Last week I wrote a
diary about the California Farm Bureau, and its weekly newspaper,
Ag Alert, and how the newspaper is used to push Republican talking points on rural Californians. This week I'll continue writing on that theme, exposing some of the propaganda, praising them when they get it right, and bringing some of the farm news out to those of you outside of farming, that may help urban Democrats understand a little more about modern California farmers and farming.
I also said last week that
Ag Alert wasn't online. Well, apparently they have recently started posting some
Ag Alert content to the
California Farm Bureau Federation website. Hooray, that will be less typing for me and a chance for the rest of you to read the full articles for yourselves.
So, let's talk about what's in the news for September 20, 2006.
Obviously the e. coli in spinach is going to be huge, but by press time they knew pretty much nothing, so there's just a brief mention of the tragedy and the Farm Bureau's committment to food safety. Expect more on this later.
On the political side, in this issue, the Farm Bureau released its endorsements for the various California propositions.
Why Farm Bureau opposes Proposition 90
Proposition 88 increases tax burden for California's farmers
Surprisingly, and happily, Farm Bureau opposes Proposition 90, which is the measure intended to act as a brake on the Kelo eminent domain decision. Eminent domain, of course, is a huge issue for farmers and ranchers, who have enough issues with their neighbors selling out for subdivisions, bringing people who complain about early hours, cows mooing all night, smells, dust, etc. A portion of a famous Thoroughbred horse farm was recently condemned to add more capacity to the airport in Lexington, KY. It makes 'em twitchy - since most have their net worth primarily in their land - and rightly so. And in California politics, it always seems that getting people to read the fine print and think about consequences down the road is practically impossible. Farm Bureau, as you can imagine, finds decisions like Kelo alarming, although they also seem very aware that current California law provides quite a bit of protection for ag land, as noted in this testimony (PDF) where they discuss several cases.
So I am grateful that they have seen the poison pill, which is to freeze land-use planning and end responsible zoning:
Although Proposition 90 might appear to be the solution to protecting property values and the ability to farm, it is not. It would freeze California's planning and zoning laws, the Williamson Act and local zoning ordinances as of November 2006. By redefining "damage to property," people could sue any time a law or regulation is passed that they claim devalues their property, creating a disincentive for counties to expand the Williamson Act or modify local general plan policies intended to protect farmland and farmers' right to farm.
And hey, they even recognize that government provides some useful functions with eminent domain:
Farms depend on facilities such as canals, reservoirs, electric lines, roads, rail lines and ports to grow and market our crops. By redefining "just compensation," Proposition 90 will also make it much harder for local agencies to build new facilities or improve existing ones. The costs will be prohibitive.
Revenue would have to be generated to administer and pay for damage claims and the massive and costly litigation that will certainly result if this initiative passes. This will require new or higher taxes or a significant reduction in local services. Also, fees for government "givings," such as roads, water facilities and basic infrastructure, and protections from incompatible non-farming uses on surrounding properties, may be assessed in some manner to offset the payments for the "takings."
I'm pleased that they agree with me on the potential impact to the state.
Restricting neighboring properties from engaging in incompatible uses adds value to agricultural land. The removal of such protection will not, however, result in compensation for the loss of production capability because the value of the land will increase as development encroaches on the fields.
So indeed, the net effect of this proposition would likely be to cause more farmers to sell out - not really in the long term interest of the Farm Bureau.
Let's review the total position statement on all California propositions:
Proposition 1A: Transportation Funding Protection | YES |
Proposition 1B: Highway, Road, Air Quality, Port Bonds | neutral |
Proposition 1C: Housing and Emergency Shelter | YES |
Proposition 1D: Public Education Bonds | YES |
Proposition 1E: Disaster Preparedness/Flood Prevention Bonds | YES |
Proposition 83: Sex Offender Penalties | YES |
Proposition 84: Water Quality, Flood Control, Habitat, Parks Bonds | neutral |
Proposition 85: Waiting Period, Pregnancy Termination | No Position |
Proposition 86: Cigarette Taxes | NO |
Proposition 87: Oil Taxes | NO |
Proposition 88: Property Tax for Education Funding | NO |
Proposition 89: Public Funding of Political Campaigns | NO |
Proposition 90: Government Acquisition of Property | NO |
I'm glad that they didn't find a farm-related position on Pregnancy Termination, but I'm still not sure why the Farm Bureau has a position on sex offenders or cigarette taxes.
