6 ms·

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 s

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?
  - Kalium 12y ago
    > Why is that family's property rights inferior to those of folks building sprawl homes? They aren't. They also aren't inherently superior and deserving of special privilege by virtue of being older. Otherwise we'd kick off the farmers, the natives who were there before, and every single form of life until the area degenerated to nothing but blue-green algae. Also, the idea that a position is wrong because it offends or fails to respect someone else's beliefs in arbitrarily selected (but unspecified) ways is one that is offensive and disrespectful.
    - ghaff 12y ago
      What "special privilege" are you referring to in the example given? The special privilege to not have the property that they own sold out from under them against their wishes?
      - LordKano 12y ago
        Or the "special privilege" of using their land for the purpose for which it was acquired and had been used ever since?
      - Kalium 12y ago
        The special privilege of extra legal protection, such as a "right to farm".
        ghaff 12y ago
        This is probably hopeless but all towns/cities dictate how properties in given areas can be used (i.e. zoning). They may change those rules but, for good reason, those rules are rarely retroactive. "Too bad about your house on one acre. We have five acre minimum zoning now. You'll have to tear it down--and good luck selling that property." So there are restrictions on pretty much any use of property in a given town or state. The ability to build a house, run a farm, or build an asphalt plant is allowed or not allowed by the zoning. It's not about having a special "right to farm" any more or less than it's about having a special "right to build a house." EDIT: Just add that the "right to farm" bylaws are mostly a reminder, especially to newcomers, that people have, um, a right to farm based on existing zoning. So don't move into our country town and then start a petition to close down the dairy farm down the street because it gets a bit smelly now and then during the summer.
- washadjeffmad 12y ago
  Your example is true in as much is it discredits your overall stance. A, if not the, major cause of housing crises (meaning keeping people affordably sheltered, not as in housing bubbles) is zoning law. At its best, it keeps industrial sites from being built within certain residential areas. At its meanest, it's used to create economically and racially segregated communities, oust families from their homes, and freeze cities in time. Upholding its use for any of the latter could generally be assumed to be the result of particularly stubborn and selfish mindsets towards one's own convenience. Also troubling about current US zoning practices are its weird exclusive use-per-zone rules, the threat to one's right to unencumbered use of their land, arbitrary development cost increases within cities (contributing to sprawl), and rent increases from zoning exploitation to artificially raise a community's median property values, and, as a side effect, driving up the rent in surrounding areas. I consider these and any act which would potentially lead to the eviction of someone from their home to be much larger threats to the availability of equitable and affordable housing than people with the wealth to be mobile being bothered by not having the right to control what others do on and with their own property.
irascible 12y ago
I agree. We should turn the farms over to the native americans.

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?
- Kalium 12y ago
  > Why is that family's property rights inferior to those of folks building sprawl homes? They aren't. They also aren't inherently superior and deserving of special privilege by virtue of being older. Otherwise we'd kick off the farmers, the natives who were there before, and every single form of life until the area degenerated to nothing but blue-green algae. Also, the idea that a position is wrong because it offends or fails to respect someone else's beliefs in arbitrarily selected (but unspecified) ways is one that is offensive and disrespectful.
  - ghaff 12y ago
    What "special privilege" are you referring to in the example given? The special privilege to not have the property that they own sold out from under them against their wishes?
    - LordKano 12y ago
      Or the "special privilege" of using their land for the purpose for which it was acquired and had been used ever since?
    - Kalium 12y ago
      The special privilege of extra legal protection, such as a "right to farm".
      - ghaff 12y ago
        This is probably hopeless but all towns/cities dictate how properties in given areas can be used (i.e. zoning). They may change those rules but, for good reason, those rules are rarely retroactive. "Too bad about your house on one acre. We have five acre minimum zoning now. You'll have to tear it down--and good luck selling that property." So there are restrictions on pretty much any use of property in a given town or state. The ability to build a house, run a farm, or build an asphalt plant is allowed or not allowed by the zoning. It's not about having a special "right to farm" any more or less than it's about having a special "right to build a house." EDIT: Just add that the "right to farm" bylaws are mostly a reminder, especially to newcomers, that people have, um, a right to farm based on existing zoning. So don't move into our country town and then start a petition to close down the dairy farm down the street because it gets a bit smelly now and then during the summer.
washadjeffmad 12y ago
Your example is true in as much is it discredits your overall stance. A, if not the, major cause of housing crises (meaning keeping people affordably sheltered, not as in housing bubbles) is zoning law. At its best, it keeps industrial sites from being built within certain residential areas. At its meanest, it's used to create economically and racially segregated communities, oust families from their homes, and freeze cities in time. Upholding its use for any of the latter could generally be assumed to be the result of particularly stubborn and selfish mindsets towards one's own convenience. Also troubling about current US zoning practices are its weird exclusive use-per-zone rules, the threat to one's right to unencumbered use of their land, arbitrary development cost increases within cities (contributing to sprawl), and rent increases from zoning exploitation to artificially raise a community's median property values, and, as a side effect, driving up the rent in surrounding areas. I consider these and any act which would potentially lead to the eviction of someone from their home to be much larger threats to the availability of equitable and affordable housing than people with the wealth to be mobile being bothered by not having the right to control what others do on and with their own property.

irascible 12y ago

I agree. We should turn the farms over to the native americans.