when liberals do bad things..... what do you think about this?

[ulTRAX]

I was at a gathering a few weeks ago. It was at a rather new and obviously expensive house in a semi-rural town. The house and 2 others had been built in the center of what was once about a 10 acre tract of farm land. There's some common ownership of the land between the three owners but no one is farming the land.

I'm just so torn. OK... so someone wants to get out into the country. The buyers have the money (or the credit) and it's worth it to them to have this lifestyle so they will buy up a big tract of land. The owner is willing to sell the land for that price. They obviously no longer care what happens to it. A deal is a deal. That's the "American way".

But there's another level to consider. The desire for these people to have their rural lifestyle destroys the possibility of this land ever again being productive. Just because the last owners didn't give a damn doesn't mean the land won't be needed some day.

In this is a microcosm of the classic battle between property rights and social rights. So are these liberals who bought the land and built the house merely within their rights and immune to any criticism? Or are they socially irresponsible? Why? And where is that line drawn between property rights and societal rights?

[unpossibles]

1. it's really up to them. n/t

[ulTRAX]

3. so you believe......

So you believe property rights and a price negotiated though the market are the final word? There's never any reason to include societal rights into this exchange?

[Psephos]

7. Societal rights do have a place (e.g., eminent domain)

The problem is, who decides what the societal rights are? No matter how the decision is reached, some of the people affected by it will find it tyrranical.

I don't have an answer, btw. But I think you raise an important question.

[Straight Shooter]

2. Why show off your garden when you can show off your big screen HDTV?

It's all about priorities, and you can't change people who think the most important thing in life is to own something bigger and better than what someone else has got.

Material values are what really drives America, not moral values.

edit to clarify

[Dr.Phool]

11. Hey, I have a big screen HDTV and a garden

All on a city lot.

[jdots]

4. Why are you calling them liberals ?

are they yuppy ding dongs that don't get it ? I would not get in thier face but give them a few clues.Hey they may learn something and if they are liberals they will thank you.

[ulTRAX]

5. because

Why are they liberals? Because I got to know them.

[vpigrad]

6. That's why it's important...

to support your local land-use council, or whatever they're called in your area. I fought hard to get hundreds of acres near where I live zoned for single family homes and farms only. A repuke idiot was looking into destroying about 100 acres of land with a shopping center, and we successfully kept that from happening. Our next project is closing the gas station about 200 yards from our small town. Since the gas station opened, our well water has had a bad oil smell. We're working hard to get rid of the station and the idiots that opened it.

[Zenlitened]

10. Also support conservation groups that are buying open land.

I get a great feeling donating to the Massachusetts Audubon Society -- they know that conserving land (including orchards and fields) when it comes on the market is absolutely CRUCIAL.

As a result, we've got beautiful sanctuaries and walking trails all across the state, many of them offering educational programs for the public and the local schools.

I suppose that, in a crisis, these lands could go back into farming use. Meanwhile, it's thousands and thousands of acres of open space, wildlife habitats, and ecosystems of every sort. Very beautiful!

http://www.massaudubon.org/Nature_Connection/sanctuaries.php

</end shameless, over-the-top plug for Mass Audubon> :D

[Goldeneye]

8. I'd love to live in the country

but it seems so irresponsible. People should live in the city and leave the rest for ...nature. Beyond that taxpayers have to pay to get those roads paved, plowed, and salted.

[Boosterman]

14. So you feel we should

have everyone live in the city? How would you classify a city? Does it have to meet a minimum population density to qualify? Is this a prevailing view among many?

[Goldeneye]

15. eh?

I think its a little irresponsible to have people putting houses up everywhere. No its not the prevailing view....notice all the new houses in the country.

[Boosterman]

16. Heh true

I just was wondering how many people think along those lines. Although I have to admit I have 50 acres that I may retire to one day. I plan on putting a small A Frame there though. Its my family land. I might do a garden but no farming. The soil in that ONE area is mostly crap.

[Goldeneye]

18. I'd seriously love the country

My grandparents have a farm that is just....ahhh.....I love it. I understand wanting to live out there and I didn't mean to be so down on people living in the country. I just get frustrated. Global warming, pollution, drought, animals going extinct...nature has every thing working against it. Don't take me too seriously...most people don't think quite like I do.

[Boosterman]

20. All those issues you bring up

are important to me. I find that people who live in the country tend to have a better appreciation of nature than most "cityfolk". Lots of problems and very few answers out there unfortunately. :shrug:

[Redleg]

9. What must be done with land to make it productive?

The capitalist argues that the land is much more productive when it has a factory or an oil derrick then when it lies fallow or in its natural state.

