Saving the Land

Serious as it has become, the problem of air and water pollution is not beyond solution. Technology and hard work can still correct man's careless mistakes. But the damage that is done when unspoiled land is paved over or poorly developed may well be irreversible. That message is finally being heeded by state legislatures across the U.S.

Last year, for example, Colorado acted to prevent overbuilding on its slopes, and California declared a moratorium on all development within 1,000 ft. of its entire Pacific coastline. Now two more states have just taken bold steps to save their land.

In New York last week the legislature overwhelmingly passed a bill to control land use on 3,700,000 acres of magnificent Adirondack valleys, lakes and mountains. Together with 2,300,000 acres already owned and protected by the state, the entire parcel forms what is in effect the biggest park in the U.S.--twice the size of Yellowstone and slightly larger than Delaware and New Jersey combined.

The park scheme dates back to 1968, when Governor Nelson Rockefeller ordered a land-use study of the area. The study established that state-owned parcels were scattered in a crazy-quilt pattern among thousands of individual private property holdings. It turned out that about 80 of the 89 towns in the region lacked zoning rules and thus had no defense against helter-skelter development.

To stave off potential chaos, the state legislature created the Adirondack Park Agency, which last year prepared a preliminary land-use plan. All the private lands in the park area were classified under six categories, and density limits for development were fixed for four of them; in general, future growth will be allowed mainly around existing towns. These designations were based on a detailed inventory of such environmental factors as soil, slopes, water resources, wildlife and the potential for sewage disposal. The plan transcended simple zoning; it was in fact the most ambitious attempt ever to make development compatible with nature.

Few of the region's 123,000 year-round residents were impressed. With a per capita income that ranges from $500 to $1,500 less than the state average, and an unemployment rate that can reach 25% in the winter, they felt that what the region needed most was the broadened economic base (new jobs, new tax revenues and higher land prices) that rapid development promises. At public hearings in January, the residents expressed their opposition. "You are going to preserve the Adirondacks' extreme poverty," charged David Fox, a property holder in Warren County. Added James Dudley, a landowner in Fort Kent: "The agency is an autocracy; it is not the American way."

Lately, tempers have been soothed as residents have become used to the park idea. "The plan is more restrictive than it needs to be," says Lake Placid Realtor John Wilkins. "But basically it is a good plan." Because of it, the largest remaining area of scenic wilderness east of the Mississippi has now been sensibly preserved and protected.

Vicious Cycle. Just across New York's Northeastern border, Vermont has learned the hard way that large subdivisions are scarcely an unmixed blessing. Indeed they can touch off a vicious cycle of poor land use. It usually begins with the yearning of city dwellers for a second home in unspoiled surroundings. When developers move in to meet the demand, land prices rise. In the past five years, for instance, the average value of a Vermont acre has jumped from $200 to $500; the price of land near many ski or lake resorts has quadrupled to $2,000 an acre. Property taxes have soared to pay for expanded public services. As a result, many Vermonters with low incomes have found that they can no longer afford to stay on their own land.

When he took office last January, Governor Thomas P. Salmon pledged to change all that. "Let us tell the developers and let us tell the rest of the country right here and now that Vermont is not for sale," he said. In response, the state legislature last month passed two new laws to control land development and speculation. One, which is unprecedented, links real estate taxes--previously determined by the assessed value of land--directly to landowners' incomes.

The amount of such tax varies from no more than 4% of annual income (for families earning less than $4,000 a year) to 6% (for families who make more than $16,000 a year). The measure will give tax relief to about one-third of Vermont's 155,000 households this year, enabling poor and elderly Vermonters to remain on their land even when the selling price of surrounding acreage skyrockets.

In total, the property-tax reform will cut state income by about $10.8 million. But most of the deficit will be made up from federal revenue-sharing funds. The remainder should come from revenues brought in by a new capital gains tax on land sales. With this tax, Vermont hopes virtually to eliminate speculators who buy land only to sell it quickly at a big markup. The highest capital gains tax is a whopping 60%, to be paid by speculators who make more than 200% profit on land held less than a year. Lower capital gains rates vary with the amount of profit and the length of ownership. People who sell their land after six years, for example, will pay no capital gains tax at all.

Another new Vermont law requires developers to meet a long list of environmental requirements before they can turn their first shovelful of dirt. For example, a subdivider who wants to build on a floodplain must now prove that his development will not imperil the health, safety and welfare of the public during a flood.

Developers are aghast. Their most frequent complaint is that the state government should not become so much involved in any individual's private business. But Vermont intends to go even farther; next year its legislators will consider an Adirondack-style plan to order and shape future development, and thus save the state's greatest resource: unspoiled land.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.