Archive: Opinions

Recently, our household, and others in Lansing, received an anonymously-authored flyer about the upcoming public hearing on Lansing's proposed Agricultural Plan. Unfortunately this flyer is filled with numerous inaccurate statements about the proposed plan. Below is an attempt to clarify some of the more problematic misstatements.

From the flyer: "Myth #1: this plan is nothing more than a guide --the creation of an Agricultural District..." This opening sentence confuses two things: an Agricultural Plan and an Agricultural District. Significant portions of Lansing are already in an agricultural district (created in the 1970s and updated periodically since); the proposed Lansing Ag Plan does not create or modify one.

An agricultural plan puts together a path for the Town Board to follow to ensure that agricultural land stays in agricultural use. It is adjunct to, and similar in nature to, a master plan. A good agricultural plan will help keep the Town Board from taking actions that will create development on agricultural lands. This is because citizens can undo a board vote if it conflicts with the agricultural plan. For example an ag plan can be used to prevent sewer and water from being extended into an agricultural district. If there is no ag plan, or a very week one, the citizens have less ability to keep the Town Board in check.

In fact, the Town does not play a part in the creation of Agricultural Districts. In summary, here is how they are created:

“Any owner or owners of land may submit a proposal to the county legislative body for the creation of an agricultural district within such county, provided that such owner or owners own at least five hundred acres..” … “The county legislative body, after receiving the reports of the county planning board and the county agricultural and farmland protection board and after such public hearing, may adopt as a plan the proposal or any modification of the proposal it deems appropriate...” … “Upon the adoption of a plan, the county legislative body shall submit it to the commissioner. ...The commissioner shall have sixty days after receipt of the plan within which to certify to the county legislative body whether the proposal, or a modification of the proposal, is eligible for districting...”

- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/AGM/25-AA/303#sthash.s7aftMIC.dpuf


From the flyer: "Myth #2: Farming neighbors in an Agricultural District are protected by law and regulations....”

Again, the focus is on agricultural districts, which are neither created nor modified by the Town or its agricultural plan.

From the flyer: "Myth #3: An Agricultural District will 'protect our small local farms' –Ag District laws favor big CAFO's...”

The point of an agricultural district is not to protect small farms from big ones. It is to protect all farms from outside development pressure. One of the most important benefits of the Agricultural Districts Program is the opportunity provided farmland owners to receive real property assessments based on the value of their land for agricultural production rather than on its development value. A good link on how Agricultural Districts work is found here:

http://www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications/Local_Laws_and_Agricultural_Districts.pdf

From the flyer: "Myth #4 'Dust and Order' complaints are the result of city people who have no experience with farming...” Again, the agricultural plan is designed to give the Town Board guidance on how to reduce development pressure and encourage farming within existing agricultural districts. The town actually has little to no control over the issues the anonymous author raises in this section. The Agricultural Districts Law protects farmers against local laws which unreasonably restrict farm operations located within an agricultural district. This is backed up by New York State lawyers who will force the Town to change its laws to comply with State rules.

The anonymous author will no doubt be most upset that Agricultural Districts Law protects farmers from private nuisance suits involving agricultural practices. In general, residents have little recourse from noise or smell of generally accepted agricultural practices. Unfortunately, CAFOs are included in this. This, and the other problems the anonymous author describes, cannot be fixed or even modified in an agricultural plan – they can only be changed via legislation at the State level.

I hope this helps for a more informed discussion. Clearly, we in Lansing need to find a good balance between economic vitality in our rural community—which includes the support of local farms—while also being attentive to farming practices often found at CAFOs that can imperil air and water quality for all of us.

Joseph Wetmore
Lansing

v11i36