VA: Development in Orange Hunt (Flint Hill Farm)

[Glimmerglass]

It's sad to see yet another large swath of land being developed (856-parcel) for high-end luxury homes on what is part of the Orange hunt. The upside is that it sounds like the developers are more naturalist here in the outset with the styles, location and size of the homes.

I was struck most by the would-be developer's comments concerning the hunt and would-be buyers:

Fauquier Times-Democrat 7-12-05 "Flint Hill Farm development will host 21 homes" (http://www.zwire.com/site/tab2.cfm?newsid=14849034&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=506066&rfi=6)

excerpt:

"The market for these homes is much more out-of-state purchasers," Yahn said. "Texas, California, Florida, Connecticut and the European market, especially the English. They can't fox hunt in England and this is Orange County Hunt territory. We tried to site the houses so that they will have a minimum impact to the Orange County Hunt."

As for allowing the hunt to continue to cross their lands, Yahn said that decision would be left up to individual landowners.

This came up once before - is there really an interest by British hunters to migrate to Virginia to continue fox hunting? Some folks on this board said no, but I do see a lot more Virginia hunt properties advertised in British publications these days.

[Glimmerglass]

It's sad to see yet another large swath of land being developed (856-parcel) for high-end luxury homes on what is part of the Orange hunt. The upside is that it sounds like the developers are more naturalist here in the outset with the styles, location and size of the homes.

I was struck most by the would-be developer's comments concerning the hunt and would-be buyers:

Fauquier Times-Democrat 7-12-05 "Flint Hill Farm development will host 21 homes" (http://www.zwire.com/site/tab2.cfm?newsid=14849034&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=506066&rfi=6)

excerpt:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> "The market for these homes is much more out-of-state purchasers," Yahn said. "Texas, California, Florida, Connecticut and the European market, especially the English. They can't fox hunt in England and this is Orange County Hunt territory. We tried to site the houses so that they will have a minimum impact to the Orange County Hunt."

As for allowing the hunt to continue to cross their lands, Yahn said that decision would be left up to individual landowners. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This came up once before - is there really an interest by British hunters to migrate to Virginia to continue fox hunting? Some folks on this board said no, but I do see a lot more Virginia hunt properties advertised in British publications these days.

[Tantivy]

It is my understanding the the zoning for the Flint Hill development has NOT been obtained although the property has been sold and closed on.

Yes, the wording sounds great....placing the residences in locations so as to minimize impact, but in the end the almighty dollar will rule.

And not requiring purchasers to keep the land open to the hunt is in my humble opinion a HUGE mistake. The worst possible scenario.

All it takes is one strategiacally placed parcel and respective owner who says "NO". And don't think for one second exactly that won't happen.

I will be bad enough, all those many parcels, each with a house and fencing and outbuildings and driveways and front yards and pools and "you can come through but please don't ride here...or there...or over there...."

It takes courage to sell land requiring purchasers to leave it open to the hunt and I daresay few are brave enough to take that route for fear of losing a sale.

It is all so very sad. Nothing, nothing is sacred anymore but the dollar.

Something is being destroyed here and I think the ramifications are much deeper than anyone can possibly appreciate in our lifetime.

Some days, I think I am about ready to leave this planet for some new hunting grounds....but since we have not conquered space travel just yet, I am afraid I am stuck here!

[xeroxchick]

Horrible.
It amazes me how many developers will cloak their advertising in a seemingly naturalist/low impact shpiel. We have a metrosexual-rich-ex-trendy-restaurant-owner-now bed and breakfast guy around us who started a community organization to control growth and to not spoil the natural beauty of our area. He had local meetings presenting options like landowners selling "development rights" and keeping greenspace around planned developments based on "township/village" models. Guess what. He's developing his _own_ property to be a "leader" in this model. I say the whole thing stinks of $$$$$$$. Sorry, but it seems obvious that he just wanted to direct the growth from shoebox subdivisions (yes, gag) to a more profitable and upscale concept(still gagging). Density is density and if you put lots of homes close together in a "village" with a greenspace around them it still adds even more commuters on the roads, more convenience stores being built for the commuters, lovely country roads being widened for the traffic, etc. (not to mention no place to ride or hunt) The village model doesn't work because people who can afford to buy those homes can't afford to stay in the "village" and work for low wages in the "village," so it's not a village, it is a glorified subdivision. Sorry to rant. I agree with Tantivy, sometimes I want to run away. A lifetime of watching everything being bulldozed is getting to be too much.

[Glimmerglass]

Tantivy and xerozchick, I agree with you both on the sickening feeling that development brings. Additionally I am suspect with any 'talk' a developer puts out there to try and make people feel better about it.

Perhaps the MFH of Orange should speak with the would-be developers and see if they can secure a covenant allowing the hunt through the lands. I would think it could - if positioned correctly - be a positive selling point for the lands.

However the fact the whole tract is not being pitched as an equestrian friendly development - with bridle paths would suggest only a passing interest in horses.

I can easily see now the Wall Street Journal and glossy Unique Homes ads marketing the property in "Hunt Country" yet taking no steps to ensure that doesn't simply become a moniker of the whole regions past.

I have close friends in Delaplane, VA and they are so tired of all the development completed and proposed in the area. They are living in fear of the Fleetwood Farm offering (http://www.armfieldmillerripley.com/properties/fleetwood/index.html) which is just a portion of almost 3,000 undeveloped Delaplane acres the present owners hold.

Does everything have to be sold-off, developed, or otherwise exploited for the all-mighty dollar?

