Several years ago, I got involved with trying to prevent or at least modify a proposed rural Huxley subdivision. The subdivision proposal was originally presented to Story County, but was not enthusiastically received. That's because the proposal didn't fit the county development plan, which includes attention to sustainability and environmental issues. The county was especially concerned because the subdivision would be built on a former pasture that was an open-woodland/prairie area.
The proposal was basically large-lot scattered houses, the kind of subdivision that is often described as "rural sprawl." The county suggested alternatives that would have protected at least part of the woodland, including clustered housing. But the developer was not interested. It seemed fairly clear that if the proposal came to a county vote, the county would say "no."
So instead, the land was annexed by the City of Huxley. And the development went forward. It was painful to see the blooming mayapples and sweet William and other wildflowers getting bulldozed. A friend and I had attended several Huxley meetings and spoken out, but our concerns did not seem to matter, and the developer got pretty much what he wanted from the city.
I was not surprised to drive by later and see that the development site looked like it had soil erosion and water problems. Later, I heard that the developer got a warning letter from the Iowa DNR.
I don't live in Huxley. My friend and I just cared about that woodland. My point is that development does not just fall from the sky and land on the ground. It is a direct result of public policies. Iowans who care about what happens to their local landscapes do have some power.
City councils are elected. Local citizens can find out, before voting, whether local candidates care about conservation. Local citizens can watch for development proposals and come to city meetings and provide input. Local citizens can ask their city councils for good city planning that is based on good up-to-date land-use principles.
Of course I am concerned about farmland loss. But I am more concerned about losing Iowa's last natural areas. Iowa has already lost more of its original natural landscape than any other state.
Local Iowa governments have a lot of power over what happens to the land under their control From what I saw at those city meetings, or more accurately, what I didn't see, most Huxley residents were fine with what happened to that woodland. That was certainly their right, just as the city officials acted entirely within their rights and according to what they thought best.
And that is a reason why some Iowa citizens, tired of natural-area destruction and prime farmland loss, are actively working for better state and local land use policies. And it is also a major reason why more and more Iowa landowners, myself included, are using conservation easements to provide permanent legal protection for our land. We will die, but our land will stay protected. That is a very good feeling.
Several years ago, I got involved with trying to prevent or at least modify a proposed rural Huxley subdivision. The subdivision proposal was originally presented to Story County, but was not enthusiastically received. That's because the proposal didn't fit the county development plan, which includes attention to sustainability and environmental issues. The county was especially concerned because the subdivision would be built on a former pasture that was an open-woodland/prairie area.
The proposal was basically large-lot scattered houses, the kind of subdivision that is often described as "rural sprawl." The county suggested alternatives that would have protected at least part of the woodland, including clustered housing. But the developer was not interested. It seemed fairly clear that if the proposal came to a county vote, the county would say "no."
So instead, the land was annexed by the City of Huxley. And the development went forward. It was painful to see the blooming mayapples and sweet William and other wildflowers getting bulldozed. A friend and I had attended several Huxley meetings and spoken out, but our concerns did not seem to matter, and the developer got pretty much what he wanted from the city.
I was not surprised to drive by later and see that the development site looked like it had soil erosion and water problems. Later, I heard that the developer got a warning letter from the Iowa DNR.
I don't live in Huxley. My friend and I just cared about that woodland. My point is that development does not just fall from the sky and land on the ground. It is a direct result of public policies. Iowans who care about what happens to their local landscapes do have some power.
City councils are elected. Local citizens can find out, before voting, whether local candidates care about conservation. Local citizens can watch for development proposals and come to city meetings and provide input. Local citizens can ask their city councils for good city planning that is based on good up-to-date land-use principles.
Of course I am concerned about farmland loss. But I am more concerned about losing Iowa's last natural areas. Iowa has already lost more of its original natural landscape than any other state.
Local Iowa governments have a lot of power over what happens to the land under their control From what I saw at those city meetings, or more accurately, what I didn't see, most Huxley residents were fine with what happened to that woodland. That was certainly their right, just as the city officials acted entirely within their rights and according to what they thought best.
And that is a reason why some Iowa citizens, tired of natural-area destruction and prime farmland loss, are actively working for better state and local land use policies. And it is also a major reason why more and more Iowa landowners, myself included, are using conservation easements to provide permanent legal protection for our land. We will die, but our land will stay protected. That is a very good feeling.
Thanks for this glimpse into 'progress.'