SHARE THIS SHOW:
ON THE BLOG:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
We first heard about Larry Thompson's plans to blur the urban/rural line about a month ago. His basic idea is to keep about 20 of his best-producing acres as working farmland, and to develop the remaining 60 or so acres around this agricultural core. This would mean up to 600 housing units of varying sizes, an "eco-resturant," and a community kitchen or education center where people could preserve their bounty or learn new gardening techniques. He wants to draw a blend of urban retirees and young families — and everyone in between — all seduced by a more tangible connection to land and food. More grandly still, he hopes to create a model for smaller farms within the UGB that could prove economically and socially viable for generations to come. (For more background, check out this profile of Thompson from last July.)
He has fans and detractors. Some people say that there's no need to create a new land use designation — that current zoning would allow Thompson to do everything he wants. (Thompson isn't sure.) And others worry that encouraging farming inside the UGB will end up pushing the boundary even further into land that's now protected from development. But still, many of the people I talked to in preparation for this show expressed the basic sentiment that — even if there are many details to be worked out — Larry Thompson could be on to something.
We're trying a slightly different model for this show. Weather permitting, we'll record out conversation in the middle of one of Larry's fields. (If the weather turns nasty, we'll set up in his barn.) That means no live calls, but you can still get in on the conversation here, before-hand.
What do you make of Larry Thompson's idea? Is development, paradoxically, the way to save farmland? Is this a model to emulate or a Damascus peculiarity? Would you move to a new house on an old farm — with the attendant noise and dust and manure that come with growing food?
Tagged as: damascus · farming · land use · ugb
Photo credit: David Miller / OPB
-
In my experience in upstate NY (no UGB) creeping suburbia forces out farms. We lived on 5 acres carved out of a farm originally deeded to a revolutionary war soldier. Personally, I loved living in a combined rural/suburban area. However, I worried about land, air and water contaminated with agricultural pollutants. I had to drive long distances for services I used regularly (library, grocery store, etc.)
Now I live in Salem. I enjoy being able to walk/bike/take public transport to fill needs. I use the land we have to grow some vegetables and fruit. I'd like to make life in Salem more sustainable by being able to raise a few chickens in the city.
I'm watching these trends with great interest. Thanks for doing shows on these subjects.
-
Too much stock is put into the idea that an agrarian life is somehow preferable. There is nothing wrong with an agrarian life, however there is nothing right with it either! We lately have an obsession with fetishizing the past. We collectively sound like grandparents romanticizing their youth. 'When I was young... .' Well, things change.
It is great to know where food comes from, or how it comes. But there is nothing of virtue in advocating an agrarian interest anymore then advocating an interest in the manufacturing process of a Prius. I find something very sinister and un-modern going on with people who recommend and preach the virtues of these retro-lifestyles. These agrarian zealots are tiresome, and they overstate the value of a concept and world-view that is really one of faith, rather then anything substantive.
The condensed living of the city is one of the greenest ideas out there. We need to spend more time finding virtue and value in the modern world. Because if the past was so virtuous, it would have worked the first time around.
-
Such an amazing article! I really enjoy reading it
http://foodstuff.webs.com/
-
Here's a story from yesterday about people "sharecropping" in their frontyards. It's almost a mirror image of this show: instead of bringing the urban to the rural, as Larry Thompson is talking about, you bring the rural to the urban.
My question: what can both sides learn from these experiments?
-
Isn't this nothing more then a guise to develop farmland under the auspices of a "green project?" Even if it isn't, wouldn't it set that precedent? Couldn't every farmer turn their farmland into some type of eco-development, building alleged green houses on land that can't currently be sub-divided or developed? Sounds like a cash cow!
-
Follow the money!
-
As someone who lives adjacent to a farm in Hood River valley, I can tell you that farm and homes make terrible neighbors.
As I write this, spraying is going on. We regularly experience spray planes and helicopters flying close overhead starting before dawn; people who live by farms have to scrub their cars and swingsets. They spray 7 days a week, and despite traditional farmers' and industry claims, pesticides are not safe. My car has been doused with my children inside by my neighbor spraying from a tractor. He, of course, had protective clothing. Spray runs into the street and our mailbox has been coated. When I asked our neighbor to let me know when they are going to spray, he agreed, and then did so exactly twice. When I asked again, he angrily told me that he could not oblige.
