Whats the Big Deal about "Urban Farms"

[313hero]

I personally dont understand why so many people are swearing by "urban Farming" as a savior to Detroit. MI has enough farm land. Why should a City sell off acres on top of acres of land for a tree farm when theirs plenty of open available space in the burbs and rural areas where that kind of stuff belongs. This is a City not a F'n rual area. I can understand some small farming on Belle Isle, rouge etc. But turning neighborhoods into farms is Total B.S. The company talking about buying 1500 parcels for 560k is beyond rediculous. they not gone do nothing but sit on it and wait untill a developer wants it and sell it for millions. We are not sharecroppers anymore. WTF. Somebody help me.

[Shollin]

I don't get it either, but I think the argument is a farm is better than nothing. I would rather just have the land return back to nature.

[Motor City Sam]

Who is swearing by urban farming as a savior for Detroit? I haven't heard anyone make that claim.

[SWMAP]

313Hero wrote:
"We are not sharecroppers anymore," as an argument against the Hantz Woodlands proposal.

I would be grateful if he would expound more on that sentence, because I think that simple statement is the crux of the opposition.

He can't be worrying that Hantz properties will be worth millions in the near or distant future. They are pretty spread out and in parcels that wouldn't be easily assembled into a huge campus such as 313Hero seems to be worried about, so the sharecropping reference is the key reference.

[JVB]

I personally dont understand why so many people are swearing by "urban Farming" as a savior to Detroit. MI has enough farm land. Why should a City sell off acres on top of acres of land for a tree farm when theirs plenty of open available space in the burbs and rural areas where that kind of stuff belongs. This is a City not a F'n rual area. I can understand some small farming on Belle Isle, rouge etc. But turning neighborhoods into farms is Total B.S. The company talking about buying 1500 parcels for 560k is beyond rediculous. they not gone do nothing but sit on it and wait untill a developer wants it and sell it for millions. We are not sharecroppers anymore. WTF. Somebody help me.

I support urban farming, but I'm not a real big cheerleader of it. What I like about it is ownership of land promotes development. As it sits now those parcels are next to worthless and the city collects zero taxes on it - tax money it needs. However, if an urban farm goes in and people start to move back into the area and property values do begin to go back up, then it can always be sold to a developer for a new project. Valuable land will never remain farmland, and worthless land will never be developed, so this is an attempt to bridge that gap. As they stand now, single residential lots on the eastside will never be worth anything so I think it's part of the natural progression of a Detroit turn around.

What I don't like about it is the tax rate on agricultural land is lower from what I've read. That sucks, but some tax is better than no tax. I also don't like the idea of any type of livestock farming which I would never support in the city, but I don't think that's part of the proposals anyways and the city has regulations to prevent that.

I have a question though - what do you mean by sharecropping? I've heard that before but what does urban farming have to do with that?

[corktownyuppie]

This is a City not a F'n rual area. I can understand some small farming on Belle Isle, rouge etc. But turning neighborhoods into farms is Total B.S.

Let's be honest. This isn't a City, it's a disaster zone. If it were a city, then we wouldn't even be talking about farmland.

Turning neighborhoods into farms is total B.S. These aren't neighborhoods. They're disaster zones. We're not talking about walking into Rosedale Park and tearing down 30 blocks of homes. We're talking about vacant, blighted land.

I don't know what sharecropping has to do with this.

[old guy]

Do you two clowns plan on ruining every thread on this forum?

[Wesley Mouch]

Departing from sharecropping...

The appeal seems to be:

1) Replace zombie zones w/ something benign. That's not a bad idea.

2) Green. Everyone's favorite color.

The Hantz proposal seems to be industrial scale. Small-scale urban farming for personal and community food is a fine idea. There are major cities [[read successful cities) dedicating plots of downtown land to farming. Rooftops are being explored. Those who dream green are in heaven.

[JVB]

Do you two clowns plan on ruining every thread on this forum?

You're right and I apologize. But when someone falsely accuses you of making jokes about slavery you kind of have to respond ya know?

Back on topic - it seems logical that putting the land to use and back on the tax rolls is a good thing. It doesn't have to be farming but it's got to be something and right now that's the only plan on the table.

[softailrider]

I personally dont understand why so many people are swearing by "urban Farming" as a savior to Detroit. MI has enough farm land. Why should a City sell off acres on top of acres of land for a tree farm when theirs plenty of open available space in the burbs and rural areas where that kind of stuff belongs. This is a City not a F'n rual area. I can understand some small farming on Belle Isle, rouge etc. But turning neighborhoods into farms is Total B.S. The company talking about buying 1500 parcels for 560k is beyond rediculous. they not gone do nothing but sit on it and wait untill a developer wants it and sell it for millions. We are not sharecroppers anymore. WTF. Somebody help me.