[Boosterman]

12. 10 acres? divided by 3 people?

Well I don't think that would be a very productive farm no matter what by todays standards. If there was some shortage of available farmland I could maybe see your point but I fail to see where societal needs even enter the picture here. True we are now actually at a food trade deficit but it has NOTHING to do with a lack of available farmland.

P.S. With a 10 acre farm theres a reason the guy was willing to sell in all likelihood. Like he was flat broke.

[DURHAM D]

13. Maybe the owner wanted to get rid of the farm land because

he is afraid that the agriculture welfare checks (you know, the money that farmers get from the government for not growing crops) might dry up sooner rather than later. My family has been sucking on that public teat for 50 years while utterly certain that what is wrong with this country is queers, welfare moms (blacks) and democrats.

This past holiday season when I was able to demonstrate to them that this money was being provided to them by the blue states they got really angry. Welfare is still welfare and they have never before acknowledged that getting paid not to farm (work) is demeaning, although I think a large part of their hatred of the above mentioned groups is to deflect their own loss of self respect. The folks in the red states are so busy pointing fingers at others so they won't have to reflect on their own shortcomings. Yeah, they are the heartland alright. Wrong.

[Boosterman]

17. Well my uncle worked 100 acres

Almost 70 of it farmland. He put in 12-14 hour days during the farming season. The rest of the time he bred and trained bird dogs. He didnt have a pot to piss in hardly. He didnt waste his money either. Only 2 kids and no bad habits. Oddly enough he was a very happy man.

[hfojvt]

19. I am not a farmer

but it seems to me that it will not hurt the land to lie fallow for many years. That will, in fact, build topsoil whereas our farming methods deplete topsoil. Also, if the homeowner puts in a large garden, the land might be much better used than if it is mono-cropped with chemicals as is normally done.

[mandyky]

21. Maybe they're starting a commune

What state? Why is this a problem?

I'd love to buy a 10 acre farm and have 2 of my best buddies relocate with me. I was born and bred rural, and whether I "farmed" or not, I'd still have a garden and maybe some "personal use" animals, like chickens, cows, pigs, etc. and if I didn't farm I am sure one of my "farmer neighbors" would sell me feed for my animals. I could also lease out "leftover land to neighbors, plant trees or something else equally food for the land and the environment...

[doodadem]

22. Excuse me?

Sorry folks, but 10 acres isn't anything other than what the realtors call a "gentleman's farm"--not enough acreage to do anything other than PLAY at farming. I'd be happy that it wasn't sold to a developer, who would carve it up into 500 tiny lots with huge houses on them. Which do you think is more environmentally responsible?
I have two friends who have sold chunks of land in the past few years, and that's exactly what they ended up having to do. Both were friends with horses, trying to relocate out of state. No one individual wanted to buy these large parcels of land. Both ended up being for sale for 2+ years. Were they happy about it? Absolutely not. But it was sell this way, or no way.
We have 40 acres here, in a very rural mountain area. It's the most beautiful place in the world, and a lifelong dream. We try to be very environmentally responsible, and most of our land is heavily wooded wildlife habitat (mule deer, bobcats, hawks, coyotes, and all manner of small mammals and birds). We do grow alot of our own vegetables, and also have horses, and a menagerie. The definition of a "farm" in this state though (Calif.) means that you have to be producing a product to sell. We don't, so we get no tax breaks whatsoever. Are you saying this land would be better to clear cut, and attempt to "farm"? We have a legal battle going with the neighbors now because they want to overrun us with their cattle.
We could possibly get a break on taxes if we would agree to open our land as a public wildlife habitat. I'm a very private person, and want no part of that--I have to spend too much time already picking up trash from people who have trespassed.
Compare to the huge corporate dairy farms in the valley below, where the waste "lagoons" are leaking into the local water supply. Or monster-sized farm equipment sends clouds of dust into the air, and the big orchards do their "ag burning".

[MsTryska]

34. Same thing is happening in Central florida from what i see.

I agree with you tho.


10 acres isn't that bad, and there's not enough info to tell if the acreage is viable either. Maybe they'll grow their own veggies on it. that would be cool.

[unpossibles]

23. yeah

I guess I do not see what you posted as "liberals doing something wrong."

Having grown up in the country, 10 acres is nice, but not really that big beyond a large garden for the residents.

I guess I expected this to be about ..I don't know... punching someone or bombing someone. And we may not agree on what is good land use and what is not, and frankly I am not sure I agree with land ownership at all (individual or state), but in this system it is up to the owners.

Let's reframe it - how can you justify telling them how to live on the land they bought? Would you want them to do the opposite if you were running a farm and they said "put _______ on your land"?

