Farming the Concrete Jungle

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments (2)

  Page 1 of 1 pages

  I think this program is amazing.  It is a good way to socialize the big urban neighborhoods.  A lot of the residents in these large urban neighborhoods are minorities that have agricultural backgrounds in their families past, so this idea could catch on…I would maybe take it a step further, not to sound too socialist, and have the produce sold in the markets around the neighborhood and the profits go to keeping the rents down, neighborhood revitalization, after-school programs and eventually to the schools (buying books, computers, renovations).  Make it as transparent as possible and see how it does.

  Posted by C. LyOns on Aug 25, 2007 at 5:05 PM

  I have no argument with the substance of this article, except to say that it makes more sense to me for urban gardening projects to rent land than to buy acreage at market prices.  I think that most cities have an “agricultural use” category that results in a substantial reduction in property taxes for the land owner.  Most owners would be willing to rent out property at very little cost in order to secure this tax classification.  Of course, the gardening project would need to move to other lands when and if the land owner decided to develop the property.

  I do have an argument with the section re the farm program.  The writers repeat inaccuracies that seem to have become common in progressive reporting.  What is usually called a “subsidy” in this day and time is what the Republican Congress of the 90’s created as a “direct payment”.  This is for the farmers of corn, wheat, soybeans, rice, and cotten.  There is no “direct payment”,  or any other subsidy for “meat”, as this writer states more than once. Dairy does have a milk price support, but since in recent years milk prices have been above the target price, there have been no deficiency payments.

  Also, when they make a reference to subsidies going to “Big Ag”, many readers will assume that Conagra, Monsanto, et al are receiving farm subsidies, which is not correct.  Farm subsidies go to farmers…...... both small and large.  If one’s farm is a relatively large one, it is a “large farm”, not “Big Ag”.  The tone of this presentation re the farm program really seems to reflect some sort of resentment of farmers and ranchers, for reasons unknown.

  My own disappointment with the farm program is that it keeps the “direct payment”, scheme instead of returning to price supports coupled with production limitations when prices fall below a target price.  Farmers will accept and cash checks for this direct payment, but farmers really see no good reason for this type of payment to exist.

  Posted by JPetersmith on Sep 8, 2007 at 11:17 PM

  Page 1 of 1 pages

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also by Phoebe Connelly and Chelsea Ross

• Farming the Concrete Jungle
  In cities across the country urban farmers are growing communities, greening the landscape and revolutionizing food politics.