in an area even if development encroaches into the surrounding areas. This has been the method used by other successful PDR programs. To the point of acquiring flood plain properties in the city limits, a portion of the greenbelt millage is dedicated to acquiring park and nature properties within the city so there's already resources available to do that when the opportunities arise.
Speechless
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 10:13 a.m.
"... There needs to be a clear plan to purchase these rights and each purchase should attempt to adjoin one or more boundaries of a prior purchase...." Yes, this is a stated priority of the greenbelt program. From an earlier report in November covering city council approval for recent greenbelt spending: "All of these purchases are contiguous to other preserved land, and that's been a strategic goal of the greenbelt," said Council Member Carsten Hohnke, D-5th Ward, who also serves on the city's Greenbelt Advisory Commission...." ------------ "... Leaving islands of land that can be developed will lead to the very thing you decry...." The greenbelt program does what its budget allows, but it can't begin to buy up development rights for the entire outlying county. Trying to preserve as much rural character as politically possible is far better than doing nothing at all. In the worst case scenario, sizeable pockets of open space will still remain after a region of farmland gets paved over by various developers.
Dog Guy
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 9:56 a.m.
At the threat of home confiscation, I pay tax money diverted to private individuals for green smoke, mist, and shadow. Other people have had their homes stolen by the level of transference taxation. This is legal, but not right.
soggy waffle
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 9:22 a.m.
They should use this money to buy property inside the floodplain within the city. We are do a 100 year flood sooner or later. We could use it to protect the city, and run a great trail system along the rest of the river, connecting the entire community to itself. I like the idea of protecting farmland, but buying pieces of property one at a time will just create hopscotch development, it wont stop sprawl. There are better ways to do that, controversial as they are. Anyways, my thought is that housing preferences are changing, and big houses on open, untreed lots aren't nearly as sexy as they used to be.
mrmoose
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 8:44 a.m.
I will gladly sell the rights on my 40 acres
Vivienne Armentrout
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 6:11 a.m.
Several years ago, the notion that properties with a conservation easement (protected against development as a matter of title) should receive a lower tax valuation was rejected. I have not investigated this matter lately, but I suspect that it is still true. Many of the protected agricultural lands at one time were participants in a separate program from the state, P.A. 116. This complicated the picture since those lands could be argued not to be available for development. Here is a nice summary of current programs from a non-Ann Arbor-centric perspective: http://www.washtenawcd.org/az/farmlandpres.php Congratulations to all the organizations named in the story. You are serving the future. And thanks to the voters of Washtenaw County for renewing the NAP millage this last fall, in a difficult economic period.
snapshot
Sat, Jan 15, 2011 : 12:39 a.m.
I agree with DonBee except for the corn powering vehicle comment but would like to add that I am skeptical about the prices paid for these rights being a "bargain". The cost seems exceptionally high to me and I would ask how the purchase price was negotiated and what kind of "competative" data was used. My concern is that this is not a taxpayer supported get rich quick scheme for large property owners in the good old boy tradition.
DonBee
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 11:15 p.m.
@Speechless - If the people buying these rights don't pay attention,they will create islands of development surrounded by open spaces. There needs to be a clear plan to purchase these rights and each purchase should attempt to adjoin one or more boundaries of a prior purchase. Leaving islands of land that can be developed will lead to the very thing you decry. Not only that, but the islands will be much more valuable, because no one will ever build in your back yard and spoil your view. The program may very well create spaces for McMansions and lure people with income out of the existing communities. I have seen some broad brush plans, but nothing that looks like a program that is both strategic in nature and has the right tactics. I am all in favor of keeping farm land farm land, we will need the corn for powering our cars and heating our homes. (-:
Speechless
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 9:35 p.m.
"... A program to stop non-existent development. A program in search of a purpose...." The 'purpose' in question is called prevention — being proactive. When past housing booms were in progress, sprawl speculators inevitably moved into rural areas previously assumed too distant for suburban-style development. This might begin as exurban development, where small islands of suburban construction pop up amid a sea of farmland. The city's greenbelt program, for example, is a voter-approved, 30-year initiative that gradually purchases development rights for open space properties. The program's full effect won't be apparent for another 20-25 years.
