Let's to keep politics out of this so it does not wind up in P&R. Hopefully the subject is not already deemed political so if it gets tossed there anyway, then I understand.
Not sure about the rest of the country but it seems to be a problem around here that developers clear land then don't develop for years, maybe never.
It is sort of hitting home (pun intended) for me as I a looking at a new house that is next to cleared property and it does not seem the developer has intentions to continue. The property is otherwise perfect for me. The house, the location, everything is pretty darn close to what I have on my list. The only real issue is the cleared property next to it. Should I decide to make an offer, I plan to use that fact as ammunition in my offer. Even if they decide they decide to develop, my argument would be noise and dust from the construction.
But it made me think of the land that is cleared and never used. Forget about the environmental concerns. Cleared property is just butt ugly when compared to tree covered property.
So, should developers be required to post a bond before clearing land? Maybe they loose it if they don't build after X days? Maybe that would prompt developers to clear land as needed?