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.

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

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.

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.

About organic farming, I agree completely. Activists should encourage organic practices outside of government.

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.