Stronger, not weaker, land restrictions needed
By KEN MIDKIFF
Published Friday, February 8, 2008
(http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2008/feb/20080208comm003.asp)

Almeta Crayton, the First Ward Columbia City Council member, made a startling statement at the city council meeting Monday during the discussion about allowing an automobile dealership at Crosscreek. She said developers would look elsewhere if this city keeps in place its developer-unfriendly regulations. She also said that if the area east of Highway 63 isn’t developed as the owners wanted, the taxpayers will pick up the load for supporting the area.

Although the latter statement is clearly logic-impaired - there’s not much required to support trees and grass - the former statement is likely shared by a number of people who believe that we have "gone too far."

Columbia is lagging behind in protection of its natural resources, as reported by Ben Londeree of the Smart Growth group. Removal of all the trees and grass on a steep slope and then moving dirt from the top of the hill to the bottom, thereby making the site more suitable for retailers, never could occur in more enlightened communities throughout the Midwest.

Our storm-water rules and the storm-water manual adopted by the city council place rather minimal restrictions on those who manipulate the land. But, minimal though they are, the city council put those restrictions in place to protect everyone else.

There’s an old saying that "everyone lives downstream." Technically speaking, this isn’t true; there are those who live at streams’ headwaters. But there are thousands of people who do live downstream on Grindstone Creek, Hinkson Creek, Flat Branch, County House Branch and the other creeks and streams in our town. Those people shouldn’t have to deal with flooding or muddy, polluted water. That’s why we have a storm-water utility fund. That’s why we have restrictions on what should and should not be done.

These restrictions - burdensome and onerous as they might be to those who think that what they do on their own land is their business - don’t go nearly far enough. What is needed is neighborhood input and involvement before issuing a land disturbance permit. But, right now, if certain ill-defined criteria are met and described in the application, the Columbia Public Works Department issues the permit. No public input, no prohibitions on the steepness of the land or the current condition - not much of anything.

If speculators want to purchase wooded lands that tilt heavily toward a creek valley, clear that land of all vegetation and then move dirt onto the steeper slopes, there’s nothing to stop them from doing so. In the process, of course, all native flora and fauna are destroyed or forced to go elsewhere. But now there are few places left to go, so deer and raccoons roam through previously wooded suburbs eating crabapples and pilfering gardens and trash cans.

We are in desperate need of more restrictive ordinances and regulations on land disturbances. No more should speculative clearing and dirt moving be allowed. Especially on steep slopes. Especially without public involvement.

If real estate developers believe these restrictions are too much for them, they’ll go elsewhere. Maybe Almeta is right; maybe they’ll look elsewhere. But, akin to those deer and raccoons, there’ll be few places for them to go.