10 ms·

I'm a bit unhappy about the notion of any sort of "right-to-farm" program. I used to live in Wheat Ridge, Colorado. As the name implies, before Wheat Ridge was

by cyorir 12y ago

I'm a bit unhappy about the notion of any sort of "right-to-farm" program. I used to live in Wheat Ridge, Colorado. As the name implies, before Wheat Ridge was a suburb of Denver, it was named after the abundance of farmers in the area. My dad and grandparents lived there when you could still see cattle or horses on in some places. The local high school's sports team is even named "the Farmers." So there was something romantic about having the one of the last farms in Wheat Ridge right next to my neighborhood. The owner was too stubborn to sell until a couple of years ago, because the city had no means of forcing the sale of the land. Despite the nostalgia, everyone pretty much hated the farm because it dragged down land values and contributed little tax income to the city compared to the ~40 or so houses that are now replacing it. In my view, agriculture seems to work against the interests of an expanding suburb or city, and shouldn't be encouraged if it has a negative impact on surrounding homeowners.

pyre 12y ago
> In my view ... shouldn't be encouraged if it has a negative impact on surrounding homeowners So... You support the idea that we will eventually get rid of all farms in favour of suburbia? How will this not end up negatively affecting the world around us?
- Zikes 12y ago
  No no, just move all the farms to California!
ghaff 12y ago
>because the city had no means of forcing the sale of the land. I'd find it pretty horrible if the city did have the means to force the sale of the land so that developers could build more houses. Gentrification of any sort has plusses and minuses but I'm generally pretty opposed to the government imposing it by forcing people to move out and sell their property.
stouset 12y ago
How dare that farm that was there prior to all the sprawl continue to exist. Why can't that farm owner consider the property values of his beleaguered new neighbors who only had full knowledge of the existence of a nearby farm when they purchased their property. It astonishes me how obstinately self-centered people can be.
LordKano 12y ago
That's the mentality that has made "right to farm" programs necessary. The farm was there long before the interlopers built their houses. It's not selfish or stubborn for a farmer to continue to farm, even if other people have recently decided that the land would be better used for McMansions. It's one thing if we're discussing the expansion of farming into suburban areas but this is suburban sprawl into rural land. First come, first served and all of that.
- Kalium 12y ago
  I disagree. I submit that it is both stubborn and selfish to insist that because the past was convenient for you, the future must also be so in the same way. This is the sort of mindset that serves to manufacture housing crises.
  - Retra 12y ago
    Cities don't need to expand outward. They can expand upward. Farms can't.
    - Kalium 12y ago
      With the rise of vertical farming, both cities and farms can expand upwards.
      - bkmartin 12y ago
        One is economically feasible on a large scale in 2015 and the other isn't... care to guess which one?
      - protomyth 12y ago
        Unless you are growing MJ or cocaine, the cost of farming in the middle of a city in a vertical farm is prohibitive. That area can be better used for residences and offices.
  - Spooky23 12y ago
    That's a ridiculous and disrespectful position. The family of the farmer that I described elsewhere in the thread had literally farmed their 500 acre land for nearly 400 years. Their original land grant from a Dutch Patroon called for annual taxes of 2 pigs and 5 bushels of wheat. They did nothing wrong. They have title to the land. Why is that family's property rights inferior to those of folks building sprawl homes?
sedachv 12y ago
> As the name implies, before Wheat Ridge was a suburb of Denver > Despite the nostalgia, everyone pretty much hated the farm because it dragged down land values and contributed little tax income to the city compared to the ~40 or so houses that are now replacing it. Only 40 houses? Do you realize how much "everyone pretty much hate"s suburbanite breeders like you?
- ghaff 12y ago
  Chill with the name calling.
sbhere 12y ago
And yet "there was something romantic about having the one of the last farms in Wheat Ridge right next to my neighborhood"?? Hypocrite.
CWuestefeld 12y ago
it dragged down land values and contributed little tax income to the city compared to the ~40 or so houses that are now replacing it. While those 40 homes lead to greater tax revenue, the amount of expense they demand is even greater. Anywhere I've lived, even sky-high property tax NJ, the property tax coming from a single home is rather less than the town is paying to educate a single child. So unless the average child density in that development is much less than 1 (say, 0.75 children per house), despite the town collecting more taxes, they'll be spending much more on schools, and it'll be a net loss. And that's before we consider the cost of other services at all...

by cyorir 12y ago

pyre 12y ago

> In my view ... shouldn't be encouraged if it has a negative impact on surrounding homeowners So... You support the idea that we will eventually get rid of all farms in favour of suburbia? How will this not end up negatively affecting the world around us?

Zikes 12y ago
No no, just move all the farms to California!

ghaff 12y ago

>because the city had no means of forcing the sale of the land. I'd find it pretty horrible if the city did have the means to force the sale of the land so that developers could build more houses. Gentrification of any sort has plusses and minuses but I'm generally pretty opposed to the government imposing it by forcing people to move out and sell their property.

stouset 12y ago

How dare that farm that was there prior to all the sprawl continue to exist. Why can't that farm owner consider the property values of his beleaguered new neighbors who only had full knowledge of the existence of a nearby farm when they purchased their property. It astonishes me how obstinately self-centered people can be.

LordKano 12y ago

That's the mentality that has made "right to farm" programs necessary. The farm was there long before the interlopers built their houses. It's not selfish or stubborn for a farmer to continue to farm, even if other people have recently decided that the land would be better used for McMansions. It's one thing if we're discussing the expansion of farming into suburban areas but this is suburban sprawl into rural land. First come, first served and all of that.

Kalium 12y ago
I disagree. I submit that it is both stubborn and selfish to insist that because the past was convenient for you, the future must also be so in the same way. This is the sort of mindset that serves to manufacture housing crises.
- Retra 12y ago
  Cities don't need to expand outward. They can expand upward. Farms can't.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    With the rise of vertical farming, both cities and farms can expand upwards.
    - bkmartin 12y ago
      One is economically feasible on a large scale in 2015 and the other isn't... care to guess which one?
    - protomyth 12y ago
      Unless you are growing MJ or cocaine, the cost of farming in the middle of a city in a vertical farm is prohibitive. That area can be better used for residences and offices.
- Spooky23 12y ago
  That's a ridiculous and disrespectful position. The family of the farmer that I described elsewhere in the thread had literally farmed their 500 acre land for nearly 400 years. Their original land grant from a Dutch Patroon called for annual taxes of 2 pigs and 5 bushels of wheat. They did nothing wrong. They have title to the land. Why is that family's property rights inferior to those of folks building sprawl homes?

sedachv 12y ago

> As the name implies, before Wheat Ridge was a suburb of Denver > Despite the nostalgia, everyone pretty much hated the farm because it dragged down land values and contributed little tax income to the city compared to the ~40 or so houses that are now replacing it. Only 40 houses? Do you realize how much "everyone pretty much hate"s suburbanite breeders like you?

ghaff 12y ago
Chill with the name calling.

sbhere 12y ago

And yet "there was something romantic about having the one of the last farms in Wheat Ridge right next to my neighborhood"?? Hypocrite.

CWuestefeld 12y ago

it dragged down land values and contributed little tax income to the city compared to the ~40 or so houses that are now replacing it. While those 40 homes lead to greater tax revenue, the amount of expense they demand is even greater. Anywhere I've lived, even sky-high property tax NJ, the property tax coming from a single home is rather less than the town is paying to educate a single child. So unless the average child density in that development is much less than 1 (say, 0.75 children per house), despite the town collecting more taxes, they'll be spending much more on schools, and it'll be a net loss. And that's before we consider the cost of other services at all...