|
Little notice, but very important! |
|
Written by Jim and Diane Hunter
|
|
Wednesday, 12 November 2008 |
Dear Friends,
This is a bit of short notice, but I'm writing to urge you either attend one of the open houses this week, or submit comments from home regarding farm preservation. There is a flyer at this web address: http://www.co.clark.wa.us/legacylands/documents/farmopenhousead.pdf . Basically it says there will be open houses Monday at the CASEE Center 11104 NE 149th St., Brush Prairie, and Wednesday at the Clark County Public Safety Complex, 505 NW 179th St. Ridgefield. Both are from 6-8 p.m. It says that public comments are encouraged through November 17th.
To review the document that the County's Agriculture Preservation Advisory Committee has developed go to: http://www.co.clark.wa.us/legacylands/projects.html#farm . This is a 25 page document, outlining the strategies the committee feel could revitalize the farm economy of Clark County.
WHY IT'S IMPORTANT
This study was initiated at the moment when citizens registered their outcry against the loss of of over 4,000 acres of agricultural land to urban development. With a new commissioner elected to the board and the likelihood of a shift toward more concern for agricultural and local food issues, it is vital that citizens register the message that this issue is more important than ever. Attendance at open houses and comments submitted will send that message.
If taken up by the new County Board of Commissioners this study offers the potential to improve life for consumers as well as farmers, and new farmers, as well as established and retiring farmers. WE ALL HAVE A STAKE! MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!
FIVE IDEAS TO SUPPORT IN THIS STUDY
1) ESTABLISH AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION DISTRICTS. The study recommends identifying viable agricultural areas of 150 acres or more where efforts to preserve agricultural land and encourage agricultural production could be focussed.
Comment: Some of the best agricultural lands in the county are the lands most threatened by development, and we need to focus attention on preserving these threatened lands. Agricultural production becomes more difficult when tracts of agricultural lands are fragmented.
2) PURCHASE AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION EASEMENTS. Matching grant money is available for county government to purchase agricultural conservation easements from from farmers. Farmers would receive compensation for the development value of their land in exchange for agreement to keep the land in agricultural use. By splitting development from agricultural value, the land becomes affordable to be purchased for agricultural use.
Comment: The study proposes a variety of means for protecting agricultural land from development, purchase of conservation easements is the simplest approach, and isn't tied to increased development elsewhere.
3) DEVELOP A FARM LINK PROGRAM MATCHING RETIRING FARMERS WITH CURRENT OR NEW FARMERS. This idea acknowledges that many of our existing farmers are reaching retirement age and may not have heirs who plan to continue their operation. This mechanism offers an alternative to the farmer to selling out to development. Yoking this program with an agricultural conservation easement payment would offer retiring farmers an upfront payment they can begin their retirement with and an affordable price for the new farmer.
4) CREATE A "CLARK COUNTY FRESH" LOGO AND MARKETING EFFORTS. The demand for locally grown produce is taking off among consumers. This idea captitalizes on that trend and helps consumers identify "really" local produce.
COMMENT: The fresh local produce sector in Clark County is poised to blossom in response to this trend. A buy local program could boost this phenomena and encourage more existing and new producers to enter this market. Local consumers are often frustrated in their effort to find local produce. Such a program could provide a win/win for local farmers and food consumers.
5) ASSIST IN ESTABLISHING PERMANENT SITES FOR LOCAL FARMERS' MARKETS. This provision could help secure the success of farmers markets by assuring a consistent location that consumers can count on from year to year.
COMMENT: This effort might be a first step for greater county government involvement in local farmers' markets. Farmers' markets by their nature often are located within municipalities, and often partner with city government. Farmers on the other hand are likely to reside in unincorporated areas of the county. County government participation and support of farmers' markets would provide greater assurance that the markets honor the mission of farmers markets and reduce the likelihood of them being diverted to other city agendas.
WHAT COULD BE ADDED
Above are just five key areas of the study that this author singled out for support. An additional area that deserves attention is in technical, research and educational support for agriculture. The study recommend continued work with existing government agencies that supply these services, as well as initiating an endowment to support additional research grants.
Comment: This author supports these efforts, but would like to add some specificl suggestions for additional approaches that would be helpful to revitalize our local food economy:
1) A NEW FARM INCUBATOR PROGRAM: County lands at the "Poor Farm" or elsewhere could provide an opportunity for new farmers to begin utilizing their production and marketing skills toward the establishment of an ongoing agricultural business. This program could tie into the "farm-link" program by providing retiring farmers with a pool of new farmers that are demonstrating their ability to transition to continuing their business in a private enterprise setting.
