Comments

7 responses to “SUNDAY READING”

1. 

   Ray Hyde

   July 3, 2006

   Even I find today’s story atrocious, but, a compact, urban enclave would have saved 10s of thousands of acres of productive farm land from scattered but increaasingly unprofitable , low density development.

   Obviously using farm subsidies in this manner is entirely irrelevant to preserving anything. Given the photographs, one wonders why anyone would want to live there.

   I agree that biofuels won’t replace fossil fuels, but then, neither will any kind of urban development. Cities are huge, enormous, energy sinks. Do I think that mixed use, new urban development will solve all our problems? no. Do I think there might be some marginal benefit? Yes.

   Same goes for biofuels. There is no reason to look a gift horse in the mouth, and noreason to think it is a Rolls Royce, either. We shouldn’t turn down the marginal benefit, and we shoudn’t denigrate the alternative either.

   The idiocy of trying to drive private vehicles into the future is no greater than the idiocy of promoting personal rapid transit as an alternative. Private vehicles ARE personal rapid tranit. They need a lot of improvements, yes, but extermination, no. PRT was pedestrian at one time, then it was horses, then carriages, bicycles, and automobiles. Someday it might be the Segway, but shared vehicles are always less convenient, slower, and frequently more expensive. Get over it.

   What Ed missed out on was the article in the metro Section entitled “Fairfax to Revisit Renovation Restrictions”. Renovation restrictions: just think of it, the mere thought is chilling. The article describes a family with a half acre lot in Annandale. Their lot is 80 feet wide, as are many lots in that neighborhood. They would like to replace their 1944 vintage cape cod with a larger home, but they are restricted to a home 40 feet wide. Their desired home is fifty feet wide. The county is loath to give them permission.

   So, they can build something that looks like a stand alone town house, or they can suck wind. There are presently a dozen or so of these deep, narrow, and tall structures in the neighborhood, and they can only be described as UGLY. What, in God’s name are we thinking?

   There are many homes in the neighborhood that have had additions put on, some excellent, and some terrible. The article says that for two years, thousands of homeowners have been put on hold, for reasons that mystify me. What possible interest can the government have in preventing people from increasing the tax base WHERE THE LOTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE ALREADY EXIST?

   And this is a neighborhood that is only nine miles from the monument. This is totally and completely nuts. It is exactly the kind of thing that I believe Jim Bacon is talking about when he proposes removing many zoning restrictions. It is not mixed use, but it is not far from local shopping, either. Like the ethanol, we ought to take what we can get.

   But, back to the farm subsidies.

   Some say Oregon is the birthplace of smart growth, with its 30-year-old law designed to protect rural land, hem in suburban development and encourage transit. The dense new downtown neighborhoods of Portland are happy results.

   But a funny thing happened while the country was admiring Portland’s MAX light rail line, the lush parks and the trendy Pearl District. Some folks on the edge of town — just over the growth boundary, and beyond the strip malls and the cul-de-sacs — were angry.

   It was getting harder to make a go of it farming, and they knew someone was making a lot of money. While farm land lost value, urban land has appreciated to an unprecedented degree. Developers were willing to pay a lot for nearby open land — if only it was legal to fill it with another spread of houses, garages and lawns.

   Spurred by the nationwide property rights movement, some of these landowners lent their stories to proponents of Measure 37, Oregon’s “takings” initiative. Its passage in 2003 made local governments liable when land use regulations decrease the value of private land, and it effectively reversed zoning in Oregon.

   One of the ways Washington, Oregon and other states can combat “takings” laws is to do a better job of involving rural land owners in planning.

   It needs to be a democratic, participatory process.

   Easier said than done. You’ve no doubt heard of NIMBYism. There are other practical planning terms like Locally Undesirable Land Use (LULU), and not-so-serious ones like Not On Planet Earth (NOPE). Finally, there’s Boston mayor Thomas Menino’s favorite acronym: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything (BANANAs).

