Further in the MDA statewide report, I see the line item “Total amount spent by consumers on food (estimate) $23,186,200,000″. I was originally struck by the difference between value of ag products and amount spent by consumers as being very large, but then realized that the amount spent by consumers includes all of the processing, preparation, packaging, shipping, etc., costs, and now I think I’m actually impressed by how /small/ the gap between value of ag products and amount spent by consumers is.

Drilling down to the County-level, it looks like Washtenaw has a slightly larger producer-consumer gap, %-wise. $189M in farm product value; $1.066B in consumer spending on food.

Also interesting at the County level: estimated pet populations. 199k in Washtenaw.

This sentence doesn’t make any sense.

A current map of protected properties in the Township showing the block of AG land protected: [link]

I was responding to the previous commenter’s interpretation of the purpose of the millage being to make a literal greenbelt (an enclosing green ring) around town without regard to its land use. That was never true even of the original map. My use of the term “we” in that paragraph was meant to refer to Ann Arbor, through the GAC.

Yes, there are many good land preservation efforts apart from the Greenbelt and they are all worthwhile. I’m a contributor to the Legacy Land Conservancy and the Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy and was encouraged by the renewal of the county natural areas millage. That program has been highly effective.

I’m not familiar with Preserve Washtenaw, but it sounds logical.

Additional note: the word “Greenbelt” is misleading, since most of the available properties, and those already purchased, are to the north of Ann Arbor. It is more that we are establishing an agricultural reserve. That is a good thing in itself.

I prefer the metaphor “Emerald Necklace,” since Greenbelt implies a continuous band of preservation. But it isn’t true that most available or preserved properties are north of A2. Looking at the map of current Greenbelt properties, , you can see that there are a large group of preserved farms in Ann Arbor Twp., north of town, as well as Webster Twp., northwest of town (including one that isn’t yet on the map as of today, 12/13, the Ledwidge Farm referenced in the story above).

However, you will also see three open space projects in Scio Twp., west of town, two beautiful farms in Lodi and Pittsfield, south of town, and three properties in Superior Twp. and one in Salem, east of town. More Greenbelt projects are in the pipeline, in many directions, not just north.

Don’t forget that Scio and Pittsfield Twp.s have, on their own, preserved many hundreds of acres of farmland and open space, as has the Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy in Superior. The county, on its own, has also preserved natural areas in almost every township.

Though these county, Scio, Pittsfield, and Superior properties don’t appear on the Greenbelt map, because the city didn’t fund them, they are certainly part of the Emerald Necklace of open space and farmland that is being preserved in every direction around Ann Arbor. The townships, county, private nonprofits and city work together to plan and coordinate land preservation through Preserve Washtenaw.

That said, the taxpayers of Ann Arbor do have the right to consider what incentives they wish to provide in making these purchases. In talking with people informally, I have found that those who supported the Greenbelt millage did think it would help bolster the local food supply. Unfortunately, because the millage was also sold on the idea that Ann Arbor would not pay more than a certain percentage of the purchase price, Federal standards (for grant applications) were applied, which resulted in small farms being disqualified and even in CAFOs being allowed (surely not what Ann Arbor taxpayers envisioned in voting for the millage).

So while the ultimate use of a property should not be dictated (other than to prohibit development), choices can be made to purchase rights for smaller (less than 100 acres, say) properties that are more likely to provide local food, rather than restrict those purchases to very large properties, which are more likely to be commodity farms. This may mean that we have to forgo some Federal grant money and rely on our own and township millage monies.

Then it is up to all of us to make sure that those locally directed farming operations are viable businesses (by buying their products).

Additional note: the word “Greenbelt” is misleading, since most of the available properties, and those already purchased, are to the north of Ann Arbor. It is more that we are establishing an agricultural reserve. That is a good thing in itself.

Whatever this contracted staff does to collect census data on the uses of this property is inappropriate meddling in private business. The commission needs to focus on acquiring the development rights of property important in creating and maintaining the green belt, not trying to become some sort of Soviet-style agricultural commission to assure food production the way some people want it to be.

The question of supporting large commodity farms vs. smaller producers of diverse crops is mirrored by and affected by the national farm policy. As you indicated, national grants favor the large farms, and many aspects of national farm policy are skewed in this direction.

Here’s the problem: are we supporting farmers (agricultural farming businesses) regardless of crop, simply because we want to keep local farmers in business? (Commodity farms ship to national and international markets.) Or are we prioritizing conserving valuable cropland (to some extent a nonrenewable resource) regardless of current crop uses? Or – as I hope – are we realizing how important it is to maximize food production for local consumption, as a food security measure? There are good arguments on all sides.

I think the GAC shows good sensitivity to these issues and is approaching them carefully. Congratulations to them for the shift to supporting smaller farms (as at least one consideration).

Personally, I’d like to see us stop producing corn for ethanol. It is actually energy consumptive and is a waste of good cropland.

Thanks again for your comprehensive coverage.