2) INITIATE GRASS ROOTS BASED FARMER TO FARMER AND FARM IMPROVEMENT CLUB APPROACHES TO RESEARCH AND EDUCATION. The existing federal bureaucracy for agricultural research and education has a tendency to be driven by forces remote from and not necessarily appropriate to our local situation. Research and education models developed in working with third world communities have overcome this disadvantage by giving local farmers more ownership in the process. Such models might be particularly appropriate here in Clark County where governing bureaucracies are distant, and market forces are driven from outside our local government's jurisdiction. |
|
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 12 November 2008 )
|
|
|
Medium Can Be Beautiful, Too |
|
Written by Jim and Diane Hunter
|
|
Monday, 25 August 2008 |
When Ossie Bladine came out to interview us for his "Is farming dead in Clark County?" story, he kept trying to bring us back to the theme of solutions and alternatives. He mentioned plans for the Clark County Railroad, so we figured that base was covered. But the plans he reporte on for a network of walking and riding trails wasn't exactly what we had in mind.
Basically, in the press we've seen two polar opposite ideas for the railroad. The conventional development community wants to build a heavy industrial park, right here in Brush Prairie. The "green" folk want trails, paths and greenways. A few folks have pointed out that the two visions are incompatible. When a train loaded with gravel spooks your horse on the bridle path, will the County be liable?
Our vision is somewhere in between. Jim articulated about a year ago in the following piece.
DREAM A little DREAM, CLARK COUNTY, May, 2007
I have a confession to make. Six months ago I turned into a NIMBY. It
wasn't the asphalt plant proposed for half a mile away that made me a
NIMBY, it was the news that in revising our County's Comprehensive Plan,
our government officials had given up on agriculture as a resource in our
county, and that they planned to convert 4700 acres of land they had
previously protected as a critical resource to residential and industrial
use.
Now let me say right up front, that I don't think NIMBY is a fair term.
If someone calls you a NIMBY, your first response should be, "OK, how
about your back yard." Unless your accusers says yes to their backyard,
don't let them cow you.
Now right about the time I was becoming a NIMBY, County Commissioner
Steve Stuart was dreaming a dream. It was a dream of a sustainable Clark
County, and he presented it in his "State of the County" address. In
preparing for my NIMBY-ish appointment with Stuart to express my concerns
about agriculture resource land, I read the speech. At first, my NIMBY
rage blinded me to the possibilities.
When Stuart spoke of a "sustainable street of dreams," and a "sustainable
technology research park," I imagined a street of multimillion dollar
energy efficient "McMansions" and a sprawling single story industrial
park in the middle of the thousand acres of dairy land about a half mile
from our little farm, and I said, "NOT IN MY BACKYARD."
And so for the last six months I have been downloading reports and maps,
talking to county officials and trying to stir my friends and associates
to action. After watching Bleak House on OPB for the second time, my
wife Diane turned to me and said, Jim, the Comprehensive Plan is your
Jarndyce and Jarndyce.
Well I had all the passion and pallor of Richard Carsten when I marched
into the County's Open House on the plan last Wednesday, and instead of a
court room where I could plead my case, all I found was a roomful of
county planners, working late to answer my questions about the plan. It
soon became clear that they weren't the folks that could judge my case,
they were just lowly clerks. One might have been the ambitious Mr.
Guppy, another Mr. Tulkinghorn's world weary Clem, or the earnest Mr.
Snagsby.
I told them my concerns, trying not to brow beat the messengers, and went
home with my usual post-meeting headache. But, behold, in the night my
NIMBY fever broke and scales fell from my eyes, and I awoke, no longer a
NIMBY, but transformed to a WIWIMBY.
Now what in the "dickens" (pun intended) is a WIWIMBY? "WIWIMBY" stands
for "What I Want In My Backyard." You see, that evening I learned
something. The Comprehensive Plan is an opportunity for folks to dream.
I also learned that folks that don't live in my backyard, do my dreaming
for me. Some agencies out there came up with a whopper of a dream for
the Dairy in my backyard. You see a railroad runs through it. And a
regional agency thinks we need more industrial land. And an entrepreneur
from far away dreams of making money on that railroad. And the county
owns the railway and leased it to the entrepreneur, and they said they'd
help him make it pay. And so the County is rezoning our neighborhood
dairy agricultural resource land to industrial.
