[MD] Capitalism: A Question of Morality

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: Khaled Alkotob <khaledsa at juno.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] Capitalism: A Question of Morality
>Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 23:13:11 -0800
>
>
>
>[Dan]
> >
> > What is the right thing for the land? What about the farmer who now
> > leases
> > the land for crop production - isn't he entitled to some small
> > measure of
> > loyalty?
> >
> > How would you advise Roy? What would the MOQ say about this?
>
>
>Hello Dan and Case.
>
>Great question for this day and age, takes us of the topic of politics. I
>hope.
>
>Well I live here in California's Central Valley where things get even
>more complicated. Do to what is know here as proposition 13, the taxes
>are assessed on the land by the original purchase price. So if he bought
>it at 1,000 and now it's worth a million, well he only pays taxes on the
>$1,000.

Hi Kaled

Wow. That's got to stress the infrastructure. I mean, someone has to pay for 
roads and schools and myriad other things we all take for granted. And those 
costs go up every year. How do they do it?

>
>But here, instead of farming it, he can get a subsidy from the government
>not to farm, or he can get a payment from the water district to leave it
>un farmed and sell his water rights to someone else, or he can pump his
>ground water and sell it to Los Angeles.

I think farmers here participate in subsidy programs too.

>
>Dan, the word you are looking for here is stewardship. Do you really own
>that land ( insert Chief Seattle's speech here) or are you merely the
>care taker. What is known as silicon valley used to be some of the most
>productive farm land in CA. No one is doubting the benefits the computer
>industry has brought the state, the nation and the world. The question
>could it have been built somewhere else.

Exactly! Do we have to use our most fertile farmland? And once it's gone, 
it's gone. There's no taking it back.

>
>Then you have the issue of food production. How many more acres can we
>pave over before Soylent Green is the only thing on the menu.

They say our oceans are dying and there will be no more wild seafood within 
50 years. 50 years! We have some hard choices to make.

>
>It's his land, and he should, and has the right to do as he pleases. Let
>me repeat that for Platt's benefit. It's his land and he can do with it
>as he pleases. Let me repeat that for Platt one more time: It's his land
>he can do with as he wishes.
>
>A few other options are:
>
>1. Help his friend start the nursery

This isn't an option. The nursery man isn't a friend, only a interested 
party.

>2. Work a deal with the county where the land is declared " insert proper
>term here" and have it tax exempt as long as it's not developed.

Well, the land itself isn't taxed all that heavily. It is the 2 houses on 
the land that are taxed. Here, unimproved property such as farmland is taxed 
at a much lower rate. Still, one has to live somewhere...

>3. Find local growers who are willing to work a co-op on it and raise
>high value cash crops. The legal kind of course.

I think this is what they call a "truck farm". As it is more labor intensive 
(employees are needed to hand-pick the harvest) the value of the crop has to 
be higher. It might be a viable option but why should someone buy produce 
from the co-op when they can get it at walmart for half the price? Also, 
with the closing of our borders there are no longer any migrant workers to 
help with the harvest. I understand this is a major problem in California, 
right?

>4. Agri-tourism of sort.

Corn isn't all that exciting though soybeans, well they might have 
possibilities.

>5. Case mentioned the Nature conservancy.

Right. Farmland cannot be left fallow however as it will revert to its 
natural prairie state.

>6. As open spaces get scarce, Private parks might be the thing of the
>future. You can have the vice president over for hunting trips.

Yee Haa!

>
>It's a hard question, and unfortunately the "right answer" does not equal
>$$$$.
>
>But again for Platt's benefit: It's his land and he can do with it what
>he wants.
>
>And of course what is making this land what it is, is that fact that's in
>private ownership and not an open prairie or state owned Should there be
>a building moratorium. Can the county step in and force people to leave
>open green spaces. Can the land be declared for ag use only.

The county can take land by a process called eminent domain but they have to 
fairly compensate the aggrieved party. In other words, they have to pay just 
like everyone else. Zoning restrictions can be (and are) changed all the 
time. Highest and best use...thats what the governing bodies look at.

>
>Finally this comes to mind:
>Ko.yaa.nis.qatsi (from the Hopi language), n. 1. Crazy life. 2. Life in
>turmoil. 3. Life disintegrating. 4. Life out of balance. 5. A state of
>life that calls for another way of living.

Sounds very appropriate. Thank you for your comments,

Dan