I can't help out at all. I'll say this much on the subject, when you talk to people from other cities or other countries and try and explain this urban farming thing, they usually look at you like you're crazy. I haven't found that it resonates with anybody in a positive manner.

[SWMAP]

I think slavery was about forcing people to work land. Sharecropping is being used inaccurately here. Sharecropping is a voluntary working of land owned by someone else in a share a percentage of the harvest with the owner. Of course, sharecropping was/is often a big gamble as the rent must be paid.
The Hantz project does not contemplate sharecropping arrangements that I know of.
But the big issue is that farming seems so country and might portray a lack of progress for some people.

[Wesley Mouch]

I can't help out at all. I'll say this much on the subject, when you talk to people from other cities or other countries and try and explain this urban farming thing, they usually look at you like you're crazy. I haven't found that it resonates with anybody in a positive manner.

You should talk to people who get out more. A little googling shows amazing interest. For example:

Harvesting at the farm next door - Chicago Tribune - October 13, 2012

[JVB]

But the big issue is that farming seems so country and might portray a lack of progress for some people.

I can see that, but the land is worthless right now. Farming [[tree farms, not crops or livestock) may be the only way to add value to it at this point. If/when it becomes valuable then of course the land can be sold to developers so it can be put to better use.

[Richard]

I can see that, but the land is worthless right now. Farming [[tree farms, not crops or livestock) may be the only way to add value to it at this point. If/when it becomes valuable then of course the land can be sold to developers so it can be put to better use.

The question is,why is it worthless?

The neighbors to empty lots have expressed their interest in obtaining them for their use long ago,but the city made it a high cost factor,now all of the sudden it is well okay we will allow the neighbor owners first right of refusal?Why could they have not done that in the first place and this would not even be an issue.It was the city that made them worthless now not so?

Urban farming was the neighbors getting together and planting a community garden in a vacant lot,or the fad of growing herbs on your highrise balcony,there is a difference between urban farming and commercial farming in a urban setting.

[JVB]

The question is,why is it worthless?

The neighbors to empty lots have expressed their interest in obtaining them for their use long ago,but the city made it a high cost factor,now all of the sudden it is well okay we will allow the neighbor owners first right of refusal?Why could they have not done that in the first place and this would not even be an issue.It was the city that made them worthless now not so?

Urban farming was the neighbors getting together and planting a community garden in a vacant lot,or the fad of growing herbs on your highrise balcony,there is a difference between urban farming and commercial farming in a urban setting.

Fair enough, and I'm not trying to defend the City of Detroit. However, using the lot next door as a vegetable garden will ensure that land never increases in value - why would it? One city lot just does not have enough potential, but if one owner controls a large swath of land it can be combined and put to a more effective use.

It's the same thing with tearing down the Brewsters vs tearing down individuals homes spread out across the city. I definitely understand the desire to tear down the abandoned houses, but the end result is just a bunch of disconnected vacant lots that can't really be put to much use. By tearing down the Brewsters there is a large tract of land available for development. I think what I'm trying to say is it's all a matter of scale. On a larger scale you have a lot more options, does that analogy make sense?

[SWMAP]

What do you think was a high cost for a vacant parcel? The city sells lots to adjacent property owners for $200.
The city did drag it's feet for years about selling lots due to complicated Title histories that would need to be finalized, an unwillingness [[then) to accept that the urban grid would be forever altered by all the gaps that extra wide lots would cause, a concern that the lots would become storage for old cars, etc.
But the vacant lots, if you could get the City to agree to sell, were never more than a few hundred and the cost of the mandatory fencing.

[Blueidone]

What do you think was a high cost for a vacant parcel? The city sells lots to adjacent property owners for $200.
The city did drag it's feet for years about selling lots due to complicated Title histories that would need to be finalized, an unwillingness [[then) to accept that the urban grid would be forever altered by all the gaps that extra wide lots would cause, a concern that the lots would become storage for old cars, etc.
But the vacant lots, if you could get the City to agree to sell, were never more than a few hundred and the cost of the mandatory fencing.

and back taxes...and outstanding water bills...

[JVB]

and back taxes...and outstanding water bills...

That's any property in any city though. Taxes and water always follow the property, not the owner.

[corktownyuppie]

I think it would make the most sense if any individual citizen were able to veto any real estate transaction the city pursues. This would ensure that everyone's voice was heard and that all real estate transactions are optimal and fair.

[Richard]

Fair enough, and I'm not trying to defend the City of Detroit. However, using the lot next door as a vegetable garden will ensure that land never increases in value - why would it? One city lot just does not have enough potential, but if one owner controls a large swath of land it can be combined and put to a more effective use.