Farmers use burning as a way to get rid of old trees and limbs and who knows what else; in the spring and the fall, the valley is frequently thick with smoke. Smudge pots are still used here as well. Did I mention the firing of air cannons, 24 hours a day, to keep birds off the cherries? Or that nonfarm residents are not allowed to have fruit trees unless they will spray, so as to protect nearby agriculture?
If anyone dares suggest that things should change -- eliminate smudge pots, disallow spraying around schools when school is in session, ask farmers to trim back trees that block motorists' view -- one is accused of killing the American Farmer, he who puts food on your table while barely getting by himself. Come take a look at Hood River. Really talk to people. Read our newspaper! It is far from Kumbaya.
-
I can not agree more. Instead of imagining what it might be like and speculate, why not examine what has happened where rural and residential have collided in the past. This is not a new thing, it is called rural residential (RR), usually outside the urban growth boundary. The only new thing is bringing it inside the ugb, with higher density.
I have a house in RR, a chemical grass farmer to the north, an organic farm 1/2 mile to the west. I used to get smoke from field burning from the north, now I get dust and chemicals. And every so often, I get the <sarcasm> sweet <sarcasm off> smell of manure from the organic farm.
Represenative Morris (?) (Albany) has commented on the conflict between residental and farms. Grass seed farmers used to burn their fields, and the city folk moved in and complained. New residents often complain about smells, noise, chemicals, water rights and usage, etc. from farms nearby.
Bob
-
My aunt lives next to a farm field. She complains that when they're plowing everything gets dusty-- inside and out of her house.
-
Larry has a vivid imagination for his dream "401K" and Heritage farm.
Reality, however, might make his dream a nightmare.
Consider the following, in no particular order:
Current law requires new home owners near farms to sign a non remonstrance declaration before they are permitted to own the property. This means that they agree to never complain about any farming practices such as noisy tractors, dust, smoke, sprays, smells, night and early morning and week-end activity, delivery trucks, unsightly greenhouses or hoops, burning etc.
Larry has not mentioned that a farmer might choose to farm pigs, sheep, goats and other livestock. These make noise, smells, attract flies and other insects etc. Remember the home-owner may not complain.
Electric fences are ubiquitous on farms. Remember not to complain when junior goes to retrieve his ball and gets a jolt of electricity.
How about being woken at 5 AM on a weekend morning, to the hubbub of farm workers arriving to help with the harvest or with weeding and other farm duties?
The value of land increases when it is within the UGB. Larry believes that a 20 acre farm could be economically viable. This might be true for Larry because he probably owns the farm free and clear and only needs to pay a much reduced farm tax.
If he were to sell his farm, the new owner would have the expense of his new mortgage as well as farm overheads to pay before they could draw anything for themselves. Small farmers have a tough time making ends meet assuming no crop failures. It is a disaster when they do have crop or storm losses. Insurance does not always cover the unexpected. For example the ice storms we had last year that collapsed so many unheated farm structures, these were excluded from the farm insurance so farmers had to bear the losses.
ETC, ETC ...
I wish Larry well, but as far as his ideas ----- "dream on"!
-
You mention a very important problem. We were on the other side of your situation. We had Pear Orchards (83 acres) and people moved in around us and then started to complain about everything - the workers waking them up too early, to much noise during harvest time and when the smudge pots were lit in the middle of the night, the noise and dust of the machinery. Then people begane to threaten to sue us if we didn't stop spraying and using smudge pots (windmills have their own set of complaints.) All the time using our orchard as their own pheasant hunting grounds and letting their children ride their 4 wheelers all over our land, often running over newly planted trees. I nearly got shot one morning and two of our dogs were shot while walking with us on our land. We did not have the money to hire lawyers, so we stopped spraying. We really didn't mind stopping. But then we got fined $500 a day by the county for not spraying. The county ended up pulling all the trees and now no one is happy - the land is pretty sad looking, ripped up and torn appart and we still have to use round up when the volunteer trees pop up or get fined. Round up is not harmless. So the land can't be used for organic farming. Oh, it has been are really nice place for homeless camps and we have felt really bad having to kick people off, but the police say they are a fire hazard and our neighbors really don't like them there at all - we get complaints.
