Ah, Alaska. Home to amazingly huge vegetables grown under the midnight sun. The background photo of this blog proves this to be a blessing, and on a summer night-beautifully bucolic:
Those are potatoes, by the way, in the foreground. A farmer will look upon the above photo, and smile.
That million dollar view, however, will give a developer a thrill up the leg...knowing that such a view commands a much higher price....and a higher profit in the end.
Here in Alaska we do not have centuries of slow, incremental expansion and growth. No, we have the remnants of a number of boom and bust cycles, with periods of slow growth between. As a consequence, not only do we have a patchwork of colony-era farmland interspersed with commercial and residential development, we also now have a governing body whose primary focus has strayed from the pioneering, homesteading, farming roots from which it arose. Here in Alaska, only a slim fraction of the land is actually available to the private individual. 2.7 million acres, and that is it. (Not counting native held acreage) Here is a link to a 2000 report, authored by our own Institute of Social and Economic Research...the title page contains an easily understood graphic that is helpful.
http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/Landswebfiles/lands.pdf
Although almost half of the acreage within Alaska is considered wetlands, there is believed to be between 15 and 18 million acres of tillable land. Of that, almost a million are considered true "farmland". Current acreage in production is listed in this USDA report:
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Alaska/2014akcensusofag.pdf (Please note that this link shows a loss of roughly 48,000 acres in production....and that the number of "farms" has actually increased. Some of these "farms" are on a single acre, by the way-or less, in urban areas)
So what the heck do all these statistics prove? That we are losing our prime means to feed the people at a prodigious pace. In other states, this is not as crucial....there are centuries-long traditions of farming, where innovative new techniques are adopted with vigor, and an expanding movement into the organic label is helping to grow more food than ever before. Even while it is true that in the Midwest, there has been a migration away from the generational family farm....there is, instead, a migration towards small farms in Alaska....even if it means only a high tunnel or two on an acre in the Valley. And this explains the puzzling fact of less acreage in actual production, but a sizable growth in farms.
The good dirt, that luscious soil, that prime farm land is converted into subdivisions, complete with cookie cutter starter homes, while the demand for truly farm friendly land grows. The Mat Su Borough and the State of Alaska are asleep at the wheel, and the Division of Agriculture spends more effort on playing the "cya" game than genuinely pursuing its mandate:
"The mission of the Division of Agriculture is to promote and encourage development of an agriculture industry in the State."
It does no such thing.
Franci Havemeister is at the helm, and helps determine what qualifies as agriculture use, and what does not. In fact, if it does not include row crops, or manure creating creatures, or large greenhouse complexes, it's not "Ag". The Valley (and state) Ag condition is directly a reflection of.....well, fill in the blank. This despite the fact that there are four people tasked with "marketing" Ag. No visionaries in those seats either, whatever their lofty state wage. No, the Div. of Ag, that step child of DNR, is succeeding all too well, in staying under the radar of true public scrutiny.
There is no affordable land either. The State of Alaska is required to develop its resources.....but Ag, after the fiascoes of the past, is incapable of surmounting its history and has its sights (seemingly) set on different outcomes. You have to wonder how it is, that the land set aside for government (whole sections, mind you) is not suitable for schools.....the curious example of a decision to purchase land at fair market value, to build a high school a few miles away from another parcel with two schools already built springs to mind-and plenty of space for another. (That would be the new Redington High School, and the Knik Goose Bay schools)
But where are the new farms?
The newly planted, broad pastures, the hay fields?
Where is the land rush to fill the dreams, of the next generation of Ag in Alaska?
Where are all the new faces at farmer's markets, where are the new farm stands?
Where is the 160 acre homestead of history?
Answer: That does not exist in Alaska.
The Boro controls the land use, and whoever the seller is (state, Boro, private) has both hands out for "fair market value" and the Boro, of course, for the resulting property taxes. Oh, there is the occasional land auction (offered at fair market value-whatever the appraiser thinks is acceptable for home building, that is) and few indeed would qualify as "farm friendly". Or lease holdings with conditions which preclude investment and innovation....because again, Alaska Ag is stuck in it's own rut.
