13. October 2005 • Murph
Email this article
The City Council will hold a public hearing and second reading on Monday, 17 October, to ease the restrictions placed on land in the Greenbelt program. The change would remove the exclusion of factory feeding operations (officially: Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs), and is motivated by the conditions of Federal and State agricultural land preservation grants: $1,448,042 in grant money is at stake.
The national Sierra Club takes a dim view of CAFOs, and the Ann Arbor News quotes Doug Cowherd in opposition to this proposal:
Doug Cowherd, co-chairman of the Sierra Club-Huron Valley Group, said CAFOs aren’t in the Washtenaw County area now because land is cheaper in other parts of the state, such as Hillsdale and Lenawee counties. By removing development rights from the land, the greenbelt program will create cheap property that can only be used for agricultural purposes.
Cowherd said removing the CAFO restriction puts the city at risk down the road of having factory farms.
“There is a real risk that CAFOs will move here eventually,’’ Cowherd said. “No greenbelt deals should be made that allow CAFOs to operate on these properties in the future. CAFOs are a public health and environmental disaster.’’
The News cites a spokesman for the Michigan Farm Bureau as calling the environmental argument overblown and pointing to regulations on animal waste management; the memo provided as background to the ordinance change also discusses waste regulation.
No CAFOs, a citizens’ group out of Hudson, MI, shows exactly how well these regulations work, recording 129 violations by 10 local CAFOs in the past five years into the River Raisin watershed, which would seem like undesirable behavior to allow in land acquired as part of a program intended to “preserve and protect the City’s sourcewaters as an integral part of maintaining a quality water supply and the public health and safety of the Ann Arbor community.”
« Previous Article New West Side launches lease renewal watch
Next Article Northfield Township fighting to revive US-23 expansion »
|
—Murph. Oct. 13 '05 - 07:56PM #
—John Q Oct. 13 '05 - 08:32PM #
—Juliew Oct. 13 '05 - 08:34PM #
—John Q Oct. 13 '05 - 08:39PM #
—Juliew Oct. 13 '05 - 08:52PM #
—FAA Oct. 13 '05 - 09:05PM #
I would like to say that I can be convinced on this, if somebody wants to make a good case. (I don’t think, John, that the cost is necessarily a stopping issue – if you’re buying off the dev. rights, then how is Washtenaw land any more expensive than anywhere else?) In general, though, if we cared enough to put it in the original ordinance, taking it out just because we’ve encountered a grant that diagrees seems regressive. We’re going to change the terms on an $85M program because we want to use part of it as the match for a $1M grant? Just how desperate are we?
Would it be possible (legal) to write a change into the ordinance to hold our noses and remove the no-cafo restriction just on land easemented with this grant money?
—Murph. Oct. 13 '05 - 09:29PM #
—Juliew Oct. 13 '05 - 11:47PM #
—Murph Oct. 14 '05 - 03:28PM #
Weak. That’s the word for all of this. Too weak to succeed without outside ‘help’. Too weak to put principle (not to mention wisdom) above expediency.
How about we don’t look for a compromise, Murph? How about we don’t look to the feds or Pfizer or the state for help and we actually stand on our own for a change? What might come of that effort?
—Steve Bean Oct. 14 '05 - 04:50PM #
—FAA Oct. 14 '05 - 05:09PM #
—Michael Betzold Oct. 14 '05 - 05:49PM #
A city that only the very wealthy can afford.
—todd Oct. 14 '05 - 06:09PM #
—John Q Oct. 14 '05 - 06:40PM #
—Steve Bean Oct. 14 '05 - 06:53PM #
If we try and accomplish these types of “big city” amenities without major help….then the cost of living will go up, and quickly. Further, the greenbelt programs, one way or another, takes land off of the tax rolls (so will the park on 1st and William——opportunity cost). When you do this, taxes will go up, or services will be cut…..or in the case of Ann Arbor, both.
Couple this with prop A, and this makes Ann Arbor a more expensive place to live than it was before these programs.
How’s that?
—todd Oct. 14 '05 - 07:04PM #
I understand the ‘a million here, a million there; pretty soon you’re talking about real money’ approach. However, I don’t think encouraging the growth of factory farming and essentially abrogating the original intent of the Greenbelt idea is the way to solve finance issues. No one wants to ‘enjoy’ green space potentially poisoned by a pigshit lagoon.
There are other ways to solve the city’s financial troubles that we’ve all discussed here, ad nauseum. I haven’t been to a city council meeting in a few months, but I’m planning to be at this one to speak against the CAFO idea.
—Marc R. Oct. 14 '05 - 07:39PM #
So, I can understand the need to stretch our dollars by finding matching funds, but that’s a execution-level goal, and not a programmatic goal; we shouldn’t let it supercede things like “protect watershed quality”.
If it only takes $1.4m in State and Federal dollars to ditch the CAFOs part of the program restrictions, how much would it take from Pulte or Toll Bros before we drop the “no development” part of the restrictions? Are we going to one day be told that, hey, golf courses might not be what we originally intended, but look at the matching fund we lined up!
Nah, send the money back to the State and tell them their model city thinks their funding program is broken.
—Murph. Oct. 17 '05 - 12:56PM #
—Steve Bean Oct. 17 '05 - 01:56PM #
On the other hand, it’d be a disaster to use Greenbelt dollars to help finance CAFO operations. So the City needs to find a way to keep out CAFOs without explicitly banning them in our ordinance. I think that’s possible, and the Greenbelt Commission thinks that’s possible, and we’re developing the replacement language over the next month.