[Foxhunt4me]

Have to agree on development , I am watching 'town' force its way out to our place - I look to the north and on the hills I now see houses where there were not any before.

The old saying it that they name the subdivision after what they plowed under to build it. We have one near me named ' Coyote Run ' - yeah the Coyotes HAD to run, we have ' Green Acres ' or is it HAD Green Acres, ' Deer Creek ', ' Quail Hollow ' , etc. etc.

:-)

[talloaks]

Oh Horrors!!! Development is such rape of the land and developers have always been known for dirty greedy hands. Get out and enjoy the countryside while you can, take those special pictures of the places you have been thrilled by since too soon it all will be gone!!! Some people call this progress!! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

[wateryglen]

Wow, don't get me started! My last 2 hunts have been wiped out by developement. Bull Run died near Manassas and rose from the ashes down in Culpeper. Now Loudoun is almost gone. I think I'm bad luck.....Hey! Anybody need a new hunt member?!! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif I swear I wanna go hunt far, far from here. Hey, how ya'll doin' out there in Missouri!! Nebraska sounds nice!

[2ndyrgal]

I hate development with a passion, having watched many of the farms of my childhood turn into mini malls and subdivisions, and we didn't foxhunt on this land, we grew crops and raised cattle! At some point, it won't be about land to hunt on, it will be about where are we going to get our food? Yes, it IS about the almighty dollar, and everything has a price. Large tracts of land that are owned by family members who simply do not care to hold on to valuable land and would rather have the money will always be sold to the highest bidder. My huband and I owned a property several years ago, near a well traveled road with a lake on it. Apparently the previous absentee owners did not care who fished or when. We did. When folks started showing up and putting up "camp" right behind my lakefront home, they were surprised when I objected. How could I restrict their use? My reply...if you wanted to fish on this lake, you should have done what I did and bought it when it was for sale. If it was for sale for years and the hunt didnt purchase it, then shame on them for whining about it. Members of our hunt have found less valuable land, purchased adjoining acreage and ensured for themselves a place to hunt for the future. It isn't Middleburg, but the hunting is great and apparently there are tax benefits. Old money and large tracts of land in premium areas will not be there forever. The financial base being so much greater in the Virginia Hunts than elsewhere, one would think it would not be such a problem. Do I wish that there were not subdivisions and mini malls, of course. Is that realistic? No. "A Portion for Foxes" was published years ago. Maybe we should dust off our copies and learn from it instead of trying to shut the door after the horse is gone. To think one will compel landowners to agree to make it mandatory to allow the hunt access in this day and age is probably not going to happen. With the way all the eminent domain laws are going, you're lucky the lot sizes are so generous.

[Glimmerglass]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 2ndyrgal:
Yes, it IS about the almighty dollar, and everything has a price. Large tracts of land that are owned by family members who simply do not care to hold on to valuable land and would rather have the money will always be sold to the highest bidder. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to lament further on this topic, but I just find it so disgusting that this era above all others just seems to be all too willing to forsake the privilege of land stewardship for money. The notion of "let's got out while the 'getting is good'" type of motivation. What I still have yet to hear answered is - if you are selling off paradise for money, where will you move with your money?

No one can tell me that offers in the past weren't made to "grandpa" for his 5th generation farm with a classic stone farmhouse and yet he held on to it. True the inheritors of the lands today are less likely to fox hunt or ride at all - but isn't there something to be said for property that's been kept in a family for generations?

With all due respect I always have to laugh at the obscenely low taxes these large Virginia estates are charged. [Look at the mega tax bills for gentlemen's farms in Westchester Co. NY - $50k a year +] So clearly it isn't the tax man who is pushing the need for sale. Still for whatever reason even the great friend of huntsmen, Paul Mellon, even allowed for part of huge Rokeby estate lands to be sold off for limited development in his will. I am fairly certain Bunny didn't need the money. Occasional fox-hunter, Pamela Harriman could've willed her large tract of land on the edge of Middleburg into a perpetual easement and access for hunts but didn't. Alas now it is the basis for development. So the lack of preservation foresight isn't just applicable to the classic Virginian who is "cash poor, land rich".

Who knows maybe the eminent domain laws - the notion of compensation seize for the greater good for the people - will be used in 50 years to buy up developments and raze them for parklands! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Foxhunt4me]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I swear I wanna go hunt far, far from here. Hey, how ya'll doin' out there in Missouri!! Nebraska sounds nice! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well come on out, thousands and thousands of acres that are not claimed by any hunt. Bring your hounds and horses or join a hunt already in progress.

[Glimmerglass]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Glimmerglass:
Occasional fox-hunter, Pamela Harriman could've willed her large tract of land on the edge of Middleburg into a perpetual easement and access for hunts but didn't. Alas now it is the basis for development. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

On a directly related note - due to new changes in the septic system at Salamander Inn [no longer a septic drain field but connecting into the M'burg sewer system] is that foxhunting will be allowed over the Inn's property.

Any such use was in doubt before as there was risk in damaging the alternative proposal of waste disposal.

[Hunter's Rest]

The same builder-developer, Gretchen whatsit, did the exact same thing just down the road from Flint Hill Farm in Hume a few years ago. The development took a 150 acre or so tract of land that was nothing but bramble and hedgerows and deer trails and a few Old Dominion Hounds maintained rides (and a beaver pond and a feeder creek for Thumb Run) and made it into parkland. It is beautiful - land purchasers had to choose from a dozen or so home plans that she'd then build so the community looked as if it was cohesive. It really is pretty, and there are a ton of covenants - no fencing (except for her pretty 3 board black peremiter fence), no outbuildings, etc. It is gorgeous. ODH has ride-thru privileges. BUT --- the parkland does not allow for (much) covert for little or big game. No feeding shrubs or cover for quail or hedges for little rabbits or mice or what have you. We must stay to hte driveways (which isn't that big a deal, really) but it is now just a big ride-thru, not a hunt territory, really. I'd like to say she 'ruined' the place, but, Fauquier actually has 10 acre zoning or something, so, in reality, what she did is better than 15 houses (instead of 7 or so). Development is a product of HAVING BABIES. WE NEED LESS. Anyone else want to join the bandwagon of non-reproducers?????

