Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

vsanna t1_j59y436 wrote

You absolutely can farm on three acres. Not all farms are huge mechanized operations. If it's good soil (which we don't have a lot of up here) then it should be protected. Though in North Yarmouth, I have a feeling it's more of a property value issue than a land management one. Personally I believe in tax hikes on second and seasonal homes (excluding camps that aren't suited for year round habitation). There is a LOT of housing that isn't being fully utilized and is just serving as investment.

17

baxterstate t1_j5aglik wrote

You absolutely can farm on three acres.

___________________________________________________

Well, I won't argue that point. My bet is that it'll never be used as a farm. Since we're in a rental housing crisis, I'm thinking about the number of two family homes that could be built on those 3 acres.

In MA, there are cities and towns where you can build a two family on 10000 sf or maybe less. There should be at least one zone in every city and town in Maine with similar zoning. If Mainers wanted to retain the bucolic look of Maine, they could zone the rest of the city or town the way it's always been. Just think of what would happen if every town within an hour's drive of Portland had two acres of it's land zoned for 2 family homes on 10,000 sf lot? You'd have an affordable owner occupied home AND an apartment to help that homeowner pay the mortgage.

8

vsanna t1_j5ahkwj wrote

Not always topographically possible, but I get where you're coming from. The main issue in rushing to develop is that developers don't consider the environmental effects of what they're doing. Hence, Brunswick's current moratorium on development.

2

IamSauerKraut t1_j5afl2s wrote

>If it's good soil (which we don't have a lot of up here) then it should be protected.

No farms, no food.

3

TarantinoFan23 t1_j5aqpn7 wrote

Would you shit upstream from your camp? Time is a stream.

2

IamSauerKraut t1_j5at4tq wrote

Nonsensical rubbish.

−1

TarantinoFan23 t1_j5avy8y wrote

What part? It is is a very simple statement. I am just pointing out that poisoning soil is like ruining the future.

1

IamSauerKraut t1_j5c62k8 wrote

It is a statement which appears not responsive to anything I posted.

0

TarantinoFan23 t1_j5cajve wrote

I was trying to just say the same thing as you but in a way that is less... Ambiguous as to the reasoning

0

TheDanMonster t1_j5bifrm wrote

More than that, there’s no water to farm in North Yarmouth. I come from well drilling and a lot of north Yarmouth is bone dry unless you spend north of $25k on a well. And that’s just for domestic use…

0

IamSauerKraut t1_j5cai2i wrote

>a lot of north Yarmouth is bone dry

You've got 2 brooks merging with the Royal River in North Yarmouth. Last time I was near Runaround Pond, it was not dry so Chandler Brook cannot be dry. Same with the river coming from New Gloucester. Not dry at Cunningham's in the Intervale.

0

TheDanMonster t1_j5cbv2h wrote

That’s not how artisan wells work. And drawing from running waterways for domestic and agriculture use is not legal.

Check out the states waterwell mgs database online if you want to check whether it’s comparatively “dry” or not.

0

IamSauerKraut t1_j5ch3vt wrote

North Yarmouth has no true artesian wells. As Mr. Ryerson told us all those years ago: a pumped well is not artesian.

Nevertheless, a working streambed and soggy areas suggest the water table is relatively high. I highly doubt North Yarmouth is "bone dry" as you claim.

0

Trilliam_West t1_j5a3l06 wrote

Most people do not farm. It makes no sense for the government to force people to waste a finite resource, like land, for a potential activity they may have no desire or need to engage in.

1

vsanna t1_j5ah4ox wrote

Many people who would like to farm are locked out because of rising land costs and development. If we want to continue to eat, we need to work on regionalizing food supplies. This is part of the discussion around the next farm bill.

2