Somewhere in the middle

We're all for keeping Orange County rural. We've said in this space dozens of times that we support smart growth--the right projects in the right places. Capitalize on our existing infrastructure, while protecting our resources. That means we encourage and desire growth-in the right places and at the right pace.

While the Orange County Planning Commission was preparing for last week's public hearing on a supervisor-proposed subdivision ordinance change, the supervisors were busy coming up with a new proposal to consider.

The county adopted the current land division portion of the subdivision ordinance in 2008, as a way of controlling growth in the agricultural regions. That provision limits the division of parcels to once every four years. The proposed amendment to that ordinance, which was the subject of Thursday's public hearing, would scrap the timed phasing element and limit parcels to five total divisions. At its last meeting the supervisors released a plan that, instead of limiting agriculturally zoned parcels to five divisions, parcels could be subdivided once per year.

Are they just firing until they hit something?

Given the disparity of the two proposals, the supervisors almost seem to be holding information-gathering meetings rather than public hearings. Absent a definitively stated goal, the board may be content to see which way the wind blows.

That direction will be pretty easy to guess.

Those against the capped-at-five-divisions-proposal will claim their land has been devalued and that the county has compromised their financial futures by limiting how they can use their land. They'll say their rights as property owners are in jeopardy.

Those in favor of the same proposal will suggest it's a responsible measure needed to stem growth beyond the county's ability to support infrastructure and services. They'll also contend it protects the county's rural nature and heritage.

And both will be right, of course.

It’s hard to say which has been a more effective deterrent to growth:  the current ordinance (adopted in 2008, that limits the division of parcels to once every four years) or simply the lagging economy.

The one-division-per-year-proposal scares us a little bit. While we respect property rights and seek a reasonable compromise between growth and protecting the rural nature of the county, this would seem to set the county up for growth beyond what it could support (once the economy rebounds, that is.)

Our guess is, the ultimate ordinance lies somewhere in the middle. And perhaps our supervisors are simply playing things politically safely by starting with either end of the spectrum before working their way toward a solution somewhere in between. 

Either way, it’s critical we participate in the process. Whether we own land or not, our futures in the county are directly linked to land use--either ours or our neighbors.’ All of them affect each other. We all pay taxes, all use services and all share common interests in the well-being of our community. What’s good for some isn’t always good for all. We need to help our supervisors determine that balance.