Kansas City, Missouri, leaders recently wrestled with an interesting question: How will our run-down neighborhoods face the future?
The debate was not framed this way, of course. No one stood up and used the word shitbox. But the topic under discussion — urban agriculture — has more to do with answering that question than the City Council seems to realize.
The council voted on June 10 to rewrite the rules on city gardening. The changes promote and encourage residents to turn lawns and vacant lots into food sources.
It took months of negotiation for the ordinance to make its way to a final vote. Urban farmers wanted a permissive ordinance that would allow, among other things, on-site sales. Real-estate agents, meanwhile, complained about hoop houses bringing down property values. The discussion became pretty tedious. Toward the end, council members were debating height limits on crops grown in front yards. Finally, in front of a group of 35 urban-agriculture supporters, many of whom wore green ribbons pinned to their chests, the council approved the ordinance by a 10-3 vote. Those wearing ribbons applauded.
Passage wasn't a sure thing. Before the final vote, Councilman Bill Skaggs tried to gut the ordinance. He introduced an amendment that would have removed many of the key provisions. Skaggs, who lives north of the river, demonstrated an inability to look beyond his fingertips. "I don't see anything in this ordinance that improves my backyard garden," he said during a floor debate.
Regulating traditional backyard gardens was never the point. Urban agriculture is, on a deeper level, about remaking communities in ways that make them more useful. Promoters of small-scale agriculture point to the need for fresh food in parts of the city where supermarkets may be harder to reach. Successful growers can also make a buck or two, a significant consideration in hard economic times.
Many cities are rewriting laws to accommodate urban farms. It's a hot trend. Seattle has designated 2010 the Year of Urban Agriculture.
Meanwhile, Kansas City typically started from a reactive position. The council was forced to act, in part, because an art-school dropout had ticked off her neighbor.
In 2007, Brooke Salvaggio and her husband, Daniel Heryer, began a farm at her grandmother's house near 95th Street and State Line. A neighboring homeowner complained about the couple's goats, prompting visits from city inspectors. The goats were sent to live someplace else. But questions persisted about the farm that Salvaggio and Heryer had named BadSeed. Were crop subscriptions illegal? Was it improper for BadSeed to use volunteers or pay helpers? The city's regulations on home-based businesses were not designed with weeds and growing seasons in mind.
One day in May, the City Council heard from residents about the proposed changes. Several opponents who spoke were sellers of residential real estate. They described the threat to their commissions that fruit stands in neighborhoods posed.
"All you need is one with a red tent and a purple sign," Stacey Johnson-Cosby, a home seller and a resident of the 6th District, said. "All you need is one to impact what their perception of what the value is for that house."
More ominously, Johnson-Cosby related a conversation she'd had with an unspecified police officer, who warned that criminals may be prowling for urban farmers' cash boxes.
Dan Henderson, a mortgage broker who spoke at the May meeting, described the ordinance as "ridiculous" when I followed up with him later. Henderson said it was bizarre that the city would allow food to be grown and distributed with so little oversight from the Health Department and city planners.
Showing 1-15 of 15
@ Stacey - whose American Dream are you promoting? Not mine. You've got a lot to learn if you think that property values are more important than home grown food. @ Paul - just in case you're interested, this is a viable alternative to conventional water/energy-wasting toilets http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/04/21/make-your-own-toilet-and-human-fertilizer-for-big-green-savings/ . @ Emily & Roxanne - Amen & Amen! @ Hooptie - we'd best be more concerned about buying what's trucked/flown/shipped into our grocery stores than local organically grown produce. @ Henderson - agreed! Great work Pitch!! @ Quail - good eye! :)
This is an abuse of good journalism. Comments taken out of context and a gross misinterpretation of the facts. Stacey Johnson-Cosby never referenced commissions. I did, but only to bring light to the fact that if we were so concerned about commissions and this WAS in fact a good ordinance we would have been in support of it. However, the argument that we are only after higher commissions defeats the purpose of those in favor of the resolution because if this did in fact create growing thriving communities we would be all for it!!! Growing thriving communities are at the back bone of any Real Estate professional's commissions, however it not only affects our commissions it affects thousands of homeowners already struggling to keep up with their investment. My reference to Detroit was laughable only because they already have this in effect and it isn't helping their city...it is still in decline...even more so!!! Get your facts straight, don't misrepresent!!!!