[ulTRAX]

38. It's a tough issue

I generally support property rights and one's ability to conduct transactions in the market. Yet I also know that the market needs to take more factors into consideration than just what the seller and buyer want. A few years back a developer had plans to buy land on a local mountain... one partially owned by a state park. The houses were to be trophy homes and would be high up enough to provide a view for the homeowners... and ruin the view of the mountain for those in the valley. Fortunately it was stopped. As one person said then we all have the need to live somewhere... but that doesn't mean everywhere.

How social needs can be factored into the market equation... perhaps by adding view surcharges on to sales... but then those with the money don't care. Zoning can help. My state has a program to buy development rights for farm land.

It's a tough issue.

Though I'm reminded of a proposal I made here last year... that the federal government should begin to sell off some of the marginal public lands in the west and use the proceeds to buy up lands in the east.

[KharmaTrain]

24. Matter Of Degrees

I live on the edge of a rural area where there are a lot of McMansion on lands that used to be truck farms. Taking these lands out of production happened decades ago as corporate farming long drove out the independents and they sat for years with lots of land and little real use. That was until the highway, automobile and suburbia came along.

I've seen some old farms...I saw them in their "original states" in the 70's and 80's...old, weathered frame farm houses and huge tracks of unkept land. Today these are developments with several huge homes that have manicured the land wonderfully...and one has even built a wetland for migrating birds.

Many in the Midwest forget that most of this area wasn't farmland, but prairie 150 years ago and if there was a massive "shock" to the land, it was in the wholesale plowing of the forests and prairies, draining of swamps and wetlands and the other alterations that came over the past century.

Yes, some homes are garish and there are those use their homes and possessions as a status symbol that needs continuous stoking...but I tend to think this is not a majority of the people who move into the rural areas. This nation is large enough, and our agricultural power so strong a lot of land is not in production these days or under-utilized. Personally, I'd rather see a family get several million dollars for land they could barely make a profit on, then to remain in servitude to the large agri-corporates.

[lectrobyte]

25. I'm having trouble seeing the evil here

3 houses on 10 acres sounds like it's not too much of a blight on the landscape. Around here, there would be 35 houses on it, and they'd name it something like Oak Hollow Preserve after they cut down all the oak trees, of course... At least with only 3 houses on this plot of land, some of it has a chance to be left alone, or to be used for gardens.

[LWolf]

26. There's a level beyond that to consider, as well.

The only viable long-term solution is to reduce the human population drastically. It is human population growth that encroaches on farmland and open space, as well as putting pressure on food supplies.

I think that city people should live in cities. If you like to see nature controlled, and are fine with visiting once or twice a year, stay in the city. Make cities better, more vibrant, cleaner, more attractive to you. You don't need suburban sprawl.

Then there are people like me. I'm liberal. I'm not wealthy; I'm barely middle class. But I prefer the country. I'm uncomfortable and unhappy surrounded by noise, machines, and people. I prefer solitude, peace, and quiet. I love the dark. I prefer being able to look up into the night sky and actually see the stars. I love my horses. They aren't a hobby; they're family members. They are the 3rd and 4th generation of horses that I grew up with, and are as much a part of me as the other 4 people I'm related to. I'd rather spend my days with them than with almost any of the 6 billion people out there.

If I had a house on 10 acres, I'd be growing/raising most of my own food. I'd be able to see my horses from the back porch, instead of driving out of town to visit them. I'd take that 10 acres in a flash.

I wouldn't need a mansion; I've never lived in a house that had more than one bathroom. My current cottage is 55 years old and about 800 square feet. That's fine. I'd rather have the space outside than the house.

[semillama]

27. Two points

1. Doodadem's post - that's the one that really answers the question. That's a responsible use of land right there.

2. Just because you build an house on ten acres of land, doesn't mean that the land is irreversably removed from the pool of productive land. Believe me, as an archaeologist, I've found numerous examples of old houses in the middle of active farm fields, and you wouldn't know they had ever been there on the surface.

I think a lot of environmentally-conscious folk dream about being able to live on a small tract of land in the country. You shouldn't berate your friends for what they did, just ask what their plans are. If they really are liberals, then probably the land is in good hands.

[MADem]

36. And no one lives forever

...if food becomes scarce, those families, or the ones who come after them, will be out their with their rakes and hoes!!!

[robcon]

28. There are no "bad things" going on here

Just because land was once used as farmland, does not prevent it from being used for homes.

The U.S. is the most productive agricultural country in the world. Why should we set aside land because it used to be a farm? We certainly should set aside parks as a social need for communities, but using farmland as a development tract is not only not a bad thing, it is a good thing, given our agricultural surpluses.

