We all have heard the statistics about growth and the amount of construction that will take place over the coming decades. Greenfield development will continue to dominant the marketplace. We need new tools to manage this growth.
Picture this: A group of landowners in your county comes to you. They have assembled concensus to unify planning for conservation and development of their parcels. Using ecological-based planning and market data, they have determined that their parcels should all be planned and developed as a single unit. Their thinking is that they can protect natural resources better and make more money by avoiding peicemeal development. Depending on where you are in the country, they may have assembled a few hundred acres or tens of thousands; size is determined by place-specific economic and ecological analysis.
Working with appropriate conservation organizations, they have decided they will permenantly protect resources that cross multiple parcels and would like to form a business to work with you to manage development in the remaining areas.
What do you do? Will you work with them? Or would you rather tell them the existing comprehensive plan is sacrosanct and deal with each of them as the pursue their own interests?
I ask because I believe there is a better way to manage growth in greenfield areas and I want your input. Thanks.
After reading initial responses, I'd like to add one more question. What would you do to encourage this kind of activity? What Kennecott is doing is great, but it's a single landholding. PUD's are excellent tools as well, but has anyone ever seen one over 10,000 or 30,000 acres? What I see is the next step beyond Chattahoochee Hill Country, where instead of simply creating a plan and designing zoning around it, property owners actually assign their development rights to a business that implements the plan.