   High density development that is not subsidized remains costly because it is in demand — and way too scarce. Another reason it is costly is that, increasingly, it does not have to compete with lower cost land because building or rebuilding as in Annandale) is restriced.

   The fact that it is popular and costly proves density is not something people choose only if forced by circumstances beyond their control. Most of the value of any piece of real estate is not the result of what happens on the property, but what happens nearby. Therefore, restricting what happens nearby hurts us all in the end. Zoning is both shortsighted and long lived, the rest of us are merely mortal. Zoning is a real dilemma: new zoning makes winners and losers. At present zoning is making rural landownes losers, as indicated by events in Oregon. Annandale shows that losers are not always rural. It might be easier to say that the losers are people who advocate some kind of change, and right now, the winners are those that propose stagnation of various kinds. That might be in the form of conservation restritions, historical areas, growth restrictions or many other forms of NOPE and BANANAS.

   But, sooner or later, everyone is going to want to sell their property, and they are going to want the most they can get for it, even Ed Risse, despite his carping about profiteering.

   I own and operate a small, and ancient, family farm. I do real work, with real farm equipment, and I sell out of what I can produce every year. I work hard not to do any of the things that destroy the watershed, the wildlife, or the ecology. For all my efforts, which amount almost to a second full time job, the farm represents only 15% of my annual income.

   I get no subsidies, no assistance, and no county involvement, whatsoever, other than having them tell me what I cannot do, and what they wish I would do. Most of that is devoted to making things better and more prosperous in other areas, where growth is desired. I’m OK with that, but I think I ought to have a cut in the prosperity as payment for being cut out.

   That isn’t happening.

   I admit, stories like todays Post story on bogus farm subsidies make me sick. I think it send the wrong message and hurts people lie me who could really use the help. Before long, my farm income will be my only income. If the county actually did what it claims it wants to do, then the multiplying effect could mae a huge difference to me by the time I can afford to spend full time at this.

   Absent that help, I may very well fail, and simply sell out. Like Ed Risse, I will want to sell to the highest bidder. Call me Ishmael.

   I think the Post Story highlights a real problem, but both the Post and Ed Risse have missed th point. If you want to have open space, you had better find a way to make it profitable. If you want to put me in the scenery business, then you need to find me some cdustomers who are willing to pay for the view.

   Portions of the above were shamelessly plagiarized and adapted from Claire Enlow of the Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce , June 28, 2006

   Log in to Reply
2. 

   RedBull

   July 3, 2006

   Can someone clarify the term, “productive farm land”?

   Almost every small-time farmer tells you that there is no money in farming, including my cousin who is a dairy farmer.

   Yet, when the developers come knocking to buy the land, all of a sudden, they are trying to take “productive farm land”.

   I don’t get it.

   Log in to Reply
3. 

   Ray Hyde

   July 3, 2006

   I’d say it is productive if you can grow something on it to sell. It is also productive for many other reasons. If it is well managed it protects the water supply, provides visual relief and viewscape, and habitat.

   That doesn’t mean it is profitable, either for the farmer or the community. Around here land use is based on being able to make $400 and acre, per year. The average rental property goes for $1200, per month. High quality corn land might bring in $800. Gross. The Fauquier county extension agent has said that a soybean farmer here might make $75 an acre, before labor and machinery costs. If I worked full time at it, and if I had the capital to get machinery that works more often than it is broken, I might make $30,000 a year. No insurance, no benefits. As it is, the farm pays for its own fuel,hired labor, machinery, seed, and fertilizer. I don’t think it has ever paid for my labor, and certainly not land rent. At $60.00 for a hundred pounds of milk, it is easy to see why your cousin is says there is no money in it. That is hard, heavy, constant, painstaking work, then one day a lightning storm strikes a tree and kills ten of your cows. You do the math.

   The top ten farms in Fauquier bring in several hundred thousand in farm subsidies, one of them is over $80,000. As I understand it, you must have a five year history in order to sign up. That means you will suck wind for a long time, just to get on the list, which is oversubscribed. The labor to process an application is the same for a big farm as a small one, and the big farms have almost all the subsidies.