[Whitewater]

I'm a yankee who's hunt country is gobbled up.

Learn from our mistakes:

The only way to ensure the land stays open is to have deeds and easements as a part of the sale of the property.

This means talking to land owners NOW- before they are thinking of selling and convince them of the need for an easement and/or deed to their property. If they are worried their price will go down, and buyers will walk away because of the "restriction", then THOSE people aren't the ones you wanted anyway!

Tug on their heart strings (gently). It is honorable to be a good steward of the land.

you have to get your local government and groups involved as STAKEHOLDERS for maintaining and ensuring OPEN SPACE.

if you have trail assocations, enviromental groups, fisherman, packs of hounds, everyone who enjoys the outdoors just as they are.. you need to come together for one purpose: open space.

People come to NoVa because of it's open spaces. Remind your township officials that if we don't do anything NOW to HALT development, people won't desire this place anymore. The face of Virginia will be changed for ever.

Hurry. Get involved in a solution.

[x-rab]

In Virginia you talk to the General Assembly to try and limit development. Under the Dillion's rule of government that Virginia operates, localities only the powers specifically granted to them by the General Assembly. The General Assembly at this point in time is owned lock, stock and barrel by the developers. If the localities try to do something that the developers don't like, all they have to do is go to the General Assembly and get it overturned.

Some several years ago, the developers got a rule passed that no locality can have a stiffer building code than the state code. That little rule change halved the firewalls between townhouses in Fairfax County.

Get to know your State Assemblymen and Senators and lobby the daylights out of them as well as your local government. Loudon will be paved. The changes put in by the current board has assured the paving. There is even one Supervisor who wanted to fire county employees who advised against his position on development.

[SidesaddleRider]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">On a directly related note - due to new changes in the septic system at Salamander Inn [no longer a septic drain field but connecting into the M'burg sewer system] is that foxhunting will be allowed over the Inn's property.

Any such use was in doubt before as there was risk in damaging the alternative proposal of waste disposal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just wanted to add that while I am not happy about them allowing Johnson's property to now fall under town limits, the reason that most board members went with the plan is because 75% of the property is listed in an open-space easement, put on it by the Harriman's.

And I'll be truly interested to see if, even though the article said that hunting is allowed, whether we'll actually be allowed to hunt on it. Because we were certainly told we WEREN'T last year, before they even started construction...

[talloaks]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The same builder-developer, Gretchen whatsit, did the exact same thing just down the road from Flint Hill Farm in Hume a few years ago. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hunter's Rest, is this the same developer who purchased the DiGulians "The Cove" a few years ago?

Remember the days of Carla and Bold Couqueror???
Maybe you are too young for that but surely your mom knows. Things have sure changes and not necessarily for the better!!

[Hunter's Rest]

Tall Oaks
No, Gretchen bought the Thistle Hill place in Hume and I understand she's also put a contract on the Fitzgerald place across 688 - which will no doubt be a mirror development on the other side of the road. I think it is a man who bought the Cove and built the 10,000+ sf mansion up under Rattlesnake Mtn. Gretchen was the contractor, I believe. But she actually lives in Thistle Hill, I think.
I do remember the stories, anyway, about Carla and her stallion(s). They and she were legendary.

[Glimmerglass]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SidesaddleRider:
And I'll be truly interested to see if, even though the article said that hunting is allowed, whether we'll actually be allowed to hunt on it. Because we were certainly told we WEREN'T last year, before they even started construction... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Trust me I'm sure it [the rights] will be used as some type of bargaining chip. I think the notion of seeing a real hunt sweep by guests enjoying drinks on the veranda of the "Inn" is something right out of the sales brochure.

Perhaps the trade-off will require the doctor to be made master of foxhounds for that one day http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[talloaks]

thanks Hunter's Rest!! Sorry the scenery is changing! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

[SidesaddleRider]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Glimmerglass:
Perhaps the trade-off will require the doctor to be made master of foxhounds for that one day http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, lord...If that day happens, you certainly won't see me there! I'm afraid I'd call her the town's nickname..."Good morning, wicked witch!" http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

[Painted Wings]

It is happening everywhere. Even in Missouri! Our hunt is looking at moving farther out. If so, will we be able to maintain members?

This photo of our country says it all:

http://www.pbase.com/lesliegra/image/40752513

And this one:

http://www.pbase.com/lesliegra/image/40752514

Very sad. These photos taken at our last hunt from the club last season. Now the 130 acres behind our farm is sold, more hunt country lost.

[SeaShe]

I'm curious -- how many acres (square miles????) are minimally adequate for a hunt?

[maxiford812]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 2ndyrgal:
At some point, it won't be about land to hunt on, it will be about where are we going to get our food? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't you know? Corn comes in a can and meat comes in plastic wrap on little foam trays. What do you need land for? http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif

Sometimes I'm glad I'm so old (50). I really don't think I could stand to still be here once every square inch of land is paved and horses are only in zoos.