There is no incentive from their perspective to promote the smaller homestead farming...whyever would a state need to feed itself? It's not flashy, it's not trendy, it's not how they do things, it's not "socially responsible", it's just really small potatoes, it's not.....well, sexy.
That million dollar view, however, will give a developer a thrill up the leg...knowing that such a view commands a much higher price....and a higher profit in the end.
Here in Alaska we do not have centuries of slow, incremental expansion and growth. No, we have the remnants of a number of boom and bust cycles, with periods of slow growth between. As a consequence, not only do we have a patchwork of colony-era farmland interspersed with commercial and residential development, we also now have a governing body whose primary focus has strayed from the pioneering, homesteading, farming roots from which it arose. Here in Alaska, only a slim fraction of the land is actually available to the private individual. 2.7 million acres, and that is it. (Not counting native held acreage) Here is a link to a 2000 report, authored by our own Institute of Social and Economic Research...the title page contains an easily understood graphic that is helpful.
http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/Landswebfiles/lands.pdf
Although almost half of the acreage within Alaska is considered wetlands, there is believed to be between 15 and 18 million acres of tillable land. Of that, almost a million are considered true "farmland". Current acreage in production is listed in this USDA report:
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Alaska/2014akcensusofag.pdf (Please note that this link shows a loss of roughly 48,000 acres in production....and that the number of "farms" has actually increased. Some of these "farms" are on a single acre, by the way-or less, in urban areas)
So what the heck do all these statistics prove? That we are losing our prime means to feed the people at a prodigious pace. In other states, this is not as crucial....there are centuries-long traditions of farming, where innovative new techniques are adopted with vigor, and an expanding movement into the organic label is helping to grow more food than ever before. Even while it is true that in the Midwest, there has been a migration away from the generational family farm....there is, instead, a migration towards small farms in Alaska....even if it means only a high tunnel or two on an acre in the Valley. And this explains the puzzling fact of less acreage in actual production, but a sizable growth in farms.
The good dirt, that luscious soil, that prime farm land is converted into subdivisions, complete with cookie cutter starter homes, while the demand for truly farm friendly land grows. The Mat Su Borough and the State of Alaska are asleep at the wheel, and the Division of Agriculture spends more effort on playing the "cya" game than genuinely pursuing its mandate:
"The mission of the Division of Agriculture is to promote and encourage development of an agriculture industry in the State."
It does no such thing.
Franci Havemeister is at the helm, and helps determine what qualifies as agriculture use, and what does not. In fact, if it does not include row crops, or manure creating creatures, or large greenhouse complexes, it's not "Ag". The Valley (and state) Ag condition is directly a reflection of.....well, fill in the blank. This despite the fact that there are four people tasked with "marketing" Ag. No visionaries in those seats either, whatever their lofty state wage. No, the Div. of Ag, that step child of DNR, is succeeding all too well, in staying under the radar of true public scrutiny.
There is no affordable land either. The State of Alaska is required to develop its resources.....but Ag, after the fiascoes of the past, is incapable of surmounting its history and has its sights (seemingly) set on different outcomes. You have to wonder how it is, that the land set aside for government (whole sections, mind you) is not suitable for schools.....the curious example of a decision to purchase land at fair market value, to build a high school a few miles away from another parcel with two schools already built springs to mind-and plenty of space for another. (That would be the new Redington High School, and the Knik Goose Bay schools)
But where are the new farms?
The newly planted, broad pastures, the hay fields?
Where is the land rush to fill the dreams, of the next generation of Ag in Alaska?
Where are all the new faces at farmer's markets, where are the new farm stands?
Where is the 160 acre homestead of history?
Answer: That does not exist in Alaska.
The Boro controls the land use, and whoever the seller is (state, Boro, private) has both hands out for "fair market value" and the Boro, of course, for the resulting property taxes. Oh, there is the occasional land auction (offered at fair market value-whatever the appraiser thinks is acceptable for home building, that is) and few indeed would qualify as "farm friendly". Or lease holdings with conditions which preclude investment and innovation....because again, Alaska Ag is stuck in it's own rut.
There is no incentive from their perspective to promote the smaller homestead farming...whyever would a state need to feed itself? It's not flashy, it's not trendy, it's not how they do things, it's not "socially responsible", it's just really small potatoes, it's not.....well, sexy.
No comments:
Post a Comment