Planning for the future
A long time ago as a high school debater, I learned there are two sides to every issue.
Listening to Marion County Commissioners debate various points of the county's comprehensive plan for growth, I find myself saying 'that's a good point' to just about everything that is said — even when the statements are on totally opposite sides of a particular issue.
For instance, one statement that's been made — simplified here — is that city people wanting to move to the country don't want 40 acres. Most likely, they would want somewhere between 2 and 5 acres. It's also been said most don't want to live on prime farm ground, but would be happy with pasture land or other areas that are not easily farmed.
I tend to believe that is true. Basically, because if I were to move into the country I'd be more interested in living on a hill with a scenic view where I could see in all four directions, as opposed to living in a (fertile) valley.
On the other hand, the statement was made that there are plenty of examples of places where prime farmland has been sold and taken out of production when someone put a house on it.
Well, yes, I can believe that too. As my father said, "If someone likes the location as a place to build their dream home, it doesn't matter to them if it's prime cropland or not."
I also can believe the statement that allowing lots smaller than 40 acres would enhance economic development. With the lake, reservoir, and all its other scenic vistas, Marion County is an attractive place for many to build their dream homes.
We've been told there are people currently living in areas of Sedgwick County who would happily commute from Marion County if they could have two or three acres in the country. What's wrong with using Sedgwick County paychecks to pay Marion County property taxes?
I understand the 40 acre requirement is designed to keep Marion County primarily an agriculture-based county. But in decades with extended periods of drought is that necessarily such a good thing? Believe me, there are many places out in western Kansas where they would happily sell off some farm land to someone willing to build a $125,000 home on it. It's times like these when diversification is more important than ever.
Even though the debates on the county's comprehensive plan are not always pretty it's important that the needs of agriculture be weighed with the needs of future development.
After all, the decisions made now will effect generations to come.
— KATHY HAGEMAN
