An acre for an acre: Farmland preservation measure upheld

Before the real estate bust, tract houses were a booming crop in California's farm belt. Parts of the Central Valley were turning into a bedroom community for the Bay Area.

So three years ago, Stanislaus County, which has a $1-billion farm economy, adopted a measure requiring large-scale residential builders to protect an acre of farmland for every one they developed.

This week a panel of the Fifth Appellate District of the state appeals court upheld the provision, overturning a lower court ruling in a decision that could set legal precedent. 

“I think there has been some legal uncertainty about how to design a program, and I expect this decision will go a long way in resolving that uncertainty,” said attorney Matthew Zinn, who represented the county.

The provision, which was put on hold by a lawsuit filed by the Building Industry Assn. of Central California, gives developers of fewer than 20 acres the option of paying a mitigation fee or buying mitigation credits.

But the county wants builders bulldozing more than that to acquire farmland conservation easements for an equivalent amount of land. 

About 10 California counties and cities have adopted some version of farmland protections, Zinn said. A number of conservation groups filed briefs in the case, concerned about the broader implications of the Superior Court decision against the county.

"The Court of Appeal recognized the county's right to protect farmland as part of its well-established authority to regulate land use," Zinn said.
 
The building association challenged the requirement on various legal grounds.

"Basically the county has set itself up as a land broker and set the price," said attorney Dave Lanferman, who represented the builders. "Public agencies shouldn't just pick a number: Give us an acre.”

--Bettina Boxall

Comments

[Billionaire by 2018]

"Basically the county has set itself up as a land broker and set the price," said attorney Dave Lanferman, who represented the builders. "Public agencies shouldn't just pick a number: Give us an acre.”

[Chris VerPlanck]

Hey John Jason Chun, you don't exactly sound very bright or respectful. What are you even ranting about? And why is it that all you wingnuts spell "loser" "looser?" Sounds like, in your case anyway, the pot calling the kettle black.

[save the deserts!]

Hopefully this doesn't include selenium-soaked wastelands and other poisoned/destroyed ag lands? A lot of farmers and ranchers have behaved totally irresponsibly and have ruined the chances of their land ever growing anything edible again. Those are the only sites where Big Solar should even be considered (and even then, only as a last resort, after the built environment is full of panels).

[Salam Tims]

According to many environmental scientists, climatologists, and geologists, much of the Central Valley water supply is going to go the way of New Orleans/Hurrican Katrina because much of the farmland is below sea level and the dikes and levees that support it are highly vulnerable to rising sea levels and or earthquakes. Isn't this a little bit like setting aside special seating areas on the Titanic?

[www.johnjasonchun.com]

This is WTF Stupid! I have bought and sold over 20,000 acres as a 1 man shop! 1976 started in real estate and over 600 transactions. 114 court cases. 68 countries visited and researched. 5 passports filled. DHS special ID#! WTF is wrong with these dumb planners? They are so "dumb & stupid". They think like 3rd world country govt. employees. This is the USA! Not some 3rd world country! I read 100 books a year and 25,000 business, economics, law, finance and research web pages a year! PER YEAR! Their brains are like high school kids trying to "learn" with other people's money! POS looser Govt. employees!