We are all in favor of large vacant lots being turned into thriving growing gardens, in Ruskin, or in any area of need...this would HELP our city not hurt it. You forgot to leave those comments of my speech in your story I suppose that we are ACTUALLY IN SUPPORT OF URBAN GARDENING...but doing it the right way is what is needed....Look at the Feed Dayton program...a growing bustling community....again something I mentioned in my speech that you conveniently left out of your story...Great Work Pitch!!!!!
This is an abuse of good journalism. Comments taken out of context and a gross misinterpretation of the facts. Stacey Johnson-Cosby never referenced commissions. I did, but only to bring light to the fact that if we were so concerned about commissions and this WAS in fact a good ordinance we would have been in support of it. However, the argument that we are only after higher commissions defeats the purpose of those in favor of the resolution because if this did in fact create growing thriving communities we would be all for it!!! Growing thriving communities are at the back bone of any Real Estate professional's commissions, however it not only affects our commissions it affects thousands of homeowners already struggling to keep up with their investment. My reference to Detroit was laughable only because they already have this in effect and it isn't helping their city...it is still in decline...even more so!!! Get your facts straight, don't misrepresent!!!! We are all in favor of large vacant lots being turned into thriving growing gardens, in Ruskin, or in any area of need...this would HELP our city not hurt it. You forgot to leave those comments of my speech in your story I suppose that we are ACTUALLY IN SUPPORT OF URBAN GARDENING...but doing it the right way is what is needed....Look at the Feed Dayton program...a growing bustling community....again something I mentioned in my speech that you conveniently left out of your story...Great Work Pitch!!!!!
I can't believe this passed...I would just have to chalk it up to the lobbying power of the crunchy white urban Brookside types.
I would never buy a house next to a fruitstand. It sounds like the hickiest damn thing ever. I think a good alternative would be to take vacant, condemned lots that are now city-owned and turn them into community stand areas. Build a nice wood awning and construct some wooden stands out of pine and paint them. Charge people a nominal fee that is sufficient to cover any repair and upkeep of the wood stands. That way it wouldn't look as low class as front lawn stands and it would put disused land to good use. Plus having a regular community fruit stand that opened every sat and sun in-season would probably add value to a community while tents in people's front yards would probably cause value loss.
There is another danger to urban farming---soil contamination. There is no guarantee that these crunchy organic tomatoes aren't contaminated with PCBs in soils. About half of all vacant lots in US urban cores are soil-contaminated. The problem is that until the 80s places like dry cleaners and mechanics would just pour toxic liquids into the ground or down their floor drains.
I can't believe this passed...I would just have to chalk it up to the lobbying power of the crunchy white urban Brookside types. I would never buy a house next to a fruitstand. It sounds like the hickiest damn thing ever. I think a good alternative would be to take vacant, condemned lots that are now city-owned and turn them into community stand areas. Build a nice wood awning and construct some wooden stands out of pine and paint them. Charge people a nominal fee that is sufficient to cover any repair and upkeep of the wood stands. That way it wouldn't look as low class as front lawn stands and it would put disused land to good use. Plus having a regular community fruit stand that opened every sat and sun in-season would probably add value to a community while tents in people's front yards would probably cause value loss. There is another danger to urban farming---soil contamination. There is no guarantee that these crunchy organic tomatoes aren't contaminated with PCBs in soils. About half of all vacant lots in US urban cores are soil-contaminated. The problem is that until the 80s places like dry cleaners and mechanics would just pour toxic liquids into the ground or down their floor drains.
