Page 12 RAIN June 1978 While economic pressures are squeezing family farmers out, corporations are becoming increasingly involved in every phase of food production and distribution. At the same time, consumers face steadily climbing food prices and a serious decline in the nutritional quality of food. The American diet now yearly contains over 126 lbs. of sugar and an estimated nine lbs. of additives. The federal government has been unwilling, or unable, to provide solutions to these problems. In fact, federal policies have actually created many of the inequities which citizens' groups would now like government to address-for example, tax laws that subsidize corporate farming; research grants that encourage large-scale capital-and energy-intensive farming; and price supports that aid large-scale farmers at the expense of small- and medium-sized operations. State legislatures, county and town governments, and city councils, on the other hand, being smaller and more accessible to farmers and consumer groups, have been much more receptive to new ideas and innovative approaches. State and local governments have enormous legal authority through jurisdiction over land-use decisions. In addition, agricultural programs are primarily administered by state and local institutions such as state Land Grant Colleges, the county extension service, Farmers Home Administration, and the Soil Conservation Service. And agribusiness and special commodity interests do not have the enormous political power at state and local levels that they do nationally. For these reasons, some of the most progressive action on agricultural, land, and food policies has come, and will continue to come, at the state and local level: • Eight Midwestern and Great Plains states-Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin-have passed anti-corporate farm laws. These vary in scope and strength, but all represent substantial progress. One law simply requires disclosure of corporate ownership of farmland; North Dakota's bars corporations from owning or operating farms. • Minnesota's Family Farm Security Act of 1976 has established an agency to guarantee up to 90 percent of a farmer's loan to purchase land. We've been more and more impressed with the work being done by the folks at the Conference on Alternative State and Local Public Policies. If only they'd simplify their name! They've established an active network ofpeople doing innovative things in state and local government, and connected those folks up with information on legislation elsewhere that can act as precedence and inspiration for their own effarts. They support a yearly national conference (July 13-16 in Minneapolis this year), special topic conferences, a clearinghouse to assist public officials and community activists in developing appropriate legislation, public policy and tax refarm readers, sample legislation, technical assistance, a host of other good publications, and an excellent bimonthly newsletter, just renamed Ways and Means ($10/year for individuals), from which we've excerpted the following appetizer. Get in touch with them at 1901 Que St. N. W., Washington, DC 20009. -TB LOCAL EFFORTS BEAR FRUIT -Lee Webb and Cynthia Guyer • Taxes on farmland are too high when compared to farm income, due to increased land speculation. But through revision of the property tax system, 31 states have enacted laws to provide incentives for maintaining land in agricultural production. Maryland's Preferential Assessment Act, for example, taxes agricultural and open lands according to use value, not market value. Hawaii and Oregon protect agricultural land through comprehensive state land-use plans. • New York allows farmers to form "agricultural districts" that are protected from development. New York farmers also receive a low tax assessment based on the land's agricultural rather than commercial market value. In addition, New York's Suffolk County passed an initiative in 1977 that authorizes the county to purchase the development rights to farmland. In a similar move, Massachusetts has voted to appropriate money to experiment with the purchase of development rights. Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin are also considering legislation to protect threatened farmland. • Missourirs Small Farm Program has demonstrated how an extension department of a State Land Grant College can effectively work with low-income farmers. Missouri's program, initiated in 1971, assisted over 900 farm families in six counties last year. Other states with extension services J I
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz