IamSauerKraut

IamSauerKraut t1_j7uut37 wrote

>The only “developable” land for industrial is currently a turkey farm. The other two areas are currently in use as a junk yard and auto repair shop.

The MPC does not require that the turkey farm be zoned as anything other than its existing use. Nor, for that matter, does the MPC require that any part of the residential area be rezoned into something else. To the extent you continue to suggest that the only option re zoning is to rezone ag or any other zone into something else, I will challenge your reliance on the MPC to force that type of rezoning. Simply is not required in the MPC.

btw - your township could rezone (if not already zoned as such) the junk yard and/or auto repair shop for commercial/light industrial.

1

IamSauerKraut t1_j7u7g7p wrote

>The MPC requires municipalities to allow for all types of zoning.

The MPC does not require that productive farmland be rezoned to commercial/light industrial. That particular zoning can be placed elsewhere.

True story: I know a guy who owned a small farm on which he had placed a conservation easement. His municipality, without cause, decided to rezone his area from ag to some form of commercial/light industry. He asked them not rezone his land as that type of zoning was inappropriate for his preserved farm and because the municipality already had an area with that zoning designation. The municipality refused his request. At the next meeting, he brought a couple of lawyers. The zoning was not changed.

3

IamSauerKraut t1_j7u6vdi wrote

>Some level of government purchases an agricultural easement.

Now you have it right. It is not the land which is purchased but the easement on the land. Ownership does not change.

One thing which could be done better? Enforcement of the terms of the easement. Right across the street from Cumberland Valley High School in central PA, a conservation easement was placed on a historic horse farm. Years later, the property was sold. And warehouses are now under construction on that very property.

1

IamSauerKraut t1_j7pe1i1 wrote

The mandate is to fund. And they do. The court case is about how that is being accomplished or not accomplished. Most of the funding in most districts is provided thru a combination of property taxes and earned income taxes (aka EIT). Because of inequities in wealth or thru the luck of locations, some districts have greater ability to leverage property taxes and the EIT into an outstanding public school education for their students. Lower Merion, for instance. On the other end are districts such as Steelton and Chester.

Yesterday's ruling addresses the inequities in funding.

2