They don't explain their positions on the propositions other than 88 and 90. They're upset about a $50 per parcel tax specified by Proposition 88 because they say that farms are often made up of a lot of small parcels.
Proposition 88 would impose a uniform $50 per parcel tax on all parcels of property, regardless of value or the owners' ability to pay. To some family farms with multiple parcels, this could mean an additional $1,000 or more in taxes. Additionally, Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell has already declared his support for doubling the tax in four years and adding another $50 every four years after that.
The editorial on this proposition was written by the President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. I dunno, an extra $1k on a 20 parcel operation doesn't sound all that heinous to me, but I haven't researched this proposition yet to understand where the money will go or what it is for, precisely.
This week there is another story on Immigration Reform, and about the issue basically being dead in the water for this year. They do praise three Democratic congressmen for responding to their concerns by sending a letter to Hastert:
In a joint letter sent last week to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Costa, Cardoza and Thompson said, "As members of Congress from some of the most productive agricultural regions in the world, we represent farmers and ranchers who are being negatively impacted by labor shortages, in part because Congress has failed to address this issue.
"Many of the crops grown in California are specialty crops, which require a diverse, intensive and experienced labor work force at different times throughout the growing season. Unfortunately, the labor force for agriculture in California this summer was woefully inadequate to meet the harvest needs of our farmers."
The California congressmen urged Hastert to take immediate steps to find a bipartisan solution to address the labor crisis before Congress adjourns.
Finally, (this is for you, OrangeClouds!), a feature article on Heirloom Tomatoes.
"Heirloom tomatoes are to Northern California what goat cheese is to the Loire Valley of France," said Kurt Spataro, executive chef/partner of Paragary's Restaurant Group in Sacramento. "The bottom line is they are incredibly delicious, beautiful to look at and they don't grow better anywhere else on the planet. Of all of the agricultural crops that we grow in California, tomatoes in the Sacramento Valley have to be at the very top of the list."
Heirloom tomatoes are, to me, a huge triumph in bringing the values that are important in food back to, well, food. These farmers went against the conventional wisdom and have found big success in going for quality and flavor and uniqueness instead of simply more pounds per acre. They're rightly celebrated here among their fellow farmers.
"They are a feast for the eyes and the palate," said Jim Durst, who, along with his wife, Deborah, grows 30 acres of heirloom tomatoes in Esparto, Yolo County.
Durst planted his first heirloom tomato plants nearly 20 years ago, in his search for high-quality, larger-sized tomatoes that he could sell to specialty markets.
Today he grows nine heirloom varieties, and at about 9 tons to the acre, his annual production tips the scales at more than a half million pounds. His produce is shipped to wholesalers, where it's distributed across the country, including to Whole Foods, Nugget Markets and Raley's supermarket companies.
He said this season's prices are average to above average, which helps make up for the vast amount of time and labor it takes to produce them. Cull rates can reach as high as 20 percent, so the Dursts invest significant time and resources on proper plant nutrition and pest management.
Durst is quick to point out that in the world of heirloom tomatoes, quantity takes a back seat to quality.
"Tomatoes bring out the fullness of nature's beauty," he said. "To look at them on the vine, watch them mature and see them come to full color, you are following a journey of nature. Finally, when you eat that tomato, it becomes a part of you and sustains you."
To we cityslickers, a half million pounds sounds huge. But 30 acres is a small farm by anyone's standards.
It's good to know our friends in Washington are on the ball with these kinds of specialty crop trends:
A U.S. Department of Agriculture statistician in Washington, D.C. said they not only don't track this commodity, she had never heard of heirloom tomatoes before.
That they don't track it doesn't surprise me. That someone who tracks vegetables for USDA doesn't even know what an heirloom tomato is does. Do they not eat vegetables in DC? Yikes.
It's an interesting mix of articles as always: a bit of politics, a bit of very straighforward "use this chemical and then this one and then this one" for the right results, and a bit of the different ideas that people are trying and succeding with, like the heirloom tomatoes or dry farming melons. Ag Alert always seems a bit schitzophrenic to me: lauding and championing progressive changes and leaders while at the same time shouting vehemently that no one will tell them they're using too much water, or too many chemicals, or how to use their land.
I'll write again next week.