John Q
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 7:57 p.m.
The focus on whether Farm X or Y or Z pays more or less in property taxes due to the purchase of development rights is missing the point. One of the benefits of preserving farmland is that it avoids the kind of sprawl development that drives up taxes for everyone. There's a clear connection between the amount of development in a community and the total tax rate. More residents and businesses means more local services which requires higher taxes. This is especially true in sprawling areas. Keeping development concentrated in urban areas reduces the need to provide urban services in rural and agricultural areas and helps keep the tax rates low in those areas where farming is still active.
John B.
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 5:55 p.m.
c7: Show us one documented incident of either of those things happening. (Hint: there aren't any).
cinnabar7071
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 5:43 p.m.
"if ownership is less than five or so years) property tax receipts could go down." It's also likely the taxes will increase on nearby property.
John B.
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 5:39 p.m.
Just one example (if you had actually read the article): "Ann Arbor Township and the city of Ann Arbor also collaborated to protect the Charles and Catherine Braun farm, a high priority due to its prime farmland soils and scenic views along Whitmore Lake and Joy Roads. Five years ago, the property was planned to be developed with hundreds of manufactured houses and an onsite wastewater treatment plant. Officials said the treatment plant would have discharged just upstream of the city's water intake site that supplies 85 percent of the citys drinking water." Sounds worthwhile to me.
John B.
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 5:33 p.m.
TC: A majority of local voters didn't share your opinion when this program was instituted, I guess.... Besides, those aliens that some folks worry about need large open spaces for landing areas! I guess they *could* land on Tom Monaghan's helipad in Barton Hills, though....
ScioReader
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 5:27 p.m.
Non-existant development? You must have a very short memory. This is indeed the time to buy - when property values are down and the taxpapers get the biggest bang for the buck. We have protected way more acreage in today's market then we could have 10 years ago when we were actively competing with developers. And when the markets do turn around, the land that is not protected will shoot up in value, making for an even larger taxable base when these lands are sold. Its a win-win as far as I can see. And that doesn't even include the win for wildlife and the natural beauty of our area. And I know what I'm talking about. I grew up in NJ. Its now nothing but suburb from NYC to Phila. Pretty depressing loss of farmland in central NJ. Glad that's not going to happen here due to the forward thinking planners of our region.
Top Cat
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 4:56 p.m.
A program to stop non-existant development. A program in search of a purpose in 2011. A complete waste of money and an easy target when next up on the ballot.
Bob Martel
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 4:30 p.m.
Ryan, Your comments are correct as far as they go. However, to the extent that the PDR results in a decrease in the property's taxable value (highly unlikely the case of farmland that has been under the same ownership for ten years or more, but possible nonetheless especially if ownership is less than five or so years) property tax receipts could go down. However, I do not believe that this has occurred yet with any PDR in Wasthenaw County.
Ryan J. Stanton
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 4:09 p.m.
A purchase of development rights by a program such as the Greenbelt does not take the land off of the tax rolls. It remains in private ownership and the landowner continues to pay property taxes. The land just can't be developed on. That's the protection.
RTFM
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 4:01 p.m.
Protected from what? Weather, alien invasion, property taxation, or how about man made disaster.
Val
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 3:34 p.m.
1,604 acres of land taken off of the tax rolls. Who will make up the short fall now that several million dollars in tax revenue have been lost? This is why I continue to vote against millages because each time land/property is taken from the tax rolls the rest of us have to make up the difference in higher taxes. Property taxes should be done away with since they do not reflect the abiltiy to pay them based on the value of your property. I wonder how many homes would not have been foreclosed on if there was no property tax but an income tax? An income tax is based on people earning money that can be taxed. Ownership, I use the term losely since we do not own our homes, does not mean that one can pay their property tax if one is out of a job due to our economy. I want total ownership of my home so no government agency can take it for property taxes owed.
ScioReader
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 3:20 p.m.
Your tax dollars at work - wisely. Keeping voting for those millages!
Killroy
Fri, Jan 14, 2011 : 2:57 p.m.
Congratulations on all your hard work!