[MuleLady]

I'm with Hunter's Rest...people need to stop reproducing. We are overrunning the planet. Combine that with affluence and (relatively) cheap fuel and the pressure for more suburban homes is never going to let up. It's sad, but look at maps of population densities and you'll see why our beloved hunt country is under such pressure--won't be long before it's one big mass of humanity from NY to FL and west to the Blue Ridge.

I can't believe what I'm seeing happening in Culpeper and the prices of the houses...ASTOUNDING. Who would pay in the $300's to live in a cookie-cutter house on a sixth-acre lot development in CULPEPER???? I can't imagine. I'm very worried what it means for Rappahannock down the road, even though our county is still pristine. We've started looking at land around Roanoke and Lexington for a possible future move, but Nebraska is starting to sound pretty good to me.

[armandh]

the first problem: flight from higher regulation and density rather than rebuilding, both business and residential. it cost less.
the cities need to make it easier and cheaper for people and business to stay.

we however are lucky there is a farther out that is not in another hunts territory

[Piaffe56]

How many people here have put conservation easements on their own farms or taken steps to make their own land unavailable for development? How many people financially support their local land trust or land conservancy group? It is not just about the large landowners.

[xeroxchick]

We have.

[Hopefully]

WE have, too. Plus left some cover that we could have used as (much-needed) pasture. Unlike many of our neighbors who now have 7-acre lawns http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[Glimmerglass]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Piaffe56:
How many people financially support their local land trust or land conservancy group? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I give to several land trust organizations and groups, including the Virginia-based PEC.

[talloaks]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">billion dollar piles of stone-fronted 2x4's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


gothedistance, are you suggesting all those, in your quote, are just Hollywood Brick/Stone Jobs??? For that kind of money you don't even get the real thing eh??? ("eh" is the Canadian influence!!!)

[Glimmerglass]

This could be a very dumb question but has there been a proposal to adopt a "Community Preservation Fund" approach to Virginia's hunt country?

Several high growth, desirable communities have adopted such a program - in particular the Hamptons of Long Island, NY.

In short it's a 2% transaction tax on real estate [non commercial] above a certain dollar amount (typically $2M + dollars) which then goes into a land fund to buy and protect acreage from development.

In the Hamptons it's resulted in over $100M raised and over 1,100 acres preserved. A high level pro & con discussion is here: "Is funding land preservation with a tax on real estate transactions fair?" (http://www.hcandg.com/faceoff/120102.shtml)

I think of all the solutions out there this is one of the best. Simply because it taxes those who are driving up prices, purchasing luxury properties and speculative land buys that are at prices well beyond the reach of most buyers. It doesn't add cost/taxes to the average joe and the Preservation Fund buys property on the open market so those who want to sell aren't being forced into the sale and aren't expected to give away land.

[I will say this too - I am by no means some tree hugging liberal who thinks that being rich is wrong or that new money or residents coming into hunt country is bad! Although the latter need to respect and appreciate the history of the region and be willing to preserve it.]

Provided the guidelines on land usage under preservation are explicit to allow fox hunting and other equestrian purposes it should be a win-win.

As an example as of right now there are 26 homes in Fauquier on the market (MLS only so additionally many more are exclusively listed) at a price of $1.5M +.

The sale of a Canterbury in Warrenton (http://allenrealestate.com/homes/canterbury%20revision.html) at the current list rate, would net $150k towards the fund. The sale of Chancellor's Rock in Rappahannock Co (http://www.armfieldmillerripley.com/properties/chancellors.rock/index.html) could net $300k towards such a fund in that hunt region too.

Just a thought http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Tantivy]

This planet is a comparable to a ship, floating through space versus on an ocean...and what happens to a ship when you overcrowd it?

It begins to reek, disease breeds, and at some point it if you put too many people aboard, it will simply SINK. Things eventually descend into chaos - there is even a law of physics of such, I believe.

And that is exactly what we are doing to this lovely planet. Most everything we touch we DESTROY as we mold it to meet our expectations and desires.

Why can't we just replace ourselves and stop there (unless one adopts?) Who or what gives anyone the right to have more than two children? Where are MY rights - maybe I want some space for MY two children and what about people having 3 and 4? and more...are they not infringing on my and my family's future rights....?

And why is no one addressing this? What is the typical response to the news that someone is pregnant? It is offers of CONGRATULATIONS.

Well, what kind of world are they responsible for bringing a child into? Does anyone ever think 50 years down the road...the US population today is about 285 million, and in only FIFTY short years it will grow by another 125 million.

Look around you, where are they going to live? Work? Play? Throw their trash? For every two people you see today, there will be one more.

A world where....there are no fields to play in, very few can afford a pony for a child to grow up with, and open space is something you well might have to drive hours to see.

We are fouling our own nest every day.

I do not mean to sound overly pessimistic, but very few people even begin to appreciate the beauty that lies around us here in Virginia and elsewhere. Sadly, the average person is only concerned with the rate he is getting on his 30 year mortgage, or the price of fuel, or what is playing at the movie theatre this Friday.

Like the business companies of America, we are focused on short term results and problems.

And it is our children and grandchildren who will pay the price.

I absolutely positively do not have the least desire to be here in another 50 years, and only wish I was born 50 years earlier.

I will hunt as long as I can, and when I can no longer ride I will continue to appreciate what beauty lies around me as today, I must watch it systematically destroyed in the name of society and progress.

But I can rejoice that for a while, I got to enjoy mornings on horseback in the open countryside...and how I hope those cherished memories can carry me to my grave.

For most people, there is no longer respect for the land, and there is no dignity in life when we do not respect that from which we sprung from. Land is no longer revered; instead, it is now part of a portfolio or an investment vehicle.

