A Tree Grows in Kansas City
I agree with this quote about urban farming from an article in the Pitch:
“I’m hoping for more availability and enthusiasm for local food in Kansas City — seeing a code that allows growers to sell and connect with potential buyers. Then local food will grow all on its own,” said Rachel Hogan, who recently completed a year-long internship on a series of organic farms in Missouri and is looking to help develop community gardens in Kansas City.
Farmers should be able to sell what they grow, regardless of whether they live on a rural farm or in a residential area or city. Get rid of the barriers to urban farming, and more people will pursue it.
Some people would be content if government just got out of the way, but other activists are asking the city of Kansas City to promote local gardening actively:
Residents suggested that new neighborhood trees planted by the city could be fruit or nut trees; land could be designated for agricultural purposes similar to park land; organic practices could be mandated for urban farms; and changes to the zoning code could provide guidance for would-be farmers.
Let’s look at those suggestions one at a time: I don’t see anything wrong with planting fruit trees, if the city is going to be planting trees anyway. It could be a problem if the fruit trees require more care than the trees Kansas City would normally plant, or if it’s cumbersome to remove the fruit that falls. Community gardening enthusiasts could probably come up with solutions to those issues.
I’m still opposed to designating public land for agriculture. That gives local agriculture an unfair advantage over other activities — cities don’t give out free land for bakeries or pharmacies. As for the argument that agriculture is special because everyone will depend on local food in the case of economic collapse, everyone would depend on local everything in that highly unlikely scenario. We couldn’t bring in bread from other places if disaster struck, so we might as well start subsidizing the bakeries. If you buy that argument for public farmland, you’re agreeing to local subsidies for every business.
Mandating organic practices is another policy that Kansas City would be wise not to pursue. When you want people to feel free to farm in the city, the last thing you should do is put a lot of extra requirements in their way.
And, finally, I don’t know what specific “guidance” activists want to impart through zoning code changes. Whatever it is, there is probably a less coercive way to guide farmers. People who want guidance usually ask for help or advice — not for an order from the city.
Just a thought, but some of the “guidance” zoning codes provide, for instance, is whether you can keep chickens in a particular area, and if so, how many. This is a nuisance issue that affects the common good, so providing for it through zoning is just good governance.
I agree re: the organic thing, though – that seems ideal for the kind of “guidance” you have in mind from local activist groups: Let people farm, and let the activists provide free classes and support to teach people how to do so organically if they want to. Win-win, in my opinion.
Comment by Jenniferwhatnot — November 17, 2009 @ 1:26 p.m.
Thanks for the comment. To me, “guidance” seems like an odd word to describe nuisance laws. Kansas City already has laws on the books about potential nuisances like chickens, so I interpreted “provide guidance” to mean “impose additional regulations.” It will be interesting to see what zoning changes they have in mind.
About organic farming, I agree completely. Activists should encourage organic practices outside of government.
Comment by Sarah Brodsky — November 17, 2009 @ 2:13 p.m.
I am amused by how worried these ppl are about “total economic colapse”, and yet how completely toothless their counter-measures are.
St Louis has 3million ppl. It is physically impossible to become autarkic self-sufficient. That is the whole point of urbanization. If total economic colapse occurs, a few token, inefficiently subsidized, local farmers will be exhausted instantly. People will die. Local municipal policy will have zero relevance.
Comment by vroman — November 17, 2009 @ 5:10 p.m.
Sarah,
It doesn’t actually say that they want public land to be designated for agricultural uses, just that land should be designated for such uses. I don’t have a problem with allowing private property to be used for agricultural uses, as long as it isn’t a “nuisance” to its neighbors and the community.
Comment by InsideBub — November 18, 2009 @ 9:15 a.m.
InsideBub–It says “similar to park land.” I really think they’re referring to public land here.
And there’s a big difference between allowing anyone to farm on their private property–which I support–and designating land for that purpose, which would exclude other uses.
Comment by Sarah Brodsky — November 18, 2009 @ 10:40 a.m.
Sarah,
Designating public land for agricultural uses exclusively should only be considered if there is a specific request from a responsible user with a track record. Any such proposal should also result in a direct public benefit, other than avoiding the costs of mowing and cleaning up the public property (although that may be significant). I’m thinking about rent (which should probably be negligible), creating jobs for neighborhood residents, and/or contributing food to local programs and agencies serving the needy.
Designating private property for agricultural uses may also be worth considering. The Washington Wheatley neighborhood, with the assistance of UMKC, had a neighborhood study completed that indicated that urban agriculture may be a viable option to help revitalize their neighborhood and address a number of issues ranging from the presence of too many vacant and overgrown lots, the need for affordable produce, improving air quality, and the creation of microenterprises and jobs. There will, of course, be a variety of issues (many of which cannot be anticipated until they occur) with such an approach, but I think it’s something worth trying.
InsideBub
Comment by InsideBub — November 19, 2009 @ 6:34 a.m.
The public land that has been discussed are vacant lots that the city owns due to previous owners not paying taxes. The city has a few hundred of these lots and no one is buying them even at crazily low prices(think sub $1k) because they’re in bad neighborhoods or they’re too small to build on anymore. New building codes mandate that lots have to be a certain size to build on and many old lots no longer allow to build a house there.
So the thought is to give people permission to farm a lot that the city is already paying to have mowed. It’s a tripple whammy, you reduce the cost of land maintenance, you provide free land to produce food for the poor and you make an empty lot look like it’s being used for something productive which is overall good for the city.
I completely concur with you on the demands some are making for organic everything and I’m sure that will be stripped out. It just won’t fly otherwise.
Finally, you’re right about the fruit and nut trees. The city doesn’t plant them because the mess they cause leaves the city liable for lawsuits. People slip on the fallen fruit and sue the city. It’s possible that someone could work around that, but honestly most people just want some gardens in their yards and a few hens(which don’t crow) or a few rabbits(which clearly don’t crow :) There’s not many people who are seriously calling for the fruit or nut trees.
Comment by KC Lowlife — February 27, 2010 @ 7:25 p.m.