Local Food in Springfield
The Springfield News-Leader has a story today about urban gardening. Here’s how a member of a task force explains the rationale for local food subsidies:
“The food consumed by the citizens of the Springfield Economic Area, an amount in excess of 1,100 tons of food per day, is shipped and trucked to us along a fragile and globalized supply line,” Chadwick wrote in a letter to the City Council.
“All depends upon the continued availability of cheap foreign oil. Should this delivery system be disrupted for any reason, supermarket shelves will empty within hours.”
I wouldn’t call the global economy fragile — certainly not when compared with local food production in a single city. In the global economy, there are multiple sources of energy and competing transportation providers, so if one is overburdened, others can step in. Food comes to the United States from all over the world; we’re not putting all our eggs in one basket. If a crop fails in one country, we get food from somewhere else. Produce that’s not in season in the United States can be imported from a warmer climate. The diversity of food sources around the globe makes a food shortage like the one postulated in the quote highly unlikely.
On the other hand, food production in one city is vulnerable and dependent on local crop conditions. Nor is it protected from what goes on in the rest of the world. If something so catastrophic happens that global transportation comes to a halt, there’s no reason to think that life in Springfield would continue as before, with everyone contentedly growing local crops. I say this not to scare people in Springfield, as I don’t expect any such thing to happen, but to make the point that a small economy is no better able to withstand disaster than a large economy. If anything, it’s more susceptible to the caprice of nature.
Although it’s poor insurance against global economic collapse, there are plenty of good reasons to grow and sell local food. Many people enjoy gardening or like to buy produce from their neighbors. It’s unfortunate that they face regulations and other barriers to entry in Springfield. You can’t sell produce from your personal or community garden in Springfield–and farmers’ markets, where sales are allowed, must take place in commercial districts and with special permits from the city.
Springfield ought to take a break from convening task forces and anticipating disasters, and instead make its local food regulations less restrictive. It won’t mean the end of the world, or of the global economy, if a few farmers sell food in the wrong zone.
Hi Sarah,
I appreciate your piece based on a Springfield News-Leader article, unfortunately, you took Galen Chadwick’s quote as Chadwick’s “rationale for local food subsidies,” when I do not know if that is the case at all.
I feel as though I must qualify myself to make the statements that need to be made in response to this entry, so bear with me while I qualify myself to address you frankly.
I have attended every public meeting related to the urban garden issue in Springfield thus far, beginning with the night the City Council passed a bill asking the Planning and Zoning Commission to study the issue of urban gardening, in part, because Councilwoman Cindy Rushefsky, in particular, wanted to explore the possibility of facilitating, or at least approving, community gardening on city-owned properties. At least two other Council members have also expressed an interest in encouraging urban gardening and food sustainability within the city and/or protecting urban gardening from over-regulation.
Originally, the Planning and Zoning Commission proposed a text zoning amendment which would have imposed a $1,100-$1,200 conditional use permit on those who wanted to sell produce from a residential zoned district within the city of Springfield. They tabled that the night they held the public hearing and formed an urban garden task force to further study the issue, primarily due to the numerous issues brought forward by members of our community at the public hearing.
I then attended every urban garden task force meeting, culminating in tonight’s Planning and Zoning meeting, at which the P & Z Commission unanimously voted to send to the City Council the proposed text zoning amendment defining personal, community, and commercial gardens and farmer’s markets. The text amendment also offers regulations for community gardens, and commercial gardens and farmers’ markets in commercial or retail zoned districts. That proposed text amendment was unanimously approved by the urban garden task force at their last meeting on September 22, when it was referred to P & Z for tonight’s public hearing and vote.
I have reported extensively on every city meeting related to the urban garden issue. You may view those reports over the course of the last several months at my Web log (www.jackehammer.blogspot.com).
I have even consulted with the Show-Me Institute’s own Dave Roland in the past regarding state statute which might have bearing on this issue within the City of Springfield, and with the assistance of Springfield City Councilman Nicholas Ibarra, was able to procure a report on the bearing of state statute on gardening/farming from a legal research team at the Missouri House of Representatives.
I have also interviewed co-regional Well-Fed Neighbor Alliance coordinators Galen Chadwick and Ruell Chappell on more than one occasion to get an understanding of the goals of the WFNA.
