Can Farming Save Detroit?
Grown in an urban garden
That’s the question posed in this CNN Money article. The idea proposed by a multi-millionaire businessman is this: Purchase Detroit property at a cheap rate, get lowered taxes on that land, transform it into a functioning agricultural operation and make money off of tourism and the sale of produce.
Perhaps it is fair to point out that the project is backed by a wealthy individual who also happens to be a white man….in a city that is not so wealthy and not so white.
Part of me thinks this is a neat idea, creating small patches of pastoral settings amidst urban decay and concrete.
Part of me thinks this idea serves corporate, for profit interests and doesn’t really benefit the struggling people of Detroit.
I love urban gardening. It’s amazing what you can grow with just a little bit of compost, dirt, seeds and a few pots or small, raised bed garden plots.
The Detroit Agricultural Network does not support the for-profit venture. To them, it highlights economic and racial discrepancies. The Detroit Agricultural Network supports and encourages urban gardening, especially community gardens.
I do not profess to understand the complexities of economic systems. My feelings about food are this- I think it should be free, bartered for comparable goods, or highly affordable such that 98% of all people can afford it. I know, high standards. It’s why I think community urban gardens are great. People invest time and energy to procure a product that sustains them and is in itself mostly sustainable. Community building occurs and the result – the produce – can serve all people, not just those who can pay for it.
After reading the article, what do you think? Should we encourage urban, community gardens or try to create for-profit ventures that may boost the local economy in some ways? Who do these large-scale, profitable farms benefit, especially in very poor, under-served areas?
Stephanie Ernst
Marji
Kelly G.
Deb
Mary Martin
I agree that with the community activists that this sounds like a land grab. The article could have done with more research, also. Unless their version of “agriculture” doesn’t include community gardens, which seems absurd! They claimed that “the notion of devoting valuable city land to agriculture would be unfathomable in New York”, and yet NYC is pretty amazing for community gardening, despite that about half of the gardens were essentially stolen out from under the community gardeners a while back.
If the land is sitting vacant the people, not investors, should make use of that land. If the land is bought by rich investors, and the produce is sent to grocery stores, it’s likely that the people who need it the most – the residents of detroit – will be the ones least likely to get their hands on it. There is already the issue of grocery stores and fresh quality produce being least available in neighborhoods that are lower income…
That’s no easy question you’re asking. Should vacant land be made available to people who could use the food they could grow there? Absolutely.
Is it likely in our capitalist society? Nope. Not on any big scale.
I’ve had that pointed out to me many times by die-hard capitalists who say my socialist leanings have no place under our Constitution.
So is there a compromise available? Could there be an eighty/twenty split, creating urban greenspaces that profit some while donating a sizeable portion for people who would benefit from subsistence farming?
The idea of converting vacant land and even abandoned parking lots into urban gardens is good on so many levels – not only economically but environmentally and even esthetically.
How much better for the spirit to live near a garden instead a bombed out lot!
If the people with the money are willing to do it because they see a potential profit, but they can be persuaded to donate a portion of that land as a sign of community spirit, it just might work.
Marji wrote, “My feelings about food are this- I think it should be free, bartered for comparable goods, or highly affordable such that 98% of all people can afford it.”
When I was a little kid, I told my dad once that I didn’t understand money and why we needed it or why it was OK for some people to have a lot of it and some to have almost none. I didn’t understand why we couldn’t all just contribute what we can to the world, what we’re good at, and all share with each other — why we even needed to trade money at all (or why, if we needed it, we couldn’t give more of it to the poorer people). My probably 8- or 9-year-old idealistic self thought she’d stumbled onto some brilliant plan and couldn’t believe no one had thought of it before. My dad looked amused and informed me with a smile that I was a communist. :) This made me think of that.
Thanks for this thought-provoking post & discussion, Marji.
I’m a fan of urban gardeining too even though I live on land in Florida. I see it as a way towards a sustainable future for those who don’t have a yard.
On a small scale there are projects like http://windowfarms.org/ – that operate on a very small budget… But for what it will someday take for the huge facilities now operating in some cities, big government or corporate money will be necessary. My hope would be that since their “products” are more in line with fairness… that their financial practices would be too. Maybe I’m dreaming?
But about using vacant land… (or buildings). I suppose every city has dozens of abandoned shopping malls or huge stores that have been closed. What I don’t understand is why do we have to continue to put kids in “pods” and trailers because school classes are too large? Why can’t we renovate these empty, existing buildings to expand schools? Or even to provide temporary shelter for the homeless?
I think it’s all such a waste… Everything is motivated by money/greed. Yes, I’ve been told a time or two that my ideas are “communist”…