Free enterprise usually gets it right.

[ulTRAX]

39. free enterprise usually gets it right?

I have a problem with that summation. I think market proponents have a way of excusing market mistakes and even redefining failure into success. Compare that to how government failures live in the mind of the Right forever.

[robcon]

42. The market makes plenty of mistakes.

A socialist model also makes mistakes. The market usually corrects mistakes by punishing losers. One of the biggest problems with the socialist model, as shown all over the world, is that mistakes are not corrected - usually because of political embarassment.

For example, the Dept. of Energy didn't stop investing in shale oil extraction until over $8 billion dollars was spent! It was clear for a long time to most scientists/engineers that it wouldn't work, but we kept pouring money into it because it was good PR, and it was embarassing to admit that the technology does not exist. (Only when the administration changed did we stop the madness.)

[MadHound]

29. Well then, you must really hate me then.

My wife and I live in an older house that is situated on twenty acres of land out in the middle of nowhere. Yes, it was former crop land, part of a large farm. Over the years it got chopped up into various large bits and pieces, ten acres here, five there, etc. etc. Frankly I have no moral qualms about our decision, here's why.

First off, I've come to loathe the city and urban areas. The noise, the pollution, the lack of control that one has regarding one's house and land, the fact that I can't be self sufficient on a plot of land that is quite shaded, and comparititvely small. Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, be forced to live in an area that is slowly killing them?

Second, by the time I'm finished I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the footprint I leave upon the land will be smaller than yours, even though you live in the city. Within five years I will have a garden that will provide much of my food needs, 2KW worth of solar panels up on the roof, and be heating with wood. Within ten years I will be making money with large scale gardening, an orchard, and will be contributing renewable energy to the electric grid via a windmill or two. The land that isn't used for growing purposes will be used by my neighbor to graze his cattle and horses, in exchange for a side of beef here and there. More self sufficientcy. Land that I don't use for growing or grazing will go fallow, thus enriching the soil, and providing food and shelter for various animals.

Third, if this land isn't bought up by small time owners, it would be bought up by one of two groups. Either by a factory farm, in this area most likely corporate pork producers Premium Standard Farms, who are notorious for their lagoon spills and land pollution. Or the other option is to be bought up by a developer and subdivided into a bunch of little lots with McMansions on them, increasing traffic, noise and pollution in this relatively unspoiled bit of Earth. By having a bunch of little farmers and land owners grouped together, it decreases the odds of a developer moving in, for they generally tend to look for large tracts of farmland to buy.

It is quite possible that these people have in mind some of the same plans that my wife and I do. Most people who move out to the country wish to do some sort of gardening, and the idea of energy self sufficiency generally appeals to most liberals. The fact that they've taken ten acres out of the hands of developers and corporate farmers is a good thing also. So what is your real beef with these people? Jealousy? Your demand that everybody live in a city is a foolish notion at best, and quite frankly rather illiberal on top of that. Why should I subject myself to the noise and pollution of the city, shortening my life span and increasing my chances of various respitory diseases? Why should I pack myself into a space whose ulitimate control is by the city? Why should I sacrifice my self sufficientcy and increase the size of my footprint upon this earch? Why should I subject myself to the strictures of a city when I know that the hammer of Peak Oil is around the corner? If I do that, I'm going to become a victim just like everybody else packed into an urban area. Out on my little farm, I can manufacture my own energy, grow my own food, and live my own life while the urban areas are experienceing food riots and want.

Sorry friend, I don't buy your arguements, nor do I see why you should be on your friends' case. Asking everybody to live in a city is a violation of people's rights, and quite frankly, when the hammer comes down, and cities become untentable to live in, you might just be happy that you've got some liberal friends, with their own food and energy supply, to take you in. Of course, if you rag on them too much now, they might think twice about it.

[Dora]

47. Congratulations, you're living the dream!

We've talked a lot about wanting to do the same things that you've accomplished. And when we have the $ to do what you've done, maybe we'll be your neighbors some day.

[KnowerOfLogic]

30. Not every square inch of land is needed to produce food. nt

[Melynn]

31. They're not liberals

If they own land, they're not liberals.

[MadHound]

32. Excuse me friend, but I hope that you're joking

I would stack my liberal creds up against yours any day, and yes, I own land. What is your reasoning here, why can't liberals own land?

[ulTRAX]

37. I, too, own land

I find the comment bizarre.

[lapislzi]

33. Sounds like a candidate for the Liberal Confessional

(on AAR Tuesday mornings; hilarious)

One would hope that so-called "liberals" do more than pay lip service to the word. One would hope that they have a social conscience. Sadly, that kicks in at different levels in different people.

