Menu

Cooperation Should be Two-Way

Editor:
In the Feb.18 Buckeye Farm News, Jack Fisher suggested that if we see a story in our local paper that we feel is "unbalanced or incomplete" we should respond. Imagine my surprise to find what I consider to be such an article in the very next issue of our own publication. I’m referring to the Mar 18 Buckeye Farm News article "Striving for Rural Compatibility."

No one would question that compatibility between farm and nonfarm communities, or "cultures," is desirable. Although Professor Lasley was addressing a livestock meeting I am concerned that his suggestions are directed only to the farming community. I would also rephrase one of his statements to read, urban sprawl is causing social changes in the culture of rural America.

When nonfarm residences are built in rural areas where production agriculture is the prevailing land use, then the nonfarm residents should be the ones to landscape with "plants and trees to screen" whatever they consider to be spoiling their view. If they don’t want their house next to a farm building perhaps they should have considered that possibility before moving to the country.

The "rural sociologists" should be directing their attention to the urbanites so that they will understand that a farm is a work place and a nonfarm resident is an intruder in that environment. Farms are not parks or playgrounds for the city.

Most farmers are good environmental stewards. Their livelihood and that of the next generation are dependent on it.

Most farmers support their local community, if that community can supply their needs, provide a market for their products, and is willing to cooperate with them. Most individuals, including farmers, deserve respect and consideration when a problem occurs. Even with CAUV, a farm family is expected to pay more taxes to support the community school than most families in town.

When nonfarm uses such as commerce, industry, or residences locate in a rural community they should be the ones to consider how they will respect the existing neighborhood, follow the Golden Rule, and seek to be compatible with the current farmland owners. Why is it that the farmer is always expected to acquiesce?

Do these "sociologists" ever address groups such as Chambers of Commerce, Rotary Clubs, City Councils, realtors, or developers and advise them to be more concerned about the rural culture of the farm community? Why are cities allowed to annex land on bogus "emergency ordinances?" Why don’t the cities consider a "compatible" use when rezoning recently annexed land instead of completely disregarding those that live just beyond that new city limit?

In the interest of balance and completeness, I recommend that Professor Lasley and other "rural sociologists" reconsider their suggestions to farmers and present the issues of compatibility from the farmers’ perspective to audiences in the urban areas.

More laws will not solve these problems. Existing laws are difficult to enforce. Unless there is a return to morality, civility, and respect for private property rights, then our society as a whole will continue to deteriorate.

Rebecca France
Madison County

Editor’s Note: An article in last month’s Our Ohio generated some letters from readers. The story, titled "Getting Your Money’s Worth," looked at the subject of farm support payments and discussed what the public gets in return for its investment in agriculture.

Editor:
I read your article on farm subsidies in the last issue of the Farm Bureau magazine, and I agree with many of your opinions. As the son of an Ohio farmer, I am well aware of the difficulties that family farmers face each day to make a go of it let alone making a decent living. Farmers today face many of the same problems that my industry, the merchant marine, has faced for many years. With technology being evened out around the world, at least with our competition, it is difficult to compete against a much lower standard of living that exists in many of our competitor’s countries. Americans expect and require a certain level of income and benefits to survive and that fact puts us at a disadvantage when we have to compete against those who have access to nearly the same technology and mechanization that we have without our standard of living costs. Additionally, many of our competitors do not have to meet the same or any safety, health, environmental and tax regulations that!

We do. Regulation adds greatly to our standard of living but it also extracts a cost when we have to compete against those who are not equally regulated.

I hope these issues for farmers will be kept in mind when the overall issue of subsidies or protection comes up in our national discourse since they apply to many industries. I am often dismayed to find that when the government offers a discounted purchase or outright giveaway of our farm products to other nations that the requirement to ship American, if available, is considered corporate welfare. Many are the farm state legislators and USDA officials who cast dispersions on the few pennies in transportation that a ship American policy costs when talking billions in farm aid.

We cannot allow industries as vital as farming or shipping or many others to fail on a playing field we allow to be tilted against us. Free trade must always be fair and equal trade for both partners. Anything less is not free trade but unilateral surrender.

Timothy J. Dayton
Lakewood, Ohio

Wonderful article in Our Ohio magazine. Any chance of getting it published in other "nonfarm" related magazines? (This needs) to get out to the rest of the world. It gives us information to respond to remarks about "farmer welfare" from our city cousins.

Marcie Williams
Johnstown, Ohio