Dear Editor,
The existing Foothills County policies and the planning concepts have gotten us to where we presently are. A continuation of these same policies, however, will not take us to where we need to go for the future.
Whenever development proposals involve the conversion of agriculture zoned land to high density rural residential development, their impacts should be seriously scrutinized. It’s important to identify and to have an appreciation of both the benefits and the liabilities of such land use policies.
The proposed adoption of the Foothills Landing ASP in Division 5, Foothills County takes us down an all-too-familiar path. It’s an urbanized plan for a rural setting.
Many landowners in the Central District were left unimpressed by the developer’s pitch at the hearing on Sept. 24. It was disheartening that prime crop-producing land was being offered up for this urban plan located on the east escarpment of the Sandstone Coulee.
Country residents in MDP 2010 identified to Foothills council their values and their vision for growth. Wherever and whenever possible, agriculture zoned land should remain intact and not be offered for dense residential development.
The Foothills Landing plan violates the letter and the spirit of MDP 2010.
What this proposal offers is poor planning, increased pollution (light, soil, water, air and sound) and more people residing in a concentrated area. The problems with traffic safety and flow will be horrendous and will be most frustrating to all commuters using Highway 2A and the overpass junction.
May our elected Foothills council choose to endorse rural development plans that are beneficial, preserving our producing agricultural land, protecting our natural resources and our amazing landscapes with an eye to the future.
One has to ask why? Why indeed do we need Foothills Landing ASP? The answer is we don’t.
No thank you!
Jenifer L. Thompson
Foothills County
