|
Planning a Future for Agriculture continued from page 1
<br />"You need a plan that In developing its plan, Rensselaer took advantage of the state's Agricultural and Farmland
<br />won't hinge on just one or Protection Program, which since 1992 has offered matching grants. Planners wrote a blueprint
<br />two things falling into place, both to protect farmland and expand the economic opportunities for farmers. The comprehen-
<br />and if they don't happen, sive planning effort took almost two years.
<br />the whole plan becomes The matching grant was part of the ambitious 1992 legislation that also created county farmland
<br />a paper weight" protection boards. The boards, which advise county officials about agricultural districts and appli-
<br />cations for purchase of development rights (PDR) funds, chiefly prepare county land protection
<br />der Heide I plans. Under the act, county plans must locate important farmland, analyze its agricultural and
<br />Linda von environmental value, and identify threats to continued agricultural use. Planning grants are
<br />County Planner, capped at $50,000 and cannot exceed half of the -cost of the plan. The county supplied $10,000
<br />Rensselaer, New York in matching funds and a little more than $40,000 with in -kind services.
<br />Rensselaer got on board with the state grant in 1999, then hired AFT to help facilitate the plan -
<br />f Wing and implementation process. Early on, the county surveyed residents to gain support and
<br />:.;also built public awareness with a series of events —a booth at the county fair, a series of meet-
<br />" ings, a farm tour for communi leaders.
<br />ty
<br />'Twenty years ago, it was next to impossible to discuss these issues in most communities," says
<br />Teri Ptacek, AFT's New York field project specialist, who worked closely with Rensselaer officials.
<br />'The planning grants really helped:turn this around, and the state's focus on economic viability
<br />as well as farmland protection was* a.key ingredient."
<br />The Rensselaer plan works':on: many fronts. A top action item was development of a "neighbor
<br />relations packet for. farmers to give to their non - farming neighbors in hopes of improving the
<br />lines of communication'and reducing. so-called ".nuisance" suits filed by non - farmers. In the
<br />policy arena, the plan calls for.the county to urge towns to strengthen or pass right -to -farm laws.
<br />linked initiatives to boost agricultural economic development, includ
<br />The plan also provides for -
<br />ing new marketing efforts ::to promote Rensselaer County farm products through niche markets,
<br />agritourism and cooperative ventures: -..
<br />Other Rensselaer strategies include'explorng funding sources for a PDR program and urging
<br />towns to consider funding mechanisms for local farmland protection efforts; developing a direc-
<br />tory of technical assistance sources for farmers; promoting and/or providing tax relief incentives
<br />through towns, such as using agricultural assessment values when taxing farmland for services;
<br />expanding a farmer -to- farmer network and exploring shared farm labor arrangements.
<br />Along the,way to `a comprehensive plan, Rensselaer hit obstacles, such
<br />as needing to for9e consensus among disparate groups and finding
<br />staff time to work on the project:,'Ve..have a lot of good ideas, but it's
<br />tough getting time for everyone to sit around the table," von der
<br />Heide says. 'The grant allowed 'us to get, services from AFT, which did
<br />a lot of the footwork."
<br />"You need a plan that won't hinge on just one or two things
<br />falling into place, and if they don't happen; the whole plan becomes
<br />a paper weight," von der Heide continues. "We constructed a plan
<br />that has some elements we can achieve easily, then get momentum."
<br />Other communities also have adopted comprehensive farmland
<br />protection approaches supported by diverse interests. Recently,
<br />Dakota County, Minnesota, near the Twin Cities, h.as seen about
<br />3,000 new homes built annually in existing and planned urban
<br />communities that are advancing into agricultural are as"In addition,
<br />about 200 homes each year are built on large rural residential lots
<br />mixed in with agricultural land uses. "It is something that,concerns
<br />our citizens," says Kurt Chatfield, Dakota County's principal planner.
<br />Dakota County officials know what citizens think. Every two years since the early 1990s;, they
<br />have surveyed their 355,000 residents about a variety of local issues. The rate and manner of
<br />91 percent expressed a
<br />growth they see in the county rank as a top concern. In a 2001 survey, p
<br />desire for the county to "pursue an active role in protecting farmland from development• ", They
<br />indicated a similar wish for natural areas.
<br />County planners started by forming a diverse group: environmentalists, representatives ves rom he
<br />tY P protection
<br />farmers union and farmland protection advocates. The collaborative recommend
<br />strategies that were approved by the county commissioners in January 2002, setting the stage
<br />for a possible referendum. if posted on the ballot, the referendum would raise $20 million over
<br />20 years through an annual property tax levy. The new fund would bankroll the PDR program
<br />__A in e„mc Dnepr, land acouisition.
<br />Photo courtesy of Rensselaer County
<br />
|