Our View/By the Marshall Democrat-News Editorial Board

After approximately three years, the Saline County Study is nearing a critical crossroads in preparing a recommendation to the county commissioners about what direction land use in the county should take. And over the last three years we've heard how Saline County could be a case study for the rest of the state in decision-making on land use issues. The question now is what kind of case study will we be?

A SCS Steering Committee member was quoted by the Democrat-News earlier this week as telling Rep. Ike Skelton that county residents are well aware of the Saline County Study's purpose and the choices about land use that are being laid out. Quite simply, we doubt that.

Even though the Saline County Study has met for several months now, with newspaper coverage of ongoing issues, the fact is if you did a random survey at the grain elevators or in any of the outlying towns in the county, even public officials oftentimes are not sure about what is at stake when a recommendation is made to the county commissioners later this year.

So here is what is at stake - whether landowners in this county will continue to buy, sell and develop their property under free market principles or whether we will sacrifice freedoms for the convenience of being "saved" from annoyances such as concentrated animal feeding operations.

If you asked ten residents "Would you like a CAFO across the road?" we're willing to bet the majority would respond, "No." That's probably a reasonable response, but don't be confused. There are still plenty of other questions that lurk under the surface. And they need to start being raised by the public and the news media.

When the SCS makes a recommendation to county government - with two of the three county commissioners having been in regular attendance at meetings to put together the public issues forum - in a few months, what is the next course of action? Are county officials considering an ordinance similar to Linn County's attempt to ban CAFOs based on health issues? Is the door left open to extensive government control beyond the issue of CAFOs?

Has a special effort been made by SCS members or the university to contact the population base - agricultural producers - most likely affected by some of the options under consideration? Why are we talking about what could amount to countywide planning and zoning when, according to page 5 of the SCS prepared booklet, "Missouri law prohibits counties from regulating agricultural land use under existing planning and zoning statues." Or is that why study members have been in contact with legislators?

How much money and in-kind contributions has the county put into the study?

According to county officials, the cash contributions locally total approximately $14,600. The University of Missouri has also invested heavily in the project in terms of time and staff resources - which are not free, but paid for with taxpayer money.

Do county residents understand or approve of such a three-year effort, subsidized by public money, when two of the three "choices" outlined for deliberation focus on controlling how private property can be utilized?

The summary of Choice No. 2, "Protecting Farming and Farmland," says in part, "Some states and communities - even federal agencies - use taxpayer funds to purchase land outright. More common, however, is the use of tax money to purchase development rights or conservation easements on privately-owned farmland and open-space land in environmentally fragile areas. This approach retains private ownership, but limits the owner of the property to uses that are consistent with environmental protection or conservation of farmland resources." Who defines "consistent with environmental protection?" Who defines "conservation of farmland resources?" Who sets the price on "development rights" or "conservation easements?" If land is passed from one party to another, could the new owner be told he might not have a say in how he uses the property?

How would one propose to change the direction of agricultural production in the county away from farmers having to maintain a second job in town or work on a contract basis? Would such an idea succeed or will agriculture-related industries simply look to other counties if regulations are imposed on Saline County but not others?

If, in the name of protecting farmland, we decide to place limits on the additional land that can be utilized for non-farm purposes, such as housing developments, who is going to decide what the limits will be? Will communities such as Blackburn, Slater, Gilliam and Sweet Springs have a local voice or will control be centralized?

Choice No. 3, "Enhancing Our Natural and Cultural Resources," goes even further. In this model, "The focus would be the total land base of the county, with special attention to land cover, historic and cultural sites. Proponents of this choice are not against agriculture, but they think the county would be better off if less land were under intensive cultivation." Better off? When the study has already cited statistics that nearly half of the county's total employment either directly or indirectly is tied to agriculture? When the most recent data estimates agriculture makes up about 46 percent of the Gross County Product?

Should government be involved in setting up mandatory residential density requirements and lot sizes? Should the county be involved with purchasing development rights "as a means of providing a buffer between development and historic, cultural and fragile ecosystems?" Isn't that terminology extremely open-ended? Is there the opening for a future Saline County Commission to determine what constitutes historic, cultural or fragile needs to be more far-reaching?

Are these questions antagonistic? Probably. Would we be sorry if we didn't raise them before a decision is made? Definitely.

The bottom line is we cannot support the trade-off of freedom to live on our land and make a living off it as we see fit for a momentary respite from annoying sights or smells. If there is a problem with a specific party, then the citizens and government need to have the courage to fight individual fights. Don't make the mistake of assuming that giving up a little freedom today doesn't mean that giving up other freedoms won't be required tomorrow - not just of us, but also of our children.

So, Saline County, will you be heard? Do you support free market decisions on land use, protecting of farmland through purchasing of development rights and other tools or a whole-county approach that could include a change in state statutes regulating agriculture? You have a few more chances. Read the Events Calendar on page three each day of the Democrat-News and find out where and when upcoming town hall meetings are scheduled. Then go, ask these questions - and more.

What type of case study will Saline County be? Will we be a case study for democratic involvement by a broad base of the population or will we be a case study in apathy, letting a few control the fate of many?

- The Marshall Democrat-News Editorial Board