[Foodplanning] JPER article

[Jesse Richardson]

I'm not really concerned about the oil issue. The market will (and already is)
taking care of that. When the price of oil is high enough, we will find
substitutes. A bigger issue is the US policy of cheap food. That's been great
for consumers, but doesn't help farmers a bit.

As far as the rate or amount of development, note that I said "region". 
Farmland protection, which far too often serves as a euphemism for exclusionary
zoning, can indeed reduce the rate or amount of growth in a locality, but
pushing development further out from the job and population centers (ie,
sprawl).  However, within a region (job market and/or housing market, neither
of which respects jurisdictional boundaries) the rate or amount of population
remains unchanged.  Farmland protection does not affect the birth rate, death
rate, immigration rate or jobs.  The development doesn't just magically
disappears, it just moves down the road or across the street.

As far as the keeping land available for agriculture, I've heard that one many
times before also. I don't see us booting wealthy people off the land so that
it can be farmed (or forcing the wealthy to allow the land to be actively
farmed).  Perpetual conservation easements should be rarely used.  Perpetuity
cases some real problems.  We we choose the land we will conserve, we, by
default, choose the land we will develop.

Finally, note that the land conservation tools we all tout do not affect the
ultimate number of acres of open space land that we will have on the day before
Armageddon. The only tool that can increase that number is denser development. 
The day before Armageddon, regardless of the acres under conservation easement
or the downzoning we do, [insert region here] will have the same number of
people occupying the same amount of land and will have the same amount of open
space.  Are we making the right choices?


Jesse

Quoting Rosemarie Cordello <rosemarie at sabingreen.net>:

> While I appreciate the attention to nuance and outcomes in the article, I am
> tempted to say that the point is moot.  The globalized food system has no
> future since it's entirely on large inputs of petroleum, which will become
> more scarce and expensive over time, not to mention a continuing trigger for
> global warming.  Along with transportation, our means of energy production
> and community design, the food system will require wholesale transformation.
> Many planning departments conduct themselves as if peak oil and global
> warming are not realities.  Ignoring them does not make them go away.
>
> Rosemarie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foodplanning-bounces at mailman1.u.washington.edu
> [mailto:foodplanning-bounces at mailman1.u.washington.edu] On Behalf Of Jesse
> Richardson
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 3:32 PM
> To: Jill Rubin
> Cc: foodplanning at u.washington.edu
> Subject: RE: [Foodplanning] JPER article
>
> Jill:
>
> I agree with most of your comments. However, your statement "that you are
> buying
> tomatoes that are keeping a farm in production and preventing sprawl is not
> insignificant phenomenon of local food systems" struck me.  "Keeping a farm
> in
> production" is just as likely to promote sprawl as to prevent sprawl. It
> depends on many factors, not the least of which is the location of the farm.
>
> "Keeping a farm in production does not change the rate or amount of
> development
> in a region, it merely helps determine the spatial arrangement.  Some farms
> SHOULD be developed, in order to prevent development on more "worthy" farms.
>
> In some regions of Virginia, we are seeing so many country estates and hobby
> farms with conservation easements (for which the donors were handsomely
> compensated) that there is only one place for development to go: the real
> farms.
>
> Jesse
>
>
> Quoting Jill Rubin <jrubin at glynwood.org>:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I just read Avoiding the Local Trap.  I think it makes some good points
> > (relevant to almost anything) that local should not be embraced without
> > examination.  And yes, academics and advocates often interchange local
> > with other goals probably more often then we should.  But, I am not
> > convinced it is as big a problem or as neutral as the authors suggest.
> >
> > The loftier goals of sustainability, democracy, and social justice are
> > very difficult to define and manufacture (ie. one of the major
> > criticisms of both organic and fair trade labeling schemes is that they
> > fail to capture the essence of social justice and sustainability by
> > their inherent reductive approaches).  Local is a tangible approach that
> > sometimes, but not always, compliments these broader goals.  I think the
> > reason local has gotten a lot traction in the food movement is because
> > it is not an idealistic concept but a physical reality (even if it is a
> > socially constructed, relative, relational, and fixed reality).  What
> > makes local an effective organizing tool is that it is a hook.  I think
> > the challenge is that in defining a local food system, or community food
> > system, as I prefer to call it, is in understanding the components you
> > have, you don't like, and you want to change, and what side-effects that
> > change will have...but this is not a critique of local, but a prudent
> > approach to any endeavor.
> >
> > Another important feature of local is that it is "human scale."  Local
> > is something people can relate to, grab onto, and get to know.  The one
> > clear advantage local always has over broader geographic scales is
> > proximity.  When a New Yorker eats hamburger raised in California on
> > mid-west feed, it is hard to know (except by books like Omnivores
> > Dilemma) the environmental and social impacts.  Local presents a much
> > more feasible scale to understand the good and bad of the food system
> > ie. my lake is nutrient loaded because of fertilizer run-off and I
> > cannot fish there or I appreciate the aesthetic of farms on the
> > landscape.  I think the intimacy of a local food system is a very
> > important feature of local...that you are buying tomatoes that are
> > keeping a farm in production and preventing sprawl is not insignificant
> > phenomenon of local food systems.
> >
> > My point is local is not a misguided approach, but it needs to be
> > tempered with understanding of the diverse consequences and ultimate
> > goals.  And I would happily throw out the concept--"local food system"
> > for a much more diverse and descriptive concept such as community food
> > system...but there are plenty of problematics with "community" too...
> >
> > -Jill
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: foodplanning-bounces at mailman1.u.washington.edu
> > [mailto:foodplanning-bounces at mailman1.u.washington.edu] On Behalf Of
> > Joseph Nasr
> > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 10:03 AM
> > To: Janet Hammer
> > Cc: foodplanning
> > Subject: Re: [Foodplanning] JPER article
> >
> > Thanks Janet for getting this discussion started on a good footing.  I
> > look
> > forward to hearing the thoughts of others on this.
> > Joe
> >
> >
> > Joe Nasr
> > joenasr at compuserve.com
> > (alternates: joenasr at cyberia.net.lb
> >                   jnasr at ryerson.ca)
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foodplanning mailing list
> > Foodplanning at u.washington.edu
> > http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/foodplanning
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foodplanning mailing list
> > Foodplanning at u.washington.edu
> > http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/foodplanning
> >
>
>
> Jesse J. Richardson, Jr.
> Associate Professor
> Urban Affairs and Planning
> School of Public and International Affairs
> Virginia Tech
> Blacksburg, Virginia 24061-0113
> _______________________________________________
> Foodplanning mailing list
> Foodplanning at u.washington.edu
> http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/foodplanning
>
>
>


Jesse J. Richardson, Jr.
Associate Professor
Urban Affairs and Planning
School of Public and International Affairs
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061-0113