Taft Wireback’s front-page story in yesterday’s N&R on the controversy surrounding taxpayer subsidies for the Gerringer dairy farm is ground I had already covered. But on the whole it’s well-written and editorializes just a bit at the end:
Taxpayers would buy the Gerringers’ right to profit from their land for residential or commercial development, a ban that carries over to their heirs and to any future buyer.
…..Even if the commissioners change their vote, Gerringer’s conservation easement is not a done deal. It still would have to compete this summer for the required state matching money. Officials in Raleigh have received $29 million in requests.
Meanwhile, farmland is biting the dust, left and right, on the rural outskirts of Guilford and the state’s other rapidly urbanizing counties.
Just to liven up the situation a bit, I’ll throw in a comment from Guilford County Commissioner Steve Arnold during the the January meeting discussing the issue:
I cannot believe how outrageous this request is. Now, this board in the past has done outrageous things. We pick out the most sucessful most wealthy developers in this county and say ‘Please, take our money.’ That’s part of the outrageous things we do. But this case, I can’t imagine we’re going to establish a precedent by giving away hundreds of thousands of dollars to a business venture — a farm — where the county is not ending up with control over that ‘open space’ — so-called — that they’re buying.
Back to Wireback’s article, I also find it interesting that open space advocates thought that “conservation easements were generally well understood and unlikely to be controversial.” I guess they’re thinking twice now.
Bonus observation: I realize the proposed $20 million parks and rec bond set for the May ballot is more specific than the $10 million bond voters passed in 2004. The question is whether or not the undefined uses for the last bind will affect voter support for this bind. Kinda like the school bonds, ya know?