Today, we are not stewards of the land, we are despoilers of it.

And we should be ashamed. And very afraid.

[MuleLady]

Ahh, Tantivy, you speak to my fears. As to conservation easements, they are a nice gesture but I'm not convinced they'll hold in the long term. When the burgeoning masses will need more land, they will insist upon it, and they will have the en masse economic clout to affect legislation and mindsets in their favor.

I suppose it's a good thing the land mass is only 25% of the planet...hopefully that puts a constraint on human expansion that the ecosphere can handle.

I need to go ride now, this is depressing.

[SeaShe]

Chiming in here although I usually avoid these kinds of discussions because I'm not fond of conflict and I'm not trying to start a conflict but sharing what I know.

Population growth is a huge problem but it's more of a global problem than a U.S. or even U.S./Canada problem. Without immigration, the U.S. would only have about a 1% growth rate, which is sustainable. The major population problems are in developing countries like India, Mexico, Africa, etc. However, there's a positive correlation between women's rights and decreased birth rates in these countries. Conservation efforts are extremely important for quality of life and so are any efforts to educate women. It is depressing but there's also reason to hope, I think.

[Tantivy]

"Population growth is a huge problem but it's more of a global problem than a U.S... The major population problems are in developing countries....there's a positive correlation between women's rights and decreased birth rates in these countries."

It is indeed more of a global problem than a national one, but there is a great deal more immigration going on than anyone realizes.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of Hispanics walking across our southern border every year. The United States is being reassimilated by Mexico at a much faster rate than is anyone recognizes. Ironic, is it not? A quiet revolution has already begun, and with no shots being fired.

And they are reproducing at a much faster rate than native-born Americans.

And yes, it is a well known fact that an educated woman has less children. She begins to look past the short term future and question what lies ahead for her grandchildren....

Perhaps that is where our salvation lies.

The education of women.

But in the meantime, "MuleLady" is sadly correct. Some day in the not too distant future, the masses will have the economic clout to lay aside the conservation easments,a nd do not doubt for a moment that they will.

As one of my brothers likes to postulate, we might only be saved by a worldwide epidemic or depression!

Hope you enjoyed your afternnon hack, Carol.

[ashebrook]

While I was looking for my sources, Tantivy made some of the important points that I wanted to. Some posters have talked about zero population growth and I wanted to point out that the U.S. does have zero population growth! Our population only continues to grow because of immigration. You can read it for yourself on the population reference bureau website:
http://www.prb.org/AmeristatTemplate.cfm?Section=Racean...y.cfm&ContentID=7981 (http://www.prb.org/AmeristatTemplate.cfm?Section=RaceandEthnicity&amp;tem plate=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&amp;ContentID=7981)

The long and the short of it is that in order for a population to grow, each woman must have more than 2.1 children. The 2005 estimated total fertility rate is 2.08. If it is broken down by race, the TFR is whites- 1.9, blacks- 2.2, and hispanics- 3.2. If we closed the borders right now, our population would level off and even slowly decline.

I think it is important to make these points because I know so many young women who have convinced themselves that our population is out of control and that they need to not have any children. In fact, our immigration is out of control and it is definitely unkind to give young women the impression that having a family is somehow morally wrong.

PS - I only know these things because I am putting the finishing touches on a research paper that deals with population projections for a grad Natural Resource Mgmt. class

[Glimmerglass]

Whoa this thread seems to have gotten way off track! Who knew this would delve into a "we're having too many kids" type of thread. While Warrenton is having a terrible time with the need for expansion of high-schools I see far more "land-grabs" of prime hunt lands being from older, childless and/or first generation wealth type buyers.

People are not buying up lots in Middleburg to relocate their four children families http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Let's get real. If anything these 12,000 sq. ft places are being built for and occupied by 45-yr old ‘yuppies’ (if that term still is applicable) who very likely don't want kids.

The problem you could then say is not population growth, but rather the boom in economic wealth. As people have accumulated more money they can afford to live 1 1/2 hours from DC - because they *at most* are telecommuting to a very high paying job. They aren’t moving to Delaplane into a multi-million dollar place to then try and get a job bussing tables at Hunter's Head Tavern. No, they've instead (more likely then not) made a tidy sum in a prior venture, investment, inheritance, etc and they are looking for that suburban dream plus some. Huge old trees on a few acres, vastly less traffic, less crime, no panhandling, scenic landscapes, etc.

And no frankly I don't think simply saying "the sky is falling, all is lost" and summery discount the notion that land covenants are pointless is helpful. Each generation can make a difference but only if action is taken.

[ashebrook]

Glimmerglass, I think you are right on. I think that many people in the 30-50 age range, have VERY high expectations and want to play Thomas Jefferson on their own little farm. Doesn't that describe most of us on this board?

Who doesn't want to live well?

What upsets me is the folks who move to Loudoun/Fauquier/Culpeper and think that they are still in Fairfax and should have all those same amenities PLUS the open space, no traffic, lower housing costs, etc. Those people expect US to change for THEM rather than the other way around.

If you move to the country from the suburbs, don't bring the suburbs with you!

[Glimmerglass]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ashebrook:
If you move to the country from the suburbs, don't bring the suburbs with you! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed! I recall (and not that I'm a big fan of Vicky Moon) in the book "Middleburg Mystique" a chapter or so discussing what is viewed as do's and don't's in hunt country, which can go a long way into being better received by your neighbors. They included skip putting up sentry gates on the entry to your drive (this isn't McLean!), don't put up flood lights on your home that stay on all night, and putting up fencing too high for anything cross over and so forth.

