Comments on: Greenbelt Explores Support for Small Farms

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:14:18 +0000

Regarding #14: I don’t have any basis to judge whether that conclusion is accurate or not. It would certainly be good to verify that.

In #1, Jack F. mentioned 2 mills of greenbelt tax. I found a description on the city website indicating that the Parks and Greenbelt Ballot Proposal, passed in 2003, was for 0.5 mills for 30 years. There is also a Parks Maintenance and Capital Improvements Millage, passed in 2006. It is for 1.10 mills for 6 years.

Both of these millages have been “Headleeized” by annual reductions so that the mills this year were 0.47790 and 1.09690, respectively.

So there is no “2 mills of greenbelt tax”, even if you take the parks maintenance millage into account, which would not be accurate since it is not used for purchase of land.

By: Gale Logan

Gale Logan — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:17:32 +0000

I agree there is a good work being done by the Greenbelt program.

If you look at the tight restrictions on the erection of new buildings on Greenbelt protected lands you see that CAFO’s would be impossible. CAFO’s are kept out but the Greenbelt still gets to use the millions of $$ that come in from the federal ranch lands program.

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:16:22 +0000

I’m impressed with the work of the Greenbelt Advisory Commission to redirect land purchases (or rights purchases) to small farms. These are more likely to produce foodstuffs that we can actually consume locally. Many of the GB purchases in the past were for large commodity farms that primarily produce corn and soybeans for export. I believe that when Ann Arbor taxpayers voted for this program, there was a picture in the minds of many of a small family farm where urban dwellers could purchase healthful fresh food.

The GB is doing a great job in sorting out all the issues. One that I would like to see them address is to reverse the earlier ordinance change to allow CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations). This was done because state and federal farm preservation programs (heavily influenced by the agribusiness lobby) prohibit giving money to programs that restrict CAFOs. The council changed the ordinance in order to preserve those sources of funding. But if we are going toward smaller lots, and with the help of the hosting townships, it might be better to forgo those funds altogether in order to prevent small farms from being used for CAFOs. (I don’t think that such an operation requires a very big parcel.)

The townships may have some objection to making parcels government-owned, if that shrinks the tax base. But it sounds as though a lot of creative solutions are being explored.

By: John Q.

John Q. — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:57:41 +0000

Maybe Jack can go back and read the article and let us know where the “2 mills of greenbelt tax” is going to be spent on what he claims it is going to be spent on. I don’t think any of Jack’s attack on the proposal has any factual basis but perhaps he can show us otherwise.

By: Julie

Julie — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:52:33 +0000

OK, Jack, sorry I boxed you in with my assumptions. But I see “greenbelt” as totally consistent with local family farms. That’s greenbelt to me!

By: Jack F

Jack F — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:23:33 +0000

I don’t remember voting for a ‘family farm’ millage. Maybe you can do a petition drive and put that on the ballot. I DID vote for the school millage, even with reservations about the transparency of the A2 Schools budget, I DID vote for the 2 ‘extra’ mills for city roads and see that process is a total planning fiasco (Stadium Bridges?) AND I did vote for the greenbelt millage, even though I thought it was just a drop in the bucket and mostly symbolic. But if you think people who are basically sympathetic with these issues are going to continue to be when tax dollars are wasted and now we’re talking about those funds helping raise chickens, you and your friends are living in a bubble. It’s the worse Michigan economy in 80 years but here we have a board of the usuals making sure ‘greenbelt’ money might go to ‘family’ farms. This isn’t Mayberry and some people in elected office and public boards seem to be oblivious to reality.

And no I’m not moving anywhere. Sorry. Wish I could write more but I have to go write a check for my winter property taxes.

By: Rici

Rici — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 03:57:12 +0000

Anyone who thinks we have “third world roads” clearly hasn’t spent much time driving in the third world…

By: Julie

Julie — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 01:41:38 +0000

Well Jack, I could say the same to you… “pack up YOUR family” and move somewhere where the majority of voters feel as you do, as you are clearly dissatisfied with the will of the voters here in Ann Arbor. I don’t make the rules. But I do vote. And I will reiterate… family farms are VERY important to me. So I vote to fund them. Simple as that. Public schools and roads are also very important to me. I vote to fund them as well. I do get the feeling, however, that many who argue as you do against generating a particular revenue for some public good by pointing to OTHER public goods that need said revenue (schools, for example), DON’T vote to support those either, when the time comes.

By: Luis Vazquez

Luis Vazquez — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:40:17 +0000

How about subsidizing the stall fees for Washtenaw County farmers to sell at the Ann Arbor Farmer’s Market? That could perhaps draw more interest in growing produce within the county, and provide an incentive to those farmers to increase their presence. This could be a relatively low-cost option for the city or county.

By: Jack F

Jack F — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:08:18 +0000

Lol. Righteous anger. There ARE a handful of people the good Mayor seems to appoint to boards and anyone who doesn’t toe the line gets booted (ala the DDA Board members who weren’t reappointed because they opposed several of the Mayor’s plans).

I won’t list any names but you can be sure if any of his ‘folks’ voted against any of his bullet point issues, they’d be gone in a flash. Ask Rene Greff or David DiVarti.

I still think anyone in city government should fill out a financial disclosure statement, including the Mayor, Council Members and all members of boards and commissions. And true, ultimately the Mayor answers to the voters. He’s got a lot to answer for if he runs for reelection next year.