This friction is going to happen as people move out to farming areas, because they want that house with the pretty scenery and a bit of land. Orchards in bloom are beautiful. Mr. Thompson has a charming idea and his farm will be organic. I sure hope if he wants to do this, he is able to - it is his land, his family has paid the taxes and his land is his land not "our farm land" it is his.
I am sorry that hood river mom can't have her fruit trees. I know lots of people who have them in their yards and don't spray them, but if the county found out, you probably would get in trouble and that is sad too. Hopefully, in the future some really bright people can come up with a solution to what is going to be a bigger and bigger problem.
Once people have moved into farm land with their children, those children do need to be protected. Lets hope we can find a way to make it all work.
Maybe Mr. Thompson is on to something.
-
Of course Damascus is out of the reserve and ready to go as Oregon's newest city. My first thought is with this scheme will the tax base support the infrastructure and services required by a city? I share the suspicion described by scottmil. Unlike Happy Valley that experienced rapid development fueled by creative lending (a number of homes now empty or in short sale) the Rurban approach might allow for "on demand" development with the farm shrinking as homes are built. Doesn't this create planning issues? Where are the jobs in this area? And, in Damascus won't cars be a requirement for all members of the family? Are these self supporting farms or just hobby farms? How will zoning and codes be created to address the many issues this kind of mix presents?
-
This sounds like a transient eco trend that will fizz, like the communes in the 1960's that have dramatically declined and are now relabeling themselves as eco-villages.
Given a choice, living near vegetables and orchards OR living near efficient mass transit that can take you to organic farmers markets, great ethnic resturants, downtown shops, universities, museums, airports and train stations, professional sports games and concerts---WHERE WOULD YOU LIVE?
People need other people. A life of an eco-hermit or cloistered in a self sufficient monestery has only limited appeal.
-
I'm a Damascus resident with a 5 acre farm 2 miles from Larry's place. Thanks Larry, for your leadership on this issue.
What Larry is doing, and what Damascus is attempting with integrating new development with open space, including still productive land such as small market garden-farms, is responsive to what a majority of local people have said they want: conservation of the rural character that attracted us here in the first place . It is also responsive to changed conditions in farming and relationships between farming and urban areas. Increasing numbers of people want to know where their food comes from, and want to buy from local farmers. Also, farming techniques are changing. Farmers like Larry are using far fewer or no toxic chemicals. In fact, the average suburban lawn has way more toxic materials put on it than an acre of sustainably grown produce managed by Larry and farmers like him.
Damascus is trying to create a new model of hamlets and villages nested within a continuous greenbelt system that includes forests, stream corridors, and some farms. We have over 10,000 acres to work with, and an opportunity to be Oregon's first planned town. Let's keep our creative thinking caps on and push the outer boundaries of the system. People from all over Oregon should support our efforts to try something new, different, and in touch with local values.
-
I think it's too bad people are seeing this as an either-or choice. Urban - rural, old-new, eco - modern. What's lost is the possibility that many of the best things our history and culture have produced are a blend of contrasting opposites. While it's true that there are many examples of mixing urban and rural elements that have gone badly - the pesticide spraying is one good example - lets not throw out the baby with the bath water. Many people are imagining a more perfect union of food, farming, homes, and stores, and yes, even transit and downtowns, partly because they've seen it before in many parts of the world or at points in recent history. Larry Thompson's ideas are worthy of serious study.
-
When I lived in Zurich, Switzerland, the city had a growth boundary with community gardens, forest and farms just outside the city. You could walk from your home to a working farm full of livestock and on to walking paths in the forest. They had self-serve, put the money in the slot vegetable stands, even a "milk-o-mat," where for a few franks you could fill a container with fresh milk and take it home!
It created this amazing quality of life, including exercise, stress reduction, job creation, connection to the land, and education about where our food comes from. We should emulate this.
-
As a previous urban and rural farmer, and one involved with co-housing, I see some merit to this proposal. BUT this particular model is TOO lopsided toward sprawl / housing / profit. It would be preferrable to have a cluster of small homes and higher % of cultivated or pasture acreage.
I like the idea of a 'mixed generation community'. I really wish land use laws would allow me to place a couple small residents (under 1000 Square Feet) on my existing rural farm acreage. It would be nice to have some help and have additional protection from the theft that is getting out of control with the increasing meth problem.