Meanwhile, we suggested that City Council temporarily delete the anti-CAFO provision at tonight’s meeting, while the new ordinance language gets developed. This will let the City finalize its first transaction, on a farm in Webster Township, which is scheduled to close October 31. In that case, the farm owners voluntarily agreed to restrictions on their land which would effectively keep it from ever being turned into a CAFO.
Given the size of farm properties in the Greenbelt District, I think it’s highly unlikely that anyone would develop a CAFO here. But this is a potentially huge problem for land preservation activists in more rural areas across the state. To that end, I’m hoping that the new Greenbelt language can serve as a model ordinance for communities around Michigan that are also trying to deal with sprawl.
If you’ve got any suggestions for us, please contact me at michaelg@ecocenter.org. Thanks.
Mike Garfield
Director, Ecology Center
Chair, Ann Arbor Greenbelt Advisory Commission
—Mike Garfield Oct. 17 '05 - 03:31PM #
Is there any way the city could guarantee that the replacement language, which won’t be anti-CAFO – but will sort of be effectively, will in fact be put in place soon?
—FAA Oct. 17 '05 - 04:04PM #
But, hey, now we have a statement of intent from the Chair of the Greenbelt Adv. Commission that a revised, Fed-friendly but CAFO-safe ordinance is on the way, so now we have somebody to lean on.
And, Mike, I’m happy to hear of the desire to provide something that can be duplicated across the state to get the best of the funding situation and happy to hear the assertion that this is A2 trying to get the best of the funding situation rather than letting the funding get the best of us; think you make sure Council states all that into the record tonight?
—Murph. Oct. 17 '05 - 05:37PM #
I also wonder how, exactly, this took so long to be discovered? I know it is hard to cover all bases, but if neither State nor Federal funds can be used for matching if CAFOs are not included, and we explicitly removed CAFOs from our Greenbelt program, didn’t someone think to check? Especially if we depended on State and Federal matching to actually make the program fly?
—Juliew Oct. 17 '05 - 08:28PM #
There is NO WAY that a person of Mike’s integrity would allow anything bad to happen to our environment. I know him and his work well, and support his judgement.
—Leah Oct. 17 '05 - 08:38PM #
—Juliew Oct. 17 '05 - 09:04PM #
While Mike made the statement that the matching funds will help the City acquire the majority of the properties and he’s well-positioned to back it up, it doesn’t sound right to me. Based on the numbers I’ve seen from those programs, they don’t generate a significant amount of matching funds. The Greenbelt program is going to generate a fairly large number of dollars over its lifespan. I’m just wondering how Mike came to those numbers.
—John Q Oct. 17 '05 - 09:13PM #
Anyways, that all sounds like we’re maybe clawing up towards 50% in matching money – I’d like to see the math behind Mike’s almost tripling of land to be preserved with grants, especially if we see the feds as being the primary match and we can only manage a 25% match from them here.
And, Leah, while I do trust Mike’s intentions (very much so!), there’s only so much weight you can put on the assurances of an “Advisory Commission”. They can have all the intentions in the world, but they’re not the ones making the final decisions. (I’m not even suggesting that I don’t trust the Council here – consider that Council has to worry about whether reinstating some sort of restriction later would draw the possibility of lawsuit. Everybody might have good intentions now, only to decide they’re shy at the risk later.)
—Murph. Oct. 17 '05 - 10:18PM #
—Murph. Oct. 17 '05 - 10:21PM #
Juliew, Marc R, and Mike Garfield spoke during the public hearing, along with somebody whose name I didn’t catch.
Measure passed, unanimously-but-Woods, with Johnson, Greden, Easthope speaking in support and Johnson (on Greenbelt Advisory Commission) seeming to indicate a few-weeks timeline for coming up with a revision.
Mayor Hieftje asked all opposed to CAFOs to buy free-range meats in order to also prevent CAFOs not in our backyards.
—Murph. Oct. 18 '05 - 12:57AM #
1) Is there enough money in the Greenbelt funds now to buy the parcel closing on October 31 without using matching funds? Answer: Yes
2) Could the ordinance be tightened up after that to have better wording that would prevent CAFOs? Answer: Yes.
3) Any reason to change this amendment right now to wording that no one likes that could cause us problems down the road? Answer: um, we save about $150,000.
Sigh.
And Heiftje’s comments, although true, were sort of annoying. It felt like a not-so-subtle admonishment to those who stood up to speak, and frankly, I do buy local, free-range, non-CAFO meat, eggs, and dairy so I don’t need a little lecture from the Mayor.
—Juliew Oct. 18 '05 - 01:41AM #
Whoa, whoa, whoa!
For the record, I made no reference to CAFO’s when I responded to Steve B.
This is the only statement that I responded to: “How about we don’t look to the feds or Pfizer or the state for help and we actually stand on our own for a change? What might come of that effort?”
Steve nor I made any reference to CAFO’s here…...my point was in discussion the turning away of federal and state grants/monies in general.
My occupation puts me in pretty close touch with farmers, whether it’s because of crop reports (hops, malt) direct purchasing from small farmers (cherries, pears, etc.) or from the donation of animal feed (spent grain). Let me say that CAFO’s aren’t my cup of tea, to say that least…..
Sounds like we need some good lawyerin’ to change the wording so that we can keep the funding…..that’s all I’m saying here.
—todd Oct. 18 '05 - 01:55PM #
Who was your closed session source? Garfield?
—Murph. Oct. 18 '05 - 02:13PM #
—Juliew Oct. 18 '05 - 03:28PM #
—David Cahill Oct. 18 '05 - 04:39PM #
—Juliew Oct. 18 '05 - 05:43PM #