I have been reading about Su's farmhouse and how it is out of compliance with the agricultural intent of the zoning requirements of agricultural land use in Taiwan.
Admitedly, I have not taken a personal visit. I have, however, seen the photos. The KMT has now admitted that the actual acreage occupied by the farmhouse is in compliance. Thus the only remaining issue is some ridiculaous wording of the law that requires that the remaining land be used for "agricultural purposes".
no farm hands
no poor folks dressed in peaked straw hats traditional to farm hands
no peaked hatted peasants (a plus side too)
Well, I grew up in farm land. I have never seen these arguments where I lived. We had agricultural zones but the government did not "dictate", as the KMT proposes. Sometimes we left the land fallow. It improves the land for future crops and owners are applauded for these efforts. Often this comes at a sacrifice to short term profits. The long term ecological benefits are enormous. (KMT, pay attention here! - - I know, not your long suit, but try!)
Also, I saw grass and trees on Su's farm. These contribute mightily to the environment and will only increase the value of his farm for future generations which will still be of uae for it's intended purpose - farmland.
There has been a great deal made about how grand the home is. I ponder why the hell the KMT thinks that farmers can't have, or don't deserverve, a nice home. If I can afford it and build it, well . . bite me and my farm house.
Last, this legislation was a zoning ordinance. Pure and simple. Unfortunately, no law in Taiwan is pure and simple. It was, however, never meant to be a a "best use" ordinance. Under a "best use" ordinance" one is forced, non-democratically, to put your resources to the best use available. That would result in Su having to make his farm profitable on an annual basis. An idle piece of privately held land downtown that is used as a park MUST be sold and used for it's best commercial use - a community or office building, all in the best economic interests of the economy and society. Of course this extends to farmland also. A small mom and pop acreage that is marginally profitable should, and must, be sold to the corporate farmers that can make the land more profitable. A free economy? KMT advocates the "best use"policy. I am not merely giving an opinion here. Look at their rhetoric.
Ok! I have had my political say.
Tonight, I will catch the next plane to any democratic country where people can still farm as they please, sans cacao, and build any style home within my means. Anybody want to do a photo exhibit of comaparable homes of the KMT and DPP? I'll sneak back in and help. Trust me! I will. How much difference do you propose you will find?
I will vote for the next candidate that says, Vote me me! I will do absolutely NOTHING for you and I promise that I will not tax you for it."
Democracy? I think not! Is KMT demanding an anti-democratic philosophy of dictated profit making? Best use doesn't work in any democratic society. If Su want's to run an unprofitable farm that, by the way, contributes to a reduction in CO2 and enviromental harmony, maybe the KMT should pull it out of an agricultural zone, stick up a high rise or, maybe plant carrots. If the KMT controls, mom and pop farmers better start looking at affordable taxis.
In conclusion, the ordinance was designed to keep agricutral land in that category and in that category it remains. This ordinance was not meant to demand that all farms be agricuturally profitable. Far from it. How many farms are actually profitable. To think that if that were the intent, we would demolish all non-profitable farms and build factories which would wreck havoc with the actual orignal intent.
Bye the way, to both of you pollitical parties:
Do you really think that ANYBODY listens to your little blue truck loudspeakers? All you do is piss everybody off. Knock it off and for no ther reason, you have my vote, especially if you get off Su's ass.
PS. MODS: Now do I have more than one recognized post after 10 years here and 2,000 posts?