Now for the “frank” response I referred to, it is a question: Upon what do you base your characterization of Galen Chadwick as a supporter of local food subsidies with a rationale for same? I did not see that reported in the Springfield News-Leader article. I cannot say that he is not a supporter because I have never directly asked him that specific question but, by all indications, I would be quite surprised if he did. Based on my understanding, I think Chadwick MIGHT view farm subsidies as a part of the problem, not a part of the solution, whether federal or local.
As a blogger myself, I can certainly appreciate the practice of basing opinion on reports or short, abbreviated quotes found in other media outlets, such as the News-Leader, I’ve done it myself, however, with my background knowledge of this issue, I must wonder upon what source you have based that characterization?
Perhaps you have some information I do not have? Have read a report I have not read? Have discussed the issue with Chadwick yourself and know what his opinion or view is of farm or local food subsidies?
Beyond that, regarding your statement,
“Springfield ought to take a break from convening task forces and anticipating disasters, and instead make its local food regulations less restrictive. It won’t mean the end of the world, or of the global economy, if a few farmers sell food in the wrong zone.”
Personal gardens are not regulated under the proposed text amendment beyond the normal nuisance related codes and the prohibition of on-site sales however, if the Springfield City Council approves these text amendments, I have first hand knowledge and a tape to back it up that if someone wants to buy a few tomatos from their gardening neighbor in a residential zoned district, the gardener wouldn’t be expected to run screaming into the house and refuse to sell tomatos. If a personal gardener is respectful and considerate of their neighbors and gives them no reason for complaint, it’s very doubtful a personal gardener will ever hear a peep from the city.
In the case of community garden regulations, the idea is to have something in the code to protect the gardens’ neighbors from signage or advertising; traffic (as a result of the signage and advertising); noise at unreasonable hours from motorized garden equipment; excessive lighting; rodents due to improperly constructed composting stations, etc. In some cases, Springfield’s nuisance ordinance simply does not address targeted issues.
Also, not removed (and as a result, protected) is the usual modus operandi for gardeners in residential zoned districts to sell produce within the city. Farmers markets, with passage of this amendment, will be permitted as farmers markets, something not permitted today, and off-site distribution of excess produce is not prohibited.
All in all, I believe Springfield did about the best job they could do in protecting gardener and private citizen rights but, it certainly wasn’t without some contention and controversy among some of the commissioner members and citizen members of the task force.
I’m not a “big government” supporter, and I’m about as tired of government regulation as the next guy (or girl) but, once one gets over the initial knee jerk reaction of disdain for the city “permitting” someone to garden in the first place, there should be some recognition that there is more to consider than just the gardener and the urban garden. Neighbors of urban gardens should be allowed certain expectations of peace and quiet within their own neighborhoods.
The next thing that will happen is the first reading and public hearing at City Council on October 26, at least that’s what P & Z anticipates. Come on over and check it out at 6:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers on the 3rd floor of the Historic City Hall at Chestnut Expressway and Boonville.
Comment by Jackie Melton — October 9, 2009 @ 1:11 a.m.
Thanks for the comments. I think I was unclear as to what I meant by “local food subsidies.” I consider the provision of city-owned land for a garden to be a kind of subsidy. I based my statement of Chadwick’s support from this line in the article:
“Galen Chadwick, regional coordinator of the Well-Fed Neighbor Alliance and an urban gardens task force member, said the Food Policy Council’s goal would be to boost local food production.”
When a council established by the government acts to boost production of something–be it local food, cars, or whatever–I consider that a subsidy. It gives the chosen industry an unfair advantage over others that were not singled out for free land or encouragement.
I realize that the above quote is a paraphrase, and it isn’t always possible to capture the nuances of someone’s view in a short newspaper article. If I have misrepresented anyone’s opinion, I’m sorry.
Regarding the zoning regulations: I think the harm zoning regulations do in suppressing commerce far outweighs any benefits they may afford to neighbors. I am opposed to the requirement of permits for markets, which I see as a tax. I am also not convinced by your assertion that no one will be prevented from selling a few tomatoes. I’m reminded of the case in Michigan my colleague, Christine Harbin, recently blogged about:
http://www.showmedaily.org/2009/09/michigan-the-literal-nanny-state.html
Regulations that everyone “knew” were there to protect parents from bad daycare centers were used against a woman who watched a couple of kids at a bus stop. When a law is on the books, we need to evaluate it based on what it literally says–not based on an official’s verbal assurances, which are not binding as law.
Comment by Sarah Brodsky — October 9, 2009 @ 7:53 a.m.