When your house starts to look like a fortress with a mile-long ribbon of ugly blacktopped drive, landscape devoid of tree except a couple lone and sad saplings, garish iron gates and almost razor wire and 3,000 candle lights shining into your neighbor's house all night .. it begs the question, why move to the country at all? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Hunter's Rest]

Hey, hey. Nobody get testy on me here. I suggest not having kiddies for the same reasons as I have exhaustively maintained previously.
1. Green space
2. overcrowded schools
3. road rage
4. pollution
5. farmland lost is farmland lost forever
6. not breeding further generations that believe that milk comes 'from a store'
7. diluted gene pool has some relation to intelligence (see refs. to Guns, Germs and Steel on the off course board.)
8. There is nothing, nothing at all, that requires the human species to reproduce oneself at the cellular level. I'd rather leave my 'mark' another way than an ankle biter.
Just some amused thoughts as I (like most of you) tune into 107.7 all news radio and listen to the pitiful traffic reports every 10 minutes.
Actually, that gave me another, perhaps better, idea for stopping OVERgrowth in rural areas. What if we petition for UNpaving I66 and I70 (in Maryland). Make those roads gravel 1 1/2 lanes. That would stop the slouching crawl of suburbia in its tracks and turn it right back. If the planners keep improving the friggin' roads what do they expect that people won't move farther out since the commute has just gotten 'easier' due to the 6, 8, 10 lane highways bisecting your neighbor's lovely cow pasture.
Just some thoughts as the sun sets once again on lovely (rural) Rappahannock County. Air cooling, birds still singing, not a house (or even a barn) in sight. Horses snorting, crow calling goodnight, crickets starting their chirp. Leave the floodlights off. Leave the ac off. Enjoy the quiet. It might not last ...

[armandh]

quote
At some point, it won't be about land to hunt on, it will be about where are we going to get our food?

wrong

it will be about where will we get food cheaply.
all of the cash that went through enron wouldn't by the last barrel of oil.

as land for ag becomes scarce food costs will go up family size down. then some unrecognized defect widely spread in genetically engineered food will result in a world wide famine and Charlton Heston will play in the movie.

[Tantivy]

Glimmerglass wrote:

"Whoa this thread seems to have gotten way off track! Who knew this would delve into a "we're having too many kids" type of thread...I see far more "land-grabs" of prime hunt lands being from older, childless wealth type buyers.

People are not buying up lots in Middleburg to relocate their four children families...these 12,000 sq. ft places are being built for and occupied by 45-yr old ‘yuppies’...The problem you could then say is not population growth, but rather the boom in economic wealth...are looking for that suburban dream plus some. Huge old trees on a few acres, vastly less traffic, less crime, no panhandling, scenic landscapes, etc."

Hey, what is it they are trying to ESCAPE? The four bedroom families! Reread what you wrote....they are running from EXACTLY what we were discussing - the fallout of overpopulation: traffic, crime, ugly landscapes, crowded neighborhoods etc.

It is a circle that comes back to the same thing, a combination of greed, too many people, and a society with different values.

And no one should feel that are not entitled to have a child or two...but more than that? And tha is what many immigrants are doing. Perhaps in another generation or two their birthrate will drop also.

It is a sad shame that DC is located where it is - had it been somewhere else, the lovely land to the west might have remained as it was. But it is not to be.

[Glimmerglass]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tantivy:
Hey, what is it they are trying to ESCAPE? The four bedroom families! Reread what you wrote....they are running from EXACTLY what we were discussing - the fallout of overpopulation: traffic, crime, ugly landscapes, crowded neighborhoods etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm to some degree yes but in large part the new affluent people are just trading up from [or having been out priced in trying to get value for their money] living in Georgetown or Old Town Alexandria. Neither of which are being "overrun" by burgeoning families http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Point taken none the less that any growth - be it from people having more tots or modern-day "carpet baggers" from the West Coast or wannabe Paul Mellons' content on 4-acres, but having contempt for the scent of horses - is contributing to the pressures of development.

[Hunter's Rest]

Tantivy, you are my new hero.
And, Glimmer, praytell, do we really HAVE to replicate ourselves? All of us?? There is nothing, nothing at all, that special about my geneology to mean that I must reproduce. Or ought to. Or ought to even feign delight when my 40-year-old housekeeper tells me she can't clean my house for a year or so 'cause she's pregnant with twins. Not married (not that there's anything wrong with that.) Has 2 kids already. 17 and 15 years old. Xcuse me? You don't know what causes that condition???!! Yikes. That is the sort of random population growth that flyover birth control would remediate.
Just a thought.

[Tantivy]

Gothedistance wrote "Yes, go ride. Enjoy the pleasures that Mother Nature has given us. Above all, that is the most important thing to do. And remember....

...every small thing you do to make the world a better place to live is a blessing. Like picking up and disposing of properly a piece of trash that you may happen to spy on the ground. Recycling. Not pouring chemicals down your toilet or sinks. Those small things you do may not be earthshattering in your eyes.... but the impact is far reaching."

Thank-you for the gentle reminder. You are entirely correct.

As to trash, I was out until well after dark picking up trash Sunday evening. Bags of trash...and it has (sadly) become a weekly chore. Several miles worth of roadway in hunt territory. It drives me mad to see, day by day, no, HOUR BY HOUR, the litter so rudely tossed near my horses's pasture and on the fields where I hack. It is disgusting, the hundreds of cigarette butts, beer bottles, soda pop, fast food wrappers.....the trash content is both a stark commentary on how little the bulk of the population cares about the state of their body AND how little respect they have for the landowner on whose property they dispatch their filth.

