Peoria Journal Star: High on the Hogs

[Tweed]

http://www.pjstar.com/stories/030305/TRI_B5O5F48Q.028.shtml

Seventy-nine year-old Viola Presley says she and her family shouldn't have to change their lifestyle just because city dwellers moved next door to their rural Metamora property.

Her grandsons should be able to raise pigs, but village officials are acting like the big bad wolf, she contends.

"I want (the village) to leave me alone. This is driving me crazy," Presley said Wednesday, adding she feels like the village is harassing her over her family's eight hogs. "I'm just tired of them picking on me. I am 79 years old and a widow."

Presley and her son Gordon and daughter-in-law Karen, who live next door, have refused to sign an order agreeing to remove the hogs. So now, a Woodford County judge soon will decide whether to send the hogs packing."

[RiDuvessa]

1. Doesn't quite seem right.

Why should the woman have to change her way of life just because the village is expanding? The farm was there first.

This is something that is really annoying to me. Farmland that gets annexed by towns and villages, who then expect the farmers to move or completely change their way of life.

Urban sprawl is a real problem. I remember when Chicago and its suburbs didn't extend all the way down to I-80. When I-355 didn't exist and prime farmland extended all the way up past Bolingbrook. I can't blame the farmers for selling, because most of them made truckloads of money. But it's a shame to see all that farmland covered up with cheap motels, gas stations, fast food restaurants, and cheaply-built, high-priced, cookie-cutter housing.

[Critters2]

2. I agree

I had to travel to Aurora, from Ottawa, yesterday. I couldn't believe how far out the 'burbs extend. They'll be clear to Ottawa before long. And all that great, dark soil just covered with homes for people who already had perfectly good homes in the city. "Development" my ass.

[dcfirefighter]

3. seems like there should be a granfather (mother?) clause here.

It's almost impossible to fight sprawl, as each community acts 'selfishly', generally attempting to limit density, keep the riffraff out, and push the boundary of development further afield.

Even 'no-build' boundaries artificially raise prices within the built area, and keep people from owning their own homes.

IMO, the best tactic for curbing sprawl is to implement a split rate property tax in urban and suburban areas: higher on land and lower on buildings - encouraging building on urban sites while reducing pressure on rural sites.