Sarah, the “council established by the government,” in this case, are actually two. One “council” being a volunteer Planning and Zoning Commission and the other being a P & Z appointed volunteer citizen task force (which also had as members 5 of the P & Z Commission members who were interested in the issue).
The P & Z Commission was asked to look into the urban garden issue by elected, representative City Council members, in part, because at least one Springfield neighborhood association expressed an interest in using public common ground to set up a community garden intended to benefit the members of the neighborhood association who were interested in participating. I believe an argument could be made that the City Council representatives were simply trying to represent their constituents’ desire to be permitted to utilize public property for a community garden. Isn’t that what representative government is supposed to do? As an aside, such use of city-owned property, regulated to ensure proper care and maintenance by the established community garden, not only has the potential to benefit and beautify the neighborhood but, to actually save taxpayer money which is continually spent over the summer months to keep such city-owned property maintained.
Further, the “council established by government,” whether you are meaning the P & Z Commission or the urban garden task force has taken “action” only to the extent that they will recommend the text amendment to the citizen-elected, representative Springfield City Council for consideration. Voters will have an opportunity to be heard by the City Council at the first reading of the bill, anticipated to take place on October 26. No decision has been made, as yet, and no binding “action” has occurred, only the recommendation of a proposed text amendment by the P & Z Commission after the task force voted unanimously to recommend it to P & Z.
I absolutely agree with you that the law should be evaluated based on what it literally says but, I’m looking at it from the angle that there was much more restrictive and costly regulation considered by the city than what was eventually recommended by the task force and, in turn, by P & Z, and it could have been much worse, as far as regulation goes. I believe the city was fairly flexible and gave a lot of concession to the task force in the course of their meetings.
One thing that I learned in the course of following the issue is that State statute, that is on the books, does not prohibit the city from defining certain permitted uses within zones of the city and, the fact is, the city was determined there was a need to regulate some garden practices in some zones of the city. There is certainly room to debate whether they should, just because they legally can, define and regulate gardens within the city in the first place, and I absolutely respect that debate, in fact, I’ve been somewhat involved in it.
Thanks for the exchange. I have enjoyed it.
Comment by Jackie Melton — October 9, 2009 @ 12:50 p.m.
During the Golden Age of Missouri Agriculture, our ancestors fed our own people and millions of others besides.
Now, one of every six Missourians is on federal food subsidies and the vast majority of our children lack the common sense that God gave a day-old turnip. Status quo defenders, even the well-intentioned writer of this Policy Pulse blog, are living proof that we are being fed into a state of total helplessness.
The most important human event is the annual harvest. Farmers are the keepers of our commonwealth. Everybody else is going to be, when geopolitical push comes to shove, part of the suffering.
Politicians and academicians seem to have forgotten this foundational equation of Liberty: Whomever controls the food on your plate controls your destiny.
My question to the Show-Me Institute:
How many Missouri countys still produce the food its own people eat? How many counties within a 500 mile radius? 1,000? 1,500? 2,000?
Get back in touch with me when you have the answer, or better, please just get back in touch.
Meanwhile, Citizens and farmer patriots in the SW Ozarks bioregion are peacefully organizing across the 27 contiguous counties around Springfield. We intend to restore local food production, a resilient economic base, and energy independence. We face this generational task
with optimism, generosity and courage. We CAN, and we will, feed ourselves again.
Where is the money coming from? Out of our own pockets, same as always. No grants, no subsidies, no salaries, no “government money.” We are eliminating the middleman and taking full responsibility for our situation. Ours is a tangible reality, not an intellectual or political description of it.
The Well-Fed Neighbor Alliance has a motto:
“Your best defense against hard times is a well-fed neighbor.”
Who is our neighbor? Everyone. We, the people, have an inalienable right to food sovereignty. We have the god given right to freely grow, own and trade our own food. Period. This is the bottom line for an ethos of stewardship and natural conservatism. The WFNA has a vision for restoring a sustainable Missouri, a roadmap, and a timetable.
What’s your plan?
Comment by Galen Chadwick — October 10, 2009 @ 6:50 a.m.
Thanks for the comments. I don’t object to people growing, selling, or eating local food. My objection is to the grants, subsidies, uses of public land, and preferential government treatment. Locavores who intend to pursue their goals independently of government have my approbation and best wishes for success.
Comment by Sarah Brodsky — October 11, 2009 @ 9:14 p.m.