   The South Carolina Dept. of Agriculture published a study that says that at $4000 an acre for land costs, only the very best farmers can make it. At $7000 an acre you would be better off to sell the land and put the money in government bonds. No risk, no labor, more money.

   That prospect is *one* thing that keeps a farmer going. If you take that away, you are not helping to save the farmer.

   If I were to build one modest rental home on my property, on land I can’t farm anyway, it would bring in more money than the rest of the farm. It would *produce* a local home for a local resident.

   Now, the argument is made that once the farmland is gone, then it is gone forever. Likewise, once the land is in conservation easement, the housing is gone forever. NOT. Those people have already happened and they are going to live somewhere. One of the reasons urban land has appreciated to an unprecedented degree is that sprawl restrictions have taken away the competition. In doing so they have created enormous transfers of wealth to those who are lucky enough or have enough power to have their land designated for growth.

   However, it is true that we have done a lousy job of protecting the bst farm land. Now we are still doing a lousy job by failing to differentiate what is really valuable and what is wishful thinking. We are doing the same thing with conservation land. We are willing to try to save whatever we can get on the cheap, instead of focusing our efforts on what is important. We are going to build aroad fifteen miles around the battlefield park instead of two miles through it. What are we *saving*?

   Eventually, some farmer is going to have a family crisis and need to raise some money. Large lot restrictions mean that he may have to sell far more land than he would wish to. And the development rules mean that only giant builders can play the game. You hav to do a number of homes to make the investment pay off, so self-build is no longer an option.

   We are killing the very people we claim we want to save. The only thing that can save them is profits. Those profits are going to have to be *nearly* equal to what they can get by selling, or they will sell. That is why I say that conservation is expensive: it costs as much or more than development, but people don’t understand that. If a farm is developed, then they see the traffic and the school seats, and they see the expense. But if it is not developed, they don’t see the thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours that come out of the farmers pocket. That money comes from his off-farm job, that he probably commutes to.

   And then there is the growth in capital. If I build that modest home, it will appreciate faster than the rest of the farm. Look at it on a larger scale. Fauquier and Loudoun have had entirely different development histories. Fauquier government claims that preventing development has kept taxes low. But, my out of pocket cash paid out is almost the same in Fauquier as it is in Fairfax. The difference is that in Fairfax I at least get SOMETHING for my money. I estimate that the difference in growth between Loudoun and Fauquier has meant a difference in capital that amounts to a million dollars for every single resident of Fauquier.

   Which would you rather have, a million dollars worth of property, or a tax bill that is lower by $200 a year? That is exactly the problem facing the farmers. I would argue that sprawl is good for farmers. It makes the off farm jobs more plentiful and closer. It causes increases in land prices and as long as they are increasing, he has incentive to hang on longer. If he does put up a little house in the corner of the farm, it is worth more and the money lasts longer.

   I don’t get it either.

   My first sentence above got screwed up it should have said

   “… a compact, urban enclave would have saved 10s of thousands of acres of productive but increasingly unprofitable farm land from scattered, low density development.

   Log in to Reply
4. 

   Anonymous

   July 3, 2006

   “Easier said than done. You’ve no doubt heard of NIMBYism. There are other practical planning terms like Locally Undesirable Land Use (LULU), and not-so-serious ones like Not On Planet Earth (NOPE). Finally, there’s Boston mayor Thomas Menino’s favorite acronym: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything (BANANAs).”

   Add to that CAVE people: Citizens Against Virtually Everything.

   Log in to Reply
5. 

   E M Risse

   July 3, 2006

   RedBull:

   Perhaps we should have called the land “potentially productive farm land.”

   In the early 70s the land outside Angleton, TX was very productive, it is not now but that has nothing to do with its potential.

   An agronomist would describe “potentially productive farm land” (and “productive farm land”) as that land which, due to the mineral and organic composition, exposure to the sun, elevation and natural watering has the potential to produce traditional farm crops.