Now that the interest in urban agriculture is at a fever pitch, we need to recognize that not all urban ag is created equal. Much of what is dubbed urban agriculture is a movement driven by advocates who take pleasure in planting and who hold strong opinions about the negative effects of our industrial food supply. But a point that has gotten ironically lost amid all our zeal to reconnect with the source of our food is that farming is a profession. It not only takes passion. It requires talent, training and business savvy. It is no different than any other highly skilled profession. The next important step for communities like Kansas City that are struggling with how to harness the benefits of urban agriculture is to devise programs that separate the wheat from the chaff, and encourage its professionalization. This will require training a large and diverse number of residents in urban farming and microenterprise development and organizing them in co-operative models of market participation that are well integrated into neighborhoods and that are operated by astute business managers. Then, urban agriculture will not only deliver the social and environmental benefits touted by the advocates, but it will also be an industry that generates significant economic benefits as well.
Now that the interest in urban agriculture is at a fever pitch, we need to recognize that not all urban ag is created equal. Much of what is dubbed urban agriculture is a movement driven by advocates who take pleasure in planting and who hold strong opinions about the negative effects of our industrial food supply. But a point that has gotten ironically lost amid all our zeal to reconnect with the source of our food is that farming is a profession. It not only takes passion. It requires talent, training and business savvy. It is no different than any other highly skilled profession. The next important step for communities like Kansas City that are struggling with how to harness the benefits of urban agriculture is to devise programs that separate the wheat from the chaff, and encourage its professionalization. This will require training a large and diverse number of residents in urban farming and microenterprise development and organizing them in co-operative models of market participation that are well integrated into neighborhoods and that are operated by astute business managers. Then, urban agriculture will not only deliver the social and environmental benefits touted by the advocates, but it will also be an industry that generates significant economic benefits as well.
I would take a house next-door to an urban farm a thousand times over a house next to an identical house with purposeless landscaping. Who wouldn't prefer to have neighbors who appreciate and nourish the very soil they live on, while sharing health and happiness with those around them?
The idea that people want an isolate shell to live in (on a street of other isolated shells), rather than a real neighborhood, is based on that old, destructive thinking that built the neighborhoods discussed in the story. When we do not know, tolerate, and respect our neighbors as individuals, our neighborhoods lack the sense of community that sustains them and makes them safe, healthy places to raise children, pursue hobbies, and grow old.
A recent British study found that only half their kids climb trees today; the rest seem to be safe on the couch, playing video games. Jamie Oliver shockingly revealed that American children can't begin to identify basic vegetables. Who would want to deny children living in Kansas City the opportunity to have a garden plot near their home? Who wouldn't want them to learn about healthy foods and to develop into responsible, patient, hardworking adults by tending their own plants and experiencing the pride of providing nourishment to their families and neighbors?
If what you want in a neighborhood is a series of prescribed, uniform shelters with no personality or activity that can be identified from the next house over, then that is exactly what you will get.
This article fails to mention that Ms. Salvaggio was offering classes on her property. One of which was titled "Human Composting". Do neighbors really want human excrement being composted next door?
I would take a house next-door to an urban farm a thousand times over a house next to an identical house with purposeless landscaping. Who wouldn't prefer to have neighbors who appreciate and nourish the very soil they live on, while sharing health and happiness with those around them? The idea that people want an isolate shell to live in (on a street of other isolated shells), rather than a real neighborhood, is based on that old, destructive thinking that built the neighborhoods discussed in the story. When we do not know, tolerate, and respect our neighbors as individuals, our neighborhoods lack the sense of community that sustains them and makes them safe, healthy places to raise children, pursue hobbies, and grow old. A recent British study found that only half their kids climb trees today; the rest seem to be safe on the couch, playing video games. Jamie Oliver shockingly revealed that American children can't begin to identify basic vegetables. Who would want to deny children living in Kansas City the opportunity to have a garden plot near their home? Who wouldn't want them to learn about healthy foods and to develop into responsible, patient, hardworking adults by tending their own plants and experiencing the pride of providing nourishment to their families and neighbors? If what you want in a neighborhood is a series of prescribed, uniform shelters with no personality or activity that can be identified from the next house over, then that is exactly what you will get.
This article fails to mention that Ms. Salvaggio was offering classes on her property. One of which was titled "Human Composting". Do neighbors really want human excrement being composted next door?