It was VERY difficult to be an urban fruit farmer. Theft of produce / equipment, vandalism, liability risk, rude and insistant (non-farm) customers, non-farm trained 'u-pick' customers that would do more harm than good to plants, incompatibility of nieghbors (Tractor noise vs. Boomboxes), law and code enforcement mitigation of issues. It was a major hassle for both the urban and rural residents.
-
I personally know of a family with a farm that already has several investors in the hopes that their beautiful farm will be turned into a development---they are not planning an eco-development. But they are lobbying to have the zoning changed. You can't just allow development because it is 'green' because it opens the door for everyone else. Being I know of one such farm, I can imagine there are many other farms, that are just waiting to turn their farms into tract housing.
-
I love the idea of a food-producing core to a neighborhood. Is it really viable? Will those who live close to the farm really buy from their community agriculture? Would it also include deliveries/sales to other areas? I have to think that there is limited use for farms surrounded by homes, and that most farm land needs to remain just that.
-
Local people might buy from a neighnorhood farm-- at harvest time: one week out of every year. The other 51 weeks they'll drive to the shopping center.
-
Sounds like Larry wants to have his cake and eat it too. Wants to have a bundle of money to retire on AND be able to pass his farm on to his kids.
Other than that, sounds like a fairly workable idea. 20 acres is enough to be profitable if you work it intensively (and do the work yourself). But the greenhouses sound unsightly (not very pastoral), and I don't see that 80 acres spread out over 3 separated parcels, is too large to put into an urban area.
-
Now more then 30 years ago I remember asking a planner type at the LCDC, why we would ever allow something as stupid as suburban sprawl to occur on highly productive farm land that then largely ringed the metro areas.
There was no good answer 30 years ago. The UGB that was designed to STOP it just gets moved farther out, there is still no wisdom present in the planning system.
Food production is not important, shopping malls are.
We are so screwed.But hey... I got mine!
-
Hood River mom's argument sways me. I wanted to live in agricultural Hood River until I thought about all the problems HRM brought up. Industrial farming (pesticides, herbicides, etc.) and families don't mix well. Whereas organic farm and small communities might be a better fit.
What scale of community is required to sustainably provide it services? The tax base for providing public services seems to be falling apart for megalopoli like Los Angeles, Chicago and New York. Also, the rural communities in Oregon have ineffective tax bases due to the higher rates of unemployment. Perhaps the balance lies somewhere in between.
Was talking with a friend the other day who complained about roosters being kept in the city. Constantly crowing roosters are annoying from my personal experience.
I've heard of city slickers who move to the country only to become a nuisance to farmers because the slickers want a quiet, clean and uninterrupted life. If I moved into farm country I figure I'd have to bend to the way of the people who already live there instead of attempting to impose my incompatible desires on the ruralites.
-
It is kinda' funny how someone will move into a place because it's so nice, and then start changing it.
-
Larry’s ideas are absolutely on the right track. The Damascus region is a perfect location to push these concepts forward. The opportunity to develop symbiotic communities that live in harmony with adjacent agricultural operations is right in front of us. The farm can support the community and community can support the farm with a marketplace, and the by-products of life.
Designing and building self sufficient villages that do not require huge investments in municipal infrastructure is possible right now. Solar and wind energy, coupled with onsite collection of rainwater and on site treatment of waste water can support new development that does not put an infrastructure burden on the rest of the city’s tax payers. Integrating self supporting villages while conserving fertile agricultural land must part of our overall future vision for metropolitan development.
Thanks
-
Does anyone know if Mr. Thompson can actually sell off his land currently to be divided for housing, as he suggested on the show? I guess if he could sell it with the current zoning, that would make all the difference in the world in easing suspicions of the project.
I didn't find the answer in the linked articles, but maybe I missed it.
-
He absolutely can. He's inside the UGB now, and can sell it to a developer.
-
David,
One of the Oregonian articles said "If his farm is eventually zoned residential, Thompson would have no problem doing that."
So has the zoning been changed to residential? Maybe things changed since that article. Or maybe I am missing something. Because I think there are currently many farms within the UGB that cannot be subdivided into residential developments.