   That a parcel is not being farmed now or is not now profitable to farm is not part of the equation.

   There is a limited amount of the productive farm land resource in the United States and in the Temperate and Tropic Zones on the planet.

   From the perspective of long-term sustainability of human habitation it is imprudent to cover up this land with Cowboy Starter Kit driveways.

   It turns out there is no need to pave this land over. If total location-variable costs were equitable distributed no urban dweller would choose to live there.

   That is why subsides are so counterproductive and why those with land they want to sell will go to any extreme and make any argument to secure a subsidy – direct or indirect.

   EMR

   Log in to Reply
6. 

   Ray Hyde

   July 3, 2006

   There is a limited amount of productive or potentially productive land. There is also a huge surplus of farmland over what is needed. If, as you claim, we only need five percent of the land for human habitation, then what is the justification for saving vast amounts of land we don’t need just for long term sustainability?

   In 1900 seventy five percent of farmland was used to feed the draft animals that worked the other twenty five per cent. When tractors became widely available in 1949 they made 75% of the land surplus. Since then enormous increases in productivity have made much of the remainder surplus: almost 60% of what we grow is exported. All of the fruits and vegetables we consume are produced on less than 15% of the land.

   Keeping farmland out of development reduces the farmers incentive to stay in business and it reduces competition for urban land. Keeping farmland out of development therefore increases the cost of Urban homes which creates less incentive to live in urban areas and more pressure to release farmland to development. It is exactly as Ed says, subsidies are counterproductive.

   Claiming that just because a parcel is not being farmed now or is unprofitable to farm now misses the entire point. It is not productive unless it is producing something useful and needed. If what it is producing is long term sustainability, that is OK, too. But if that is what we decide to do, then that long term sustainability has some future value and nome net present value and that value needs to be paid for, or else we are simply stealing from our present residents on behalf of some future residents.

   I think such homes as described and pictured make little sense. However, people who own such homes in this area are my primary customers: you know the type, ten acre lot and an SUV. (Sorry Ed, I couldn’t resist.)

   I agree with Ed that subsidies are counterproductive. As it stands now, urban development and urban home prices are being subsidised by farmers and landowners who are restricted from entering the market. I am restricted from using the land near my streambeds (which I wouldn’t do anyway, but the point remains). That is done to benefit the people who use the water downstream – urban residents. They pay no rent for the land I am forced to provide for their benefit, so that is a subsidy from the rural areas to the urban areas too.

   New Zealand pays its farmers a stipend for environmental services (in addition to their farm subsidies.) Clearly, if we are paying farm subsidies for what amounts to peoples front and back yards there is something seriously wrong. It is just as wrong to claim that if we need something for the future, that we can have it without feeding the piggybank now. But those whacked out subsidies described are buying something. We should figue out what it is we ar buying and fix the problem by buying something we do want.

   Ed would argue that autos create huge external costs that are not accounted for in the market place, therefore cars are subsidized by society. I would say exactly the same thing about cities. The New Zealand plan recognizes that fact and buys some things that people evidently want.

   I have no beef with Ed’s urban “plans”. They may even have some minor benefit. People should be allowed to do what they want and pay the full price for it. But Ed is decidedly one sided when it comes to calculating the costs and benefits. As I see it, Ed’s plan to make urban areas work is to do it by making the countryside off limits, worthless, and heavily taxed. Then he wants to make the argument against subsidies!

   Log in to Reply
7. 

   C. P. Zilliacus

   July 5, 2006

   > A compact, urban enclave would have
   > saved 10s of thousands of acres
   > of productive farm land
   > from scattered, low
   > density development – what
   > real estate agents now
   > call ‘Cowboy Starter Kits.”

   We apparently have plenty of farm
   land in these United States right
   now – more than the population of the
   nation needs.

   While some might take issue with
   the low-density development decried
   above, that is exactly what
   many areas that have been preserved
   as agriculture (including huge areas
   of the Montgomery County, Maryland
   Agricultural Preserve) have become!

   Log in to Reply