Respect. That is what is so lacking in today's society. People who have no respect, much less desire to understand, the traditions of hunting, the stewardship of land, the sacredness of a farmer's labor.

And it enrages me beyond any words I can write here that I must pick up THEIR trash so I can walk across an unspoiled field to enjoy a sunset or give my horse his evening treat.

THAT is what we foxhunters and lovers of the countryside must live beside, and how do you even begin to educate people with that mentality?

God bless our logoed hunt buttons if we ever suceed! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[ashebrook]

The population discussion is so OT that I don't want to keep it going. I just wanted to let Hunter's Rest know that I wasn't feeling any testiness toward her.

Rather, I thought it might be a relief to know that we are actually at the zero population point(excluding immigration)that you mentioned.

You and your housekeeper are a perfect case in point. Two women, four children. Total fertility rate = 2.0. That is less than the replacement rate of 2.1. And so it goes all over the country.

Even though it is less than politically correct to say so, we can have a much more profound and immediate effect on population growth by slowing immigration.

Another tidbit of good news is that many Mexican demographers are announcing that Mexican births are now below replacement levels. As their economy increases and population falls, their citizens will want to stay in their own country and take advantage its increased opportunities.

In the booming Washington economy, our area will continue to attract residents. I think Fauquier is doing just about everything that can be done to mitigate the growth by directing it to towns, requiring the clustering of homes, and refusing to extend water and sewer to rural areas.

[vahunter]

Flint Hill farm is back on the market for 29+M. It's on the Middleburg Real Estate web site. I guess Gretchen doesn't mind forgoing the development for a cool 12M turnover profit.

[Glimmerglass]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by vahunter:
Flint Hill farm is back on the market for 29+M. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That makes the Delaplane-based offering Fleetwood Farm (http://www.armfieldmillerripley.com/properties/fleetwood/index.html) at $21,615,000 almost a bargain with many more acres (1,441 to be exact vs. 856 for Flint) for less.

Well at $29.75M + we can be assured it's beyond the reach of the PEC or other non for profit to buy up and now doubtful that the next buyers will have the luxury of creating larger-parceled enclaves with the land. In order to make money off that high of an upfront purchase the ultimate developer will have to be all about packing them in http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

[Windsor]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Glimmerglass:
They included skip putting up sentry gates on the entry to your drive (this isn't McLean!), </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just idly curious--how come gates are frowned upon? Is it just certain TYPES of gates? I seem to remember reading that they are generally thought "unneighborly," but what if they're left open during the day? Are they considered unsightly?

[Tantivy]

Gates...I think in some instances it depends on the setting.

Ex. 1 - a new house goes up, in the middle of a field with no trees etc. New materials not local to the area, (think vinyl), achingly suburban feeling, perhaps complete with columns even, like plucked out of a well-to-do DC neighborhood. Then they fence it in, maybe with, say, brick pillars with 10 foot sections of iron railings in between (absolutely hideous) and a big gate at the drive.

YUK, it positively does not fit in to the local area architecture (mixtures of stucco, timber, stone, older brick).

Stands out like a sore thumb, reeks of wannabeism. And the gates just accentuate it.

Ex. 2, some one builds a new house but sets it in some trees overlooking an open field. While new, it has some stone and maybe a copper roof mixed in to make it look more natural. It makes a kinder picture than the first house, harshly set in the open.

They put some fencing in too, but it is post and rail or 3 board, with some coops and rider's gates in the fence lines. Even if they don't have much room to ride through, it sure gives us 'unting folk a warmer feel!

And while they might have gates too, maybe they went to a contractor and took the time to have some of those lovely heavy white wooden gates made, like the ones that grace a restored farmette in Green Springs that I think of, and they leave them invitingly open at all times, as if to say "come in and visit for a while".

Or maybe they use stone instead of brick, old local stone, that looks old and like it has been guarding the property for hundreds of years instead of since....last week.

There are gates...and then there are gates!

[Windsor]

Thanks for the thorough explanation, Tantivy.

I DO understand the whole "sterile-new- McMansion-sticking-out-like-a-sore-thumb" thing (ew)--I know the new National Sporting Library was designed specifically NOT to look like that. Just wasn't sure about the gates thing, but it seems from your explanation that gates that "fit in" may be acceptable--like you said, there are gates, and then there are gates. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Glimmerglass]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Windsor:
Just wasn't sure about the gates thing, but it seems from your explanation that gates that "fit in" may be acceptable--like you said, there are gates, and then there are gates. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course I'm of the belief that in large part gates really shouldn't be necessary. You could still drive up to the door of Susan Cummings' Ashland Farm, for example, until the day she sold the place a couple years ago. And clearly you'd think she would've had reason to keep the curious folks, et al away but didn't.

Yes there may be a need to keep "in" pets and children, but we all know that isn't typically why impossing sentry gates are put up.

