I come now to praise Republicans… or a Republican, as the case may be.
There’s a piece online now at LOL about how the county commissioners just OK’d dedicating $4.13 million to farmland preservation this year. Of that total, $3.85 million will have to be borrowed.
The vote was 2-1, with GOP chairman Scott Martin dissenting.
“I just can’t see how we can continue to borrow money and do things at this pace,” he said. “We have to lay down a marker and say in order for the program to be sustainable moving forward we absolutely have to find an alternate revenue source.”
That’s a good call by Martin. The amount of money spent on preservation here has dropped in recent years, for obvious reasons. But that the county’s going to go further into debt – in the face of a bond rating downgrade late last year – in order to fund preservation at this particular moment in time is insane.
Of course, in a still largely agricultural community like this one, few are going to come out and say this. Ag preservation has become something of a sacred cow around here. Because we want to preserve our agricultural heritage and ensure that farming remains viable! And we do.
But there are two aspects of farm preservation which I have a problem with. The first is the reality that preservation money often goes to some of the wealthiest people in this community.
In late December was a story about how Charlie Smithgall’s 243.5-acre Drumore Township farm has been enrolled in ag preservation.
Smithgall, and his wife, Debbie, are slated to be paid $328,738 by the county for the development rights to the property.
That’s half what the rights are worth, according to Matt Knepper, director of the county’s Agricultural Preserve Board.
What a bargain!
Except, you know, Charlie Smithgall is a pretty wealthy guy. He’s got warehouses full of these Civil War-era cannons – I’ve been inside one of those warehouses – and the stuff must have cost a mint.
Great guy and all, personable, always good for a pithy quote. But he’s not exactly hurting for money, let’s say.
And we’re giving him a third of a million dollars simply not to develop his farm.
I just don’t see where that’s a legitimate expenditure of taxpayer dollars – or, even worse, borrowed dollars.
But what if some developer came along and offered to buy the farm and it was lost forever?? That brings us to the second reason I’m dubious of farm preservation, at least as we practice it right now.
Development pressures in Lancaster County have probably never been lower than they are right now, at least not in several decades. Very, very few developers are pitching new neighborhoods; very few homebuilders in particular are doing much of anything right now.
In this economic environment, where dramatically less development is taking place, it stands to reason that the county could dramatically scale back what it spends on farmland preservation, until the economy picks up, and building follows.
And under no circumstances should the county be borrowing money right now to pay for farmland preservation.
Proponents say – hey, now’s the time to be preserving farms, we can get ‘em before the developers do, and at lower cost. Maybe – because guys like Smithgall aren’t exactly fielding boatloads of offers right now, are they?
If and when the economy picks up again, and if and when those familiar old development pressures return to Lancaster County, then – once tax revenues pick up, presuming they do – then it’s wholly appropriate to go full throttle on preservation. But right now the county has neither the money, nor the pressing need. We’ve eased up on the throttle; we might ease up even more.