Well I quizzed our county planners about this dream, and it really is
just a dream. Besides the asphalt plant, there are no tenants for this
industrial park. There are no plans yet developed for how to manage the
conflict between rail traffic and automobile traffic. It is all
"conceptual" (read "a dream"), and it may never happen. The dairy will
be grand fathered, but it won't be able to expand, and when the dairyman
is ready to retire, it will be reserved for industry.
Well the scales fell, when I realized if all these other folks are
dreaming about my back yard, why can't I. And in fact, when I went back
to look at Commissioner Stuart's speech, he asked us to tell him our
sustainable dreams.
And so Mr. Stuart, here is my dream for my backyard. I dream that that
dairy will stay right where it is. I know folks say that the dairy
industry is dying in Clark County, and much of it has. The farmers who
left said it's a whole lot easier to meet environmental regs east of the
Mountains where it's dry and that's where I get my hay from anyway.
But this dairy has been refined in that firestorm. Those wide flat
acres that look so good for an industrial park are the perfect place for
a dairy waste lagoon and good drainable class I soil to absorb the excess
liquid waste. Those acres also grow a whole lot of feed that doesn't
have to be shipped over the mountains. And at least some of those
dairies that shipped their herds out to Idaho are now growing feed for
the one dairy and raising its heifers. That's one pretty substantial
reality to push out of the way for a dream. So let's keep that dairy.
Maybe some of that stinky gas we complain about could be captured and
scrubbed and sold to the neighborhood as bio gas. Maybe we could start a
little cheese factory.
And what about that railroad. Well maybe it's a sustainable alternative
to all that traffic congestion we'll generate when we put McMansions on
the rest of those 4700 acres of agricultural resource land. What if we
hop skipped over that farmland. And what if we used that railway we own
as the trunk for extending planned sustainable development into the less
productive lands in the east of the county. Small densely populated
developments could be sited along the line. Villages like Brush Prairie,
Old Town Battle Ground, Heisson and Yacolt could be revitalized. And
rather than one big industrial park, what about zoning small areas in
these villages to employ people right there, adding value to the
agricultural and forest products these areas produce. Each could also
have small commercial areas for a grocer, a baker, a local foods
restaurant and a local hardware. Those that couldn't find work in the
village could ride a commuter line into the city. Or how about we use
the rail line to bring goods and services to the villages. The Vancouver
Food Coop or a Countywide farmers market could ride the rails, spending a
day in each village, a book rail car could hold a lot more books than a
bookmobile, a mobile health clinic could serve the growing population of
aging boomers who could live in condo villages along the line.
These villages could be tightly built, sharing walls for energy
efficiency, but they would be spread out in natural settings, where many
more could share the vistas that the McMansions now compete with farmers
to purchase, and the small but dense development would leave room for
community gardens to serve the villages and "fields of dreams" where new
young farmers could grow the County's budding local food sector.
This rail line into rural Clark County could also carry our crowded
urbanites out for a day in the country, passing within walking distance
of such attractions as Bi Zi Farms, The Cedars Golf Course, Old Town
Battle Ground, Battle Ground Lake, The Historic Allworth Mill, Historic
Heisson, Pomeroy Farm, Lucia Falls Park, Moulton Falls Park, Historic
Yacolt and Historic Amboy.
Well it's just a dream, but it's a sustainable dream, and that's what the
good commissioner asked for.
So that's this humble farmers dream for our backyard, what's yours?
Write it down and send it to the Clark County Board of County
Commissioners, subject line: input on the Comprehensive Plan Update. [In 2008, send that to the Rural Lands Task Force or the Agricultural Preservation Advisory Committee]
Postscript, August 2008. It warms our heart to see that someone else shares at least a portion of our vision. A new development in Battle Ground, called "Battle Ground Village" borders the city's industrial area and offers buildings where folks can live and operate a business. They have graciously agreed to host the nascent Battle Ground Farmers Market, and guess what, they're gussied up right next to the Clark County Railroad.
Just one more idea for the hopper. Fifteen years ago when I worked on a small private timber farm, the local tree farmers were just discovering alder as an alternative crop. Those trees ought to be maturing any day know. Could the rail line haul that alder out from those private tree farms to a local furniture factory in Battle Ground Village or somewhere else along the line? |
|
Last Updated ( Sunday, 24 August 2008 )
|
|
|
