Elobor acii>n presupuesto base

In terms of potential legal problems, there only appear to be two techniques, exclusive and large-lot zoning, that may run into problems. The rest of the techniques, at least presently, seem fairly safe from legal challenge. Equity problems are a completely different issue. Seven of the techniques have potential problems in this category. PDRs, TDRs, conservation easements, property tax policies, and agricultural districts are the only techniques that do well in this category. In terms of political feasibility, the results are much less distinct. Agricultural districts and property tax policies rank the best, exclusive agricultural zoning ranks the lowest, and the rest of the techniques fall in between. The techniques that had the best overall results for legal / equity / political issues are agricultural districts, property tax policies, conservation easements, PDRs, TDRs, and cluster zoning. Exclusive agricultural and large-lot zoning had the lowest overall results.

Matrix # 2 - Legal / Equity / Political Issues

Legal Equity Political Overall Rating

Zoning:

Exclusive Fair Poor Fair Poor - Fair

Large-Lot Fair - Good Poor - Fair Fair - Good Fair

Fixed-Area Good Fair Fair - Good Fair - Good

Slide-Scale Good Poor - Fair Good Fair - Good

Cluster Good Fair - Good Good Good

UGBs Good Fair Fair - Good Fair - Good

PDRs Excellent Good - Exc. Fair - Good Good - Exc.

TDRs Good Good - Exc. Fair - Good Good

Conservation Easements Excellent Excellent N/A Excellent

SMART Growth Good Fair Fair - Good Fair - Good

Property Tax Policies Excellent Excellent Good – Exc. Excellent Agricultural Districts Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent

Note: ratings were evaluated on a subjective basis relative to one another. The context for the ratings came from the discussion in the text.

Chapter 4 – Conclusions

Hopefully, the reader now appreciates the importance of equity issues and how they are interconnected with legal and political concerns. The next step is to use the overall rating for these three issues to compare against a particular technique's

effectiveness determined in chapter 2. In doing so, it is important to first conceptualize how the two different "ratings" for legal, equity, and political issues as well as the tool effectiveness would likely combine for an overall rating, or ultimate effectiveness. It was decided that the best way to determine this ultimate effectiveness was to take the lower of the two ratings for this final score. This was done because the lowest rating will be the limiting factor. To help illustrate this point consider the following: A particular technique may have the potential to be very effective at preserving farmland but if it cannot gather political support, or survive legal challenge, it will ineffective. Thus it will have a poor overall rating. Conversely, a technique that has a high rating for legal, equity, and political issues but is not effective at preserving farmland will still be ineffective. Therefore, I would argue that the lower of the two ratings will ultimately determine how successful a particular tool will be.

Matrix # 3 summarizes the results from the first two matrices and lists the overall rating for each technique. Again, this was done by simply taking the lower of the two ratings. When viewed in this manner, some interesting results emerge. All of the top three tools from the effectiveness section dropped in their overall rating. Exclusive agricultural zoning dropped significantly from "Good" to "Poor - Fair", UGBs dropped from "Good" to "Fair - Good", and TDRs declined slightly from "Good - Excellent" to "Good". The rest of the techniques either increased in rating or remained the same, although none of these tools overall rating was above "Fair - Good". In fact, the only overall rating above this level was for TDRs.

This is not to say that any of the other techniques will not do a good job at

preserving farmland in certain situations. Exclusive agricultural zoning, for instance, can do an excellent job a preserving farmland in the short run, but because of its susceptibility to political pressures it is unlikely to last long where development pressures are high. UGBs may prove moderately successful at preserving farmland for longer periods of time

but can be extremely difficult to set up as well as being susceptible to zoning changes. Fixed-area based zoning and slide-scale zoning may prove somewhat successful at preserving farmland where development pressures are low.

However, the other techniques, at least by themselves, will not preserve a significant amount of farmland. Agricultural districts and property tax policies will certainly help make farming more viable and possibly slightly more profitable, but their overall success at preserving farmland is highly questionable. PDRs and conservation easements can permanently protect small amounts of farmland but because of their voluntary nature and funding limitations, should not be used by themselves, at least for serious farmland preservation efforts.

Furthermore, to retain some semblance of control, these farmland preservation techniques were rated in isolation. In reality, of course, combinations of these techniques could be used. A mix that would seem to have a synergistic effect would be combining UGBs and TDRs. This approach would help mitigate weaknesses that these techniques experience in isolation. The two main weaknesses of UGBs, future protection of

farmland and equity issues, would be substantially improved by incorporating TDR into the program: Farmers outside the growth boundary would be compensated for a reduction in development rights by being able to transfer development rights into the UGB. Once these development rights are sold, the resulting conservation easement would provide permanent protection. One of the main weaknesses of TDR programs, its difficulty being implemented across political boundaries, would be less of a concern if incorporated into the UGB process. Other synergistic combinations are also possible. Cluster zoning, when used with other farmland preservation techniques, would likely result in a greater percentage of the land left over for agricultural production compared to the amount left over without cluster zoning. Smart Growth programs are yet unproven but may have potential at preserving farmland in conjunction with other techniques.

Ultimately, though, all of the farmland preservation techniques described are somewhat reactive. It was through researching and writing this paper that it became apparent that there lies an underlying problem that will likely continue to hamper farmland preservation efforts in this country. A problem that results from relying on an

neo-classical economics is that all costs and benefits are internalized into the market. In practice, however, this has not been the case. Farmers, in general, are not compensated for their provision of numerous social and environmental benefits as well as benefits to future generations. As a result, farmland is undervalued. I believe that until we can come up with a mechanism that will properly value these uncompensated benefits, or externalities, farmland will continue to be developed at a rate far in excess of what it would if all benefits were internalized.

Matrix # 3 - Overall Rating

Effectiveness Rating Legal, Equity, and Political Rating Overall Rating Zoning:

Exclusive Good Poor - Fair Poor - Fair

Large-Lot Fair Fair Fair

Fixed-Area Fair - Good Fair - Good Fair - Good

Slide-Scale Fair - Good Fair - Good Fair - Good

Cluster Fair Good Fair

UGBs Good Fair - Good Fair - Good

PDRs Fair Good - Exc. Fair

TDRs Good - Exc. Good Good

Conservation Easements Poor - Fair Excellent Poor - Fair

SMART Growth Poor - Fair Fair - Good Poor - Fair

Property Tax Policies Poor Excellent Poor

Agricultural Districts Fair Excellent Fair

Note: The overall rating was determined by taking the lowest rating for the two other sections. This was done because the lowest rating will be the limiting factor (i.e. An effective technique that cannot gather political support will have a poor overall rating. Conversely, a technique that has a high rating for legal, equity, and political score but is not effective will still be non-effective).