-
My understanding is that he can sell right now — and he gets offers regularly. There is some question (as you probably heard on the show) about whether his grand plans of a farm-development mix would work with the as-yet-unreleased zoning regulations of Damascus.
But as far as I've heard, being inside the UGB means that, somehow, your land is either urban or urbanizable.
I haven't heard about farms inside the UGB that can't be developed. I've always assumed that's a choice that farmers are making.
-
If that is true, I take back and apologize for my suspicions and doubt about Larry's project.
I was thrown by that article. And, also assumed that even within the growth boundary you still needed permission to change the zoning, from what I assume was Residential Farm or something like that, to divide the land. Perhaps, within the growth boundary that is just a formality and easy to do---which means the land is easily marketable to developers. But I don't know anything about zoning.
-
The more I listen to the radio program, the more it sounds like Larry simply wants to develop (into high density housing/commercial) a part of his farm. All he is doing is adding a twist to sell/distract from what he is ultimately after. You can sell development as eco or green or alternative or experimental, but it is still development.
What would be better is to leave "wild" islands within the UGB, aka parks. Having parkland between farms and development sounds a lot more practical to me.
-
As a Damascus resident, let me try and clear up some confusion.
Larry's farm (and mine) were added to the UGB in 2002. In 2004 we voted to incorprate as a new city. This included a substantial tax increase.
Since then we have been trying to come up with a plan that reflects local values, is acceptable to regional and state land use authorities, and is affordable to build. If this were easy we would be done by now. Local values include open space conservation, but also economic fairness to all property owners. This means not zoning anyone's land exclusively as open space, but allowing some development integrated with conservation.
Our land has not yet been re-zoned for development. Damascus does not yet have an agreed upon plan, and even if we did we would need to also have a financial mechanism for allowing new development (roads, sewers, water, parks, schools, etc.) Therefore anyone buying it now would be taking a bit of a risk. They might be able to develop it in 2, 5, or 20 years. Or maybe never.
Larry's proposal is an attempt at something different. He has thought deeply about this issue and is trying to create a new model. What I see in most of the comments above is that some people are reacting by using old thinking, based on what we have done over the past decades rather than what we might be able to do in the next decade or 2.
Damascus is likley to have to plan for a population of around 50-60,000 people to satisfy state and regional rules, and also just to have enough people to spread the infrastructure costs. If we concentrate those people on 60% of the land, that is only 6 homes per acre gross density. Keeping the remaining 40% as farms and forests is doable. The result would be 5-10 villages, each with its own center, plus a "downtown" area maybe like Corvallis or McMinnville, plus some office or industrial uses around the edges. If Larry's farm can be part of a village-open space network it can work just fine within the larger scheme of things. There are many models of this in Europe where villages are cose to each other and farms are the open space between them. We just have not done much of it here. Instead we either sprawl all over or build a wall between cities and farms. We can do better than this.
Let's give it a try. the worst we can do is fail.
-
Obviously, most of you don't get it. You criticize without even knowing all the facts! Scotmil, learn something about urban growth boundaries, hood river mom, why are you exposing your family to toxics? jacob, why does it have to be either/or? Who on earth only buys fresh local produce once/year? A farm is not open space, its a farm and he's growing PRODUCE, not cows or pigs! Why would anyone in their right mind buy a house next to a farm and not know what the impacts are? And organic farming without pesticides is the way to go. Ask his neighbors, they love living next to the farm. Buy from a farmer, not the farmers market where they take a cut from the farmers and they have to truck their food over there. How many people do you know that don't have at least one car? Come on get real!
Now, if we can find common ground, instead of criticizing and finding fault in everything, we may have an opportunity to build community and keep growth contained and eat some good food!
What's wrong with that?
-
Comments are now closed.
Larry and Damascus are on the cutting edge of the rebirth of the 'culture' of agrarian living. The UGB has been a zoning wall between suburbs and agribusiness. Now Agricultural Urbanism, as it's called by some progressive town planners, can weave food growth back into the edges of our urban culture. Like interlocking fingers of urban and rural.
No need to further expand the UGB if we use Transfer of Development Rights, and build compact functional villages, plus infill and repair the miles of suburban corridors and town centers inside the UGB.
Go Larry...Go Damascus!