Re: sanet #504 Oregon Land-Use
LionKuntz@aol.com
Mon, 24 Aug 1998 23:06:45 EDT
(Sigh) I said I didn't need to be told the stardard reasons from standard
thinking...
===========================================
> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 10:04:59 -0700
> From: Richard Olson <csas005@unlvm.unl.edu>
> Subject: [none]
>
> In a recent posting, LionKuntz wrote:
>
> "In Oregon they have the "death of organic farmsteads" law, which is a
> land-use regulation which dictates that a home cannot be built on
> agricultural
> lands until after $80,000 per year agricultural-income is proven. Lots of
> people who raise their own seeds and grow non-mechanically don't need that
> much money to meet their needs. The average middle-class income is well
> below
> that figure, and many millions of people would find it a big raise in pay
to
> get half that number."
>
>
> It is important to note that the $80,000 rule applies only to the very best
> farmland -- soils that are prime, unique, Class I, Class II or that support
> certain crops such as orchards. Most agricultural land in Oregon falls
> under less stringent rules.
>
> Also, the $80,000 is for gross sales. Given the 80% overhead typical for
> farms and ranches, that translates into $16,000 net income -- not a large
> amount.
===========================================
Lion >> A magical, mystical, fraught-with-significance number this $80,000.
All smoke and mirrors it disappears upon close inspection. $80,000 means that
the mortgage holder, the equipment loan-lien holders, the middle-men wholesale
buyers, and the vertically-integrated processors-retailors are all vampires on
the neck of this "imaginary farmer". The $64,000 question is how does
supporting this pack of jackals with $64,000 out of the farmers income
preserve the land? By government manipulation of the so-called "free-market
system" the serf has to turn over 80% of their income if they want a home on
their farm, because one cannot produce by time-tested sustainable, eco-
friendly methods until after they have their systems in place (a process which
might take several years.) The push is towards the gang-muggers because it is
the only game in town, and don't ya' know "you can't fight city hall." First
class land is reduced to second and third class land, as the soil is strip-
mined, poisoned, hardpanned and polluted by the conventional petroleum-
consumptive, take-no-prisoners ecologically destructive juggernaught called
"agriculture". After several quick successions of failed farmers bankrupted
into oblivion as the natural land fertility is sent dowstream, this land will
be rezoned as industrial or subdivision. This is a plan designed by Satan
himself to turn paradise into hell.
===========================================
> For full details, see the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
> Development homepage at www.lcd.state.or.us.
>
>
> Oregon has made the firmest commitment of any state to protect farmland and
> farming. With its population increasing by 50,000 to 60,000 per year, the
> pressures for non-farm use of land are great. Most agriculture cannot
> compete for land with developers without the advantage of strong land use
> programs.
>
===========================================
Lion >> Strong land-use programs might include emplacing stewards on the
land who are dedicated to protecting their piece of paradise, who will not
destroy the ecology, the water table, the air quality, not poison their
neighbors or customers, and provide fresh local produce to their customers at
fair prices (fair to both sides, grower and customer). Why doesn't Oregon
make a commitment to that kind of farmer protection? The definition of
"farming" has been hijacked by the destroyasaurus corporations, and Oregon is
using that definition and ignoring the other kinds of farming which are
actually long-term beneficial. If the $80,000 imaginary farmer is believed to
be satisfied with a (pre-tax) income of $16,000, why shouldn't real farmers be
given credit for being satisfied with $30/$40/$50 thou real incomes without
supporting that agri-mafia? If the land belongs to YOU instead of the bank,
you are vested in protecting the land and the bio-region. If you are smart
enough to make your living off small farmsteads, why isn't that enough? It
solves two, no make that three, problems at once: (1) preserves the land in
agricultural use, (2) absorbs some of that growing population causing the
land-development pressure, and (3) absorbs some of the under- or un-employed,
where in Oregon the minimum wage is all too often the maximum wage. What's
wrong with that definition of land preservation?
===========================================
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".