Garber and Robertson: Frequently Asked Questions

During the workshop plenary sessions with Gene Garber, farmer and chair of the Lancaster County (Pennsylvania) Agricultural Preserve Board, and Ralph Robertson, Program Manager of the Carroll County (Maryland) Agricultural Land Preservation Program, many provocative questions were asked. As anticipated, the number, depth, and breadth of questions for these two individuals was so great, that two breakout sessions consisting of straight Q & A with Garber and Robertson were well attended and rich with insightful inquiry. Throughout the three days, a pattern of questions was noticeable. Following is a synopsis of several of the most frequently asked questions.

Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) � A voluntary program with the intent of permanently protecting productive, sensitive, or aesthetic landscapes. In this program, a landowner sells the development rights of a parcel of land to a public agency, land trust or unit of government. A conservation easement is recorded on the title of the property that limits the right to subdivide or use the land for specific purposes. Landowners retain all other rights and responsibilities associated with the land and can use or sell it for purposes allowed in the easement.

What are the fundamental pieces necessary to develop a purchase of development rights (PDR) program?
During the program Ralph Robertson plainly said, "without a plan you can go nowhere." Communities must have a goal that they aim to achieve. In Carroll County, Maryland, a primary goal is permanent preservation of 100,000 acres of agriculture land. This goal is supported by a land use plan that targets urban development toward areas where urban infrastructure exists or will soon be in place (e.g., water, sewer, roads, parks, schools), and focuses agricultural development where rural infrastructure exists (e.g., most productive farmland, suppliers, processors, markets). These mostly objective characteristics form the foundation for developing both urban and agriculture development zones. These zones are supported through zoning. In the agriculture zone, housing is limited to a density of one lot per 20 acres of land. PDR cannot exist without the foundational mechanisms of planning and low density zoning in the agriculture area and high density zoning in the urban area.

Gene Garber added that leadership and education are critical. In Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Amos Funk, a gentleman now in his 90s, led the charge in the 1970s, 80s, and early 90s despite harsh criticism. Today, they are writing books about him. According to Garber, "without strong leadership at the state and local level willing to stand up to the plate, and sometimes take one for the team, you can go nowhere."

What makes these programs so popular among the agriculture industry?
"It�s a win-win solution. It�s not quite that simple, but that�s a primary reason," stated Robertson. Wisconsin has historically relied on zoning as the driving land use regulatory mechanism. Though an effective tool, it typically creates a win-lose scenario. Take for example, the expanding farmer vs. retiring farmer clash. If zoning allows non-farm development, the expanding farmer feels he or she has lost. If non-farm development is prevented, the retiring farmer feels he or she has lost. PDR creates a win-win solution. The expanding farmer is not impeded by incompatible uses, while the retiring farmer obtains cash equity for retirement via the sale of development rights and still retains ownership and control of his or her property.

Garber added that a sufficient and consistent investment of dollars is necessary to gain farmer buy-in. According to Gene, "Nobody wants to be one of only a handful of preserved farms. Part of the attraction to the program is created because you know you are part of a large, contiguous block of preserved land that will not be developed. And, you know there are enough acres preserved in an area so that the implement dealer, the coop, etc. will always be nearby." Robertson supported these comments and explained that their goal of preserving 100,000 acres is the amount they feel is necessary to preserve the agriculture infrastructure in the county.

How successful are the PDR programs in Carroll County, MD and Lancaster County, PA?
Carroll County adopted its Master Plan (Wisconsin calls this a comprehensive plan) in 1973. The type of zoning required for PDR to be successful was adopted in 1978, placing 188,000 acres in the Agriculture District. Since being formed in 1979, the Agricultural Land Preservation Program has spent $95 million ($55m county, $39m state, $1m federal) to preserve 50,000 acres. Lancaster County, which is the most successful county in the United States, has preserved over 70,000 acres at a cost of $149 million ($75m county, $72m state, $2m federal).

Where do you get the money to do this?
Gene and Ralph suggested Wisconsin shouldn�t even begin to address this question because the foundational components (i.e., planning, zoning, education, and leadership) need to be much more mature than they are in most cases right now; however, they did list the funding mechanisms used in their states and communities. These include: real estate transfer tax, agriculture land transfer tax (a tax on the conversion of land out of agriculture), property tax, cigarette tax, landfill tipping fees, and bonding. They both agreed that you either pay for preservation of the agricultural economy now or you pay for a lost agricultural economy later. In Wisconsin, agriculture is a $51 billion industry.

What is the value of a development right?
The value of a development right is the difference between the fair market value of the land and the easement restricted value of the land. The actual dollar value, of course, varies depending upon the real estate market and any special considerations made during the easement negotiation process. For example, inclusion of a son or daughter lot on the property would decrease the value of the development rights on the property. In Carroll County, which contains a much different real estate market than much of Wisconsin, a development right averaged $6,300 per acre in 2006.

Although the dollar amount that is garnered can�t be compared across locations, Garber and Robertson both felt second sales of land (i.e., sales of easement restricted land) have been consistent with properties that still have their development rights attached. In other words, even though development rights are removed, land values remain steady. This anecdotal evidence is somewhat consistent with the sparse amount of research on this topic, including a recent study (yet to be published) in Southern Wisconsin by Anderson and Weinhold. As more research occurs, it could be proven that in some locations preserving your property could be more lucrative than developing � a real twist on some people�s version of the highest and best use argument. We will have to wait and see.

Anderson, K. and D. Weinhold, Do conservation easements reduce land prices?: The case of south central Wisconsin, Draft Document, May 14, 2005.