Comp plan needs to be less restrictive

Put yourself in the shoes of this local area family. They bought 30 acres of land years ago when land was affordable. They still have 30 acres. The parents want to help the children by giving them five acres to live on or five acres to sell to help them with college.

According to the existing plan, they are in a rural region — five acres minimum.

If this new plan is passed they will be lumped into a combined category with agriculture and rural — as much as 20-40 acres minimum. They will not be able to subdivide or split their land any further.

Currently, they would be able to subdivide 5-10 acres to help their children with a place to live or to be able to go to college. They will not be able to if the plan passes.

Any split of their land would be impossible. If the minimum is 20 acres, there would be a useless 10 remaining acres that could be built on. If the minimum is 40 acres they are not able to split it up at all. Even if the minimum goes to 10 acres they won't be able to help all their children equally.

Idaho is a market-value state when it comes to property taxes. When land is subdivided and built upon, the value goes up. Therefore the taxes increase and the county coffers get filled more.

It is clearly not in the best interest of the county to further restrict subdivisions of land and therefore depreciate property values. This in turn would depreciate the taxes needed for infrastructure, schools, fire, and police protection.

DAVID ALLEN

Sandpoint