No one is immune to criticism, obviously. But one can go off the deep end by taking said social conscience to its illogical extreme. If we *really* wanted to be socially responsible, wouldn't we go off the grid and stop using fossil fuels and plastic bottles and disposable diapers and batteries and stop buying cheap junk from China and Wal-Mart and...you get the idea...nobody really wants to do all that stuff. We do what we can. Sounds like your rural friends are LINOs.

In the current socio-political climate, the trend has been for property rights to trump personal rights on every front. Witness corporate personhood. Personally, I think this is horrible, and I would see nothing wrong with pointing this out to my friend, although I wouldn't expect him to stay my friend for long after that.

[apnu]

35. Read "The More Factor" by Laurence Shames

Its an interesting essay on our (American) need to possess, have and acquire "more"

The full text of the essay is here:
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~DRBR/shames.txt

It goes very far to explain our obsession with owning things that is a component, IMO, to the battle between property rights and social rights.

And I think we need to spend more time understanding our cultural "obsessions" and deciding if they are valid or not. But then obsessing about owning more crap seems silly to me.

[amazona]

40. productive land is agricultural desert

The less "productive" land the better, really. Have you ever stood on a pine tree plantation or on a soy farm? It is death to hundreds of species, butterflies, wildflowers, and more. Most of our native wildflowers will be gone in another century. In some states, such as Indiana, less than a fraction of one percent of land has native plants as opposed to European introductions, agricultural products, and so on.

I'd rather see the one big house and a lot of "unproductive" land. True, many of the wildflowers are gone forever. But the little unknown rodents, the obscure sparrows, the rare butterflies...they have a chance of survival on such a land.

On "productive" land they have no chance at all.

Ugly land, waste land, forgotten lands, even landfills and former toxic waste dumps...any type of land that can't produce...these are the only land that will provide habitat for our little unglamorous wild creatures we don't even know the names of. What thrilled me as a child was discovering insects that I never saw before and would never see again.

Be at peace about "unproductive" land. Yes, it would be better if they just threw up a trailer on the land and left less of a footprint, but the people who can only afford trailers can no longer afford to buy and tie up large parcels of land in "unproductive" activities.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[Starlight]

41. I don't see any problem with what they're doing. None.

Just because this little piece of land is "farmable" doesn't mean it MUST be farmed by the current owner. And to say this "destroys the possibility of this land ever again being productive" is ridiculous. IMO you're being overly dramatic.

[ulTRAX]

44. perhaps I should have said........

I was there and you were not. But perhaps I should have said the land could never be efficiently farmed. With the houses and the network of some 1500' of paved driveways that cut though the middle of the land, for all intents and purposes it probably will never be farmed again.

[Christian dem]

43. First

address the problem of local governments that condemn property in a poor area of town just so a developer, like Walmart, can build a big fancy store.

The person who sold him the farm land had a right to since he owned it. The local offical the stole the land from the poor families is the real offended.

[Bridget Burke]

45. The plot is too small for a profitable farm.....

Would it have been better to subdivide it for a hundred mini-mansions? Sell it to WalMart? Turn it into a toxic waste dump?

If the land is "needed" as farmland some day, it will still be there. Is your area of the country undergoing a famine of some sort? Why hasn't it been publicized?

Or is this a "faux liberal" dilemma? What sort of liberal is the one that you actually met?

[IrateCitizen]

46. Greenfields development is rarely a good thing...

Unfortunately, in this country, our laws and codes are set up in a way that encourages new building on "greenfields", or previously undeveloped areas or farmland, as opposed to re-developing "brownfields".

One thing that impressed me incredibly about Europe (Germany in particular) was the strict building regulations. The only way you are allowed to live in the country is if you are living on a working farm. Otherwise, you have to live within the limits of a town or city. Of course, this is also much easier when the towns and cities invest a good deal of public capital in public green spaces.

My wife and I want to move to the country, to upstate NY. But I've insisted that we live at the very least on the EDGE of the town in which we live, if not IN the town itself. And there's no way in hell I'll get a house in a typical suburban cul-de-sac development -- I'd rather shoot myself first. If it were truly up to me, we'd be investigating cohousing options right now.

There actually are regulations out there meant to discourage this kind of "greenfields" development. Essentially, so long as farmland is kept as farmland or open space, taxes on it are deferred. If a developer wants to build on it, however, those back taxes must be paid in full FIRST. This way, it's not perceived as an infringement on "freedom", but it also encourages the maintenance of "greenfields" for the future.