There are no sentry gates for Kennelworth - but it looks like (http://www.armfieldmillerripley.com/properties/kennelworth/index.html) a fairly impressive home. So why would the owner of a McMansion need them more than these folks? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Windsor]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Glimmerglass:
Of course I'm of the belief that in large part gates really shouldn't be necessary. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It "shouldn't be necessary" for me to deadbolt my door at night, either, but it's a precaution I never fail to take. Too many nutjobs. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

If someone made the effort, as Tantivy suggested, to put up nice-looking gates that don't stick out, it seems like they should be able to put them up without fear of incurring the neighbors' scorn. If I'm living on 100+ acres in the middle of nowhere, I think I'd sleep a little more soundly knowing (a) that I had gates and (b) they're closed and locked at night (after having been, as Tantivy says, "invitingly open" all day, that is). http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[Glimmerglass]

Windsor, I concur about the locked doors however it's not quite the same as closed gates http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Anyhow yet another Fauquier Co. disappointment in the news - Times-Democrat 9/8/05 "BZA finishes landowners' feud" (http://www.zwire.com/site/tab2.cfm?newsid=15006944&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=506066&rfi=6)

The property in question I thought was once-part of the 2,000 + acre North Wales estate, which Michael V. Prentiss (http://www.prentissproperties.com/contacts/people/prentiss.htm) acquired but in large part put under protective easment.

Maybe just maybe he'll revist buying the 715 acre property in question from the developer. As an aside, it's a bit surprising that one of the weathiest commercial property developers in the US [that is Mr. Prentiss] is somewhat outfoxed in this fued.

He is an example of non-Virginian who has moved in and done a lot of good for the area. And has in fact invested and expanded the 'white elephant' of an estate's equine purpose (http://www.farmerfirst.com/articles/1204_progressive_c_rl.shtml) plus has preserved much of the property's vast acreage.

[Windsor]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Glimmerglass:
Windsor, I concur about the locked doors however it's not quite the same as closed gates http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right, of course, and there are other means of ensuring one's security. I still, though, fail to see what's unsavory about tasteful gates at the head of the driveway of friendly neighbors who leave them open to welcome others during the day and close them for their own security at night? I'm prepared to accept that they are generally disliked out there, but I still don't get why--IF they blend well with the surrounding nature and properties.

Anyhoo, Glimmer, the important thing is that we are on the same side with regard to the land-use/development issues.

What Tantivy has said about population growth is an ugly truth, but a truth nonetheless, it seems to me. Of course I say that as a person who's never had a burning desire to have ANY kids--much less a gaggle of them.

[SidesaddleRider]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Windsor:
I still, though, fail to see what's unsavory about tasteful gates at the head of the driveway of friendly neighbors who leave them open to welcome others during the day and close them for their own security at night? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find that calling the gates "security" is rather ridiculous, as they usually have 3-4 board fencing on either side of the gate, which pretty much anyone could climb over.

The only place I would say is actually secure is Sheila Johnson's Salamandar Farm, as she has a security guard out front 24-7.

[Windsor]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SidesaddleRider:
I find that calling the gates "security" is rather ridiculous, as they usually have 3-4 board fencing on either side of the gate, which pretty much anyone could climb over. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ridiculous? Whatever. I'm not sure too too many criminals are going to (a) want to break in to someone's home, then run back down a half-mile (or however long) driveway back to their car or (b) drive THROUGH either a gate or four-board fence.

If you have a gate to your driveway that is locked at night, you may not prevent a break-in (or vandalism, or horse theft, or whatever) altogether, but you are most certainly throwing up a significant obstacle to those crimes--an obstacle that might cause Joe Ne'erdowell to target a property with easier access and escape.

[krocky]

Gates do a great job of keeping the fire department out !

[Pwinslow1@cfl.rr.com]

hey, as the aged 47 year old Mom of a 7 year old little boy - it's sure rocked my world upside down quite unexpectedly - I was an unabashed proponent of zero population!! - no more leisurely trail rides, nights before the events in the bar having a few so I wouldn't feel the ground the next day... - but the times in the barn aisle where his first pool was a clean Fortex bucket, his first ribbon in the "Walk" class on Mr. Elliott - and having him give ME a riding lesson and lecturing me about my heels - wouldn't trade it for the world - so lecture all ya'll want - I"m not having more than one rest assured!! - but's he's the most fun in the whole world - and he's now an excuse to ride and have even MORE adventures!!!

jw

[lolalola]

Zero population growth doesn't mean not having any kids - it means not having more than replacement numbers, i.e. two per couple.

[Glimmerglass]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by vahunter:
Flint Hill farm is back on the market for 29+M. It's on the Middleburg Real Estate web site. I guess Gretchen doesn't mind forgoing the development for a cool 12M turnover profit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interestingly it looks to have been moved off the web site this week. For a while it was the "cover" home and feature offering (http://www.middleburgrealestate.com) but no longer so. No mention of it on any other page ...

[Glimmerglass]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Glimmerglass:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by vahunter:
Flint Hill farm is back on the market for 29+M. It's on the Middleburg Real Estate web site. I guess Gretchen doesn't mind forgoing the development for a cool 12M turnover profit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interestingly it looks to have been moved off the web site this week. For a while it was the "cover" home and feature offering (http://www.middleburgrealestate.com) but no longer so. No mention of it on any other page ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah they changed realtors for the listing http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Fauquire Times-Democrat: "Flint Hill Farm has distinguished history" (http://www.zwire.com/site/tab2.cfm?newsid=12772395&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=506066&rfi=6)

Long & Foster - 3103 MAIDSTONE RD SW, DELAPLANE VA 20144: $29.75M (http://homes.longandfoster.com/Buy_Home/Search/Property_Details.aspx?coId=2&mlsNum=FQ5380657)

[OakesBrae]

I feel for all of you. When I was growing up in PA I lived far out in farmland, with a mountain to ride on and many fields. I now live in another...flatter...state, and every farm I have boarded at is landlocked. I am able only to ride out in the hayfield or in the arena, and the cars go by too fast to go on the road anywhere.

It's sad.

I truly hope that you find a way to keep the sub-urban sprawl to a minimum. I'd ilke to see Hunt country while it still is...