Going 'down under' to save the Lorax
April 22, 2010
Every Earth Day I remember what happened to the Lorax. This year, your local stable may be the Lorax.
For those who are just joining us, the big issue: Regulation of how horse boarding stables use their land. The problem: High-dollar growth, and the fact that Larimer County left horse operations alone for 20 years.
Requirements: Avoid over-regulation, save taxpayers money, keep it simple, encourage business. One more requirement: Promote peaceful coexistence between neighbors and agriculture as growth inevitably entwines the two. The solution: Australia.
HorsesLandAndWater.com, an Australian land-use website, has already invented the proverbial wheel, and much of it includes work very similar to that of Larimer County’s working group. Part of HorsesLandAndWater.com’s resources includes a flexible action plan/checklist that could be employed if somebody complains.
I say if somebody complains, because that old complaint system worked pretty well in Larimer County over the years. Well, OK, except for the fact that it was anonymous, allowed for revenge, entangled county staff in the feuds of a few, included no fees, and included no concrete material on which to evaluate a complaint. Then again, nobody cared because there weren’t that many complaints.
The solution: Instead of a new chapter of costly land use code, let’s invoke a fee-based system in which the plaintiff comes in, complains, and plunks down earnest money -- a sliding-scale fee (more for developers, less for single households) -- and fills out a checklist by way of documentation. The horse property owner, not just stables, targeted by the complaint responds by filling out the same checklist.
If there is a discrepancy between lists, or the property owner fails to respond, a fee is levied against the horse property owner to finance a county visitation or an outside expert’s evaluation. If there is a problem, the property owner fixes it. Much of this checklist could be applied to other rural uses, which I suspect will be next on the chopping block.
Incidentally, Australia’s “checklist” is much more: HorsesLandAndWater.com offers in-depth resources for best management on more than one property type, detailed action plans, and a wealth of other land-use treasures.
Meanwhile, as growth trumps agriculture (Larimer County probably couldn’t even feed itself if it had to), let developments pay for mandatory greenbelts that ease the inevitable friction between a suburb and a farm, including horse properties. Typically, the farm/horse property was here first anyway, and deserves protection, at least until the current property-owner-family dies out or gives up due to property taxes. When the farm gets sold for development, some nice, pre-existing green space will make the next suburb more livable.
Based on the historical number of complaints, this plan will create little extra work for county staff, eliminate costly approval processes, keep enforcement simple, save taxpayers money, protect the land, and avoid adding another inch or two of code to the gigantic, obtuse book that already exists.
More on historical complaints: Over the years a laissez-faire approach to overseeing stables’ land use worked pretty well, since few complained, and stables did a good job. The “anonymous” part of the complaint system was scary, but Larimer County’s legal beagles have since declared anonymity inappropriate.
What Larimer County has proposed so far by way of stable land use does not even address the targets of the 20-or-so complaints over three years, mostly private horse owners.
Worse, the county will need an army of expensive staff to enforce the many pages of proposed new regulations, and only large, 80-or-more-horse facilities will generate enough revenue to finance the approval process and associated improvement costs.
Meanwhile, smaller pre-existing horse stables making up the pastoral backdrop that everybody loves, and which fed the economy’s service industry for decades, will quietly go the way of the Lorax.
Planning commissioners, appointed volunteers who have an advisory vote, are scheduled to hear the county proposal 6:30 p.m., April 28, in the county courthouse offices building, 1st Floor, Hearing Room. County commissioners, elected officials who have the final say, plan a vote in May.
Give your feedback to: the working group; county staff; planning commissioners; county commissioners.
Denver Post: Stables whinny at Larimer oversight