David, I can appreciate that you are obviously pro-Kansas City's Urban Ag Ordinance. I am pro urban farming too, but just didn't like this specific ordinance. I have never mentioned my commission, or paycheck in this debate as a person who earns my living as a real estate agent, an honorable profession. My point was that having a business set up in the yard next door to a home for sale would indeed impact that property's value. Just like the example you used. There is no question that if a home was for sale on a block where most homes are consistent in appearance with typical landscaping, and a nicely maintained home that it would attract the highest value for the owner who worked hard to build equity. Then, flash to a home for sale that sits next to one that has a brightly colored sign advertising tomatoes for sale, a big colorful canopy meant to attract the attention of potential customers that covers the long display table that holds a variety of produce for sale, people coming and going - workers and customers. Which home would sell for the most, getting the owner as much of their equity out as the neighborhood and home will allow? Clearly and without question, the one NOT next door to the mini-retail-farmers market. My job is to help people get the most that they can for their homes, their American Dream that they work hard to fix up, maintain and protect. There is a reason why city codes across the country don't allow QuikTrips on residential blocks.
And the safety issue is important. Our police officers always tell us to watch our neighborhoods for unusual activity, then we should call them to check things out. That is legitimate. Businesses drive traffic. Then, if you have criminals who don't want to get jobs like the rest of us, and are looking for easy money - this yard home business is a sitting target. Instead of robbing a QT, or 7-11 with cameras, the police officer said that they may simply go into a neighborhood with someone sitting out, unprotected with the cashbox with the proceeds from their sales from that day---just like they do with people currently holding garage sales. I never thought about that, or knew it happened. But it does. Easy target.
I am not against people growing their own food, or having access to it. They didn't need the ordinance to do that. I only wish that our city would have put a true urban farming initiative into place with a wide group of experts, farmers and neighborhoods that had specific plans to get information out there to grow healthy food and offer long term follow up and structure. We have areas of our city that have the food deserts with vacant, blighted lots that we should be concentrating on making productive and attractive. They may fall through the cracks now because all the ordinance basically did was allow people to sell vegetables from their homes. Period.
David, I can appreciate that you are obviously pro-Kansas City's Urban Ag Ordinance. I am pro urban farming too, but just didn't like this specific ordinance. I have never mentioned my commission, or paycheck in this debate as a person who earns my living as a real estate agent, an honorable profession. My point was that having a business set up in the yard next door to a home for sale would indeed impact that property's value. Just like the example you used. There is no question that if a home was for sale on a block where most homes are consistent in appearance with typical landscaping, and a nicely maintained home that it would attract the highest value for the owner who worked hard to build equity. Then, flash to a home for sale that sits next to one that has a brightly colored sign advertising tomatoes for sale, a big colorful canopy meant to attract the attention of potential customers that covers the long display table that holds a variety of produce for sale, people coming and going - workers and customers. Which home would sell for the most, getting the owner as much of their equity out as the neighborhood and home will allow? Clearly and without question, the one NOT next door to the mini-retail-farmers market. My job is to help people get the most that they can for their homes, their American Dream that they work hard to fix up, maintain and protect. There is a reason why city codes across the country don't allow QuikTrips on residential blocks. And the safety issue is important. Our police officers always tell us to watch our neighborhoods for unusual activity, then we should call them to check things out. That is legitimate. Businesses drive traffic. Then, if you have criminals who don't want to get jobs like the rest of us, and are looking for easy money - this yard home business is a sitting target. Instead of robbing a QT, or 7-11 with cameras, the police officer said that they may simply go into a neighborhood with someone sitting out, unprotected with the cashbox with the proceeds from their sales from that day---just like they do with people currently holding garage sales. I never thought about that, or knew it happened. But it does. Easy target. I am not against people growing their own food, or having access to it. They didn't need the ordinance to do that. I only wish that our city would have put a true urban farming initiative into place with a wide group of experts, farmers and neighborhoods that had specific plans to get information out there to grow healthy food and offer long term follow up and structure. We have areas of our city that have the food deserts with vacant, blighted lots that we should be concentrating on making productive and attractive. They may fall through the cracks now because all the ordinance basically did was allow people to sell vegetables from their homes. Period.
like
dislike