It's the same thing with tearing down the Brewsters vs tearing down individuals homes spread out across the city. I definitely understand the desire to tear down the abandoned houses, but the end result is just a bunch of disconnected vacant lots that can't really be put to much use. By tearing down the Brewsters there is a large tract of land available for development. I think what I'm trying to say is it's all a matter of scale. On a larger scale you have a lot more options, does that analogy make sense?

Yes it makes sense as did your other post,my thing is that it is the city deciding the value by controlling its use,so what options are available?

Change the zoning to low density allowing the combining of neighboring lots as some like the urban setting on a larger footprint which makes the larger lot have more value,the other end of the spectrum would be combining multiple lots and say like 3 to 5 acres where they would allow per say a ranch-ete within the urban setting where you could supplement your income by providing fresh veggies to local farmers market.

Granted the market would dictate true value but the city has a lot of tools that can direct the market where to go and create value,which is why I made the comment on the land having no value,it does have value as much as the city desires it to have.They wanted to add value downtown and did what it took to create it,no different in the outer rings,to say it has no value makes it have no value.

Usually when you assemble lots or very large parcels it is because the city would like to offer up for large development with a plan already in place, that is directing growth and adding value,the city does not speculate they should have a growth plan,but it is hard to do I guess if your trying to shrink instead of grow,just think if that same energy was devoted to growing instead of shrinking.

To me this is the city giving up on future growth and sending the message of I quit,demoting instead of promoting and that message is becoming status qou for some of the residents or so it seems at times. They need strong outer rings because if they concentrate only on downtown they will reach a stalemate as other cities have discovered,so they have to be very careful in the decisions made today and how they will impact the future,and not jump on what the latest fad may be.

Poletown should be a stark reminder of this.

Sorry 313 for the diversion.

[corktownyuppie]

They need strong outer rings because if they concentrate only on downtown they will reach a stalemate as other cities have discovered,so they have to be very careful in the decisions made today and how they will impact the future,and not jump on what the latest fad may be.

Poletown should be a stark reminder of this.

Sorry 313 for the diversion.

I'm confused...was Poletown an outer ring at one point? Where exactly is Poletown?

[Richard]

I'm confused...was Poletown an outer ring at one point? Where exactly is Poletown?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poletown,_Detroit

In a nutshell it was an area that was cleared in not so nice of a way to encourage a business to locate there which never happened and left destruction in its wake.

[Gistok]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poletown,_Detroit

In a nutshell it was an area that was cleared in not so nice of a way to encourage a business to locate there which never happened and left destruction in its wake.

Not totally true... the Poletown GM plant is there and fully functional taking up most of the [[north of I-94) Poletown area. It's the periphery of that plant that never spawned additional industrial uses, and sits as unused empty land.

The Poletown area south of I-94 is virtually devoid of life, with most blocks only having a few houses. That's the area around the closed St. Stanislaus Church.

[JVB]

Yes it makes sense as did your other post,my thing is that it is the city deciding the value by controlling its use,so what options are available?

Change the zoning to low density allowing the combining of neighboring lots as some like the urban setting on a larger footprint which makes the larger lot have more value,the other end of the spectrum would be combining multiple lots and say like 3 to 5 acres where they would allow per say a ranch-ete within the urban setting where you could supplement your income by providing fresh veggies to local farmers market.

Granted the market would dictate true value but the city has a lot of tools that can direct the market where to go and create value,which is why I made the comment on the land having no value,it does have value as much as the city desires it to have.They wanted to add value downtown and did what it took to create it,no different in the outer rings,to say it has no value makes it have no value.

Usually when you assemble lots or very large parcels it is because the city would like to offer up for large development with a plan already in place, that is directing growth and adding value,the city does not speculate they should have a growth plan,but it is hard to do I guess if your trying to shrink instead of grow,just think if that same energy was devoted to growing instead of shrinking.

To me this is the city giving up on future growth and sending the message of I quit,demoting instead of promoting and that message is becoming status qou for some of the residents or so it seems at times. They need strong outer rings because if they concentrate only on downtown they will reach a stalemate as other cities have discovered,so they have to be very careful in the decisions made today and how they will impact the future,and not jump on what the latest fad may be.

Poletown should be a stark reminder of this.

Sorry 313 for the diversion.

I guess the argument is Hantz is a business owner and therefore wants to make a profit. The only way to do that is to increase the value of the property which will in all likelihood have to involve some manner of development in the surrounding area, would it not? If a private property owner turns the lot next door into a vegetable patch their goal isn't necessarily to do anything to invest in the surrounding area.

Like I said, I'm not 100% a fan of the tree farm idea, but something has to be done because the eastside I grew up on and the eastside that is there now looks like a fucking bomb went off. Something needs to be done and I don't think a garden is going to fix it.

[313hero]

Just a little fyi. Detroit already have a tree farm. And all kinds of other crops in about 7 acres of rouge. I have no problem with them. But basically giving away all that land for "tree farms" is naive