Closing in on us

By the time I graduated from high school in 1983, there was no way anyone could make a living on 150 acres. My father had gradually rented out more and more (eventually all) of the land to other larger farmers. We had a few cattle and sheep around for 4-H projects and such but only in small numbers. By the time all the kids left home, the farm land was sold to the person who had rented it for several years before.

I went away to college and earned a degree in agri-business economics (but I also took a lot of computer classes).

The reality was by the time I graduated from college (1988), it was painfully obvious that agriculture would not be a good way to earn a living. I started working in the IT field (first at a small grain elevator, then a food re-distributor, and now an electrical supplies distributor). I started out working in the agriculture field, but gradually moved away from that.

I now have a good job in the computer field in a city with pop. ~100,000. I am recently married (no kids) and we live in a nice 2 bedroom apartment. The apartment meets our needs. But I have become interested in things like owning and maintaing a classic GMC motorhome, possibly building a home-built airplane, and most recently and importantly restoring a Ford 640 tractor my father used. The restoration is largely for sentimental reasons, but it is simply something I want (not need) to do.

All of the above interests would require at the vey least a very large garage, and more likely a small/medium size shed to have a place to work on them. With the homeowners covenant's that exist in all the developments near where I work, a house in the suburbs is simply not going to work. None of them are going to let us put up a Morton building in the backyard.

Living in out-lying small town where I could have the type of building(s) I want, and still have city water & sewer service (growing up with a well & septic system has made me acutely aware of the advantages of city utilities) would be ideal, even if it meant 90 minute commute to/from work. But again with zoning restrictions that can be difficult even in a small town.

So that means the option that seems most reasonable is "a little place in the country" I really don't want to farm, but I would consider buying 40 acres or so, building a small house and shed, and cash renting most of the rest of it to a competent farmer. Cows bawling, dogs barking, and tractor driving are certainly things that do not bother me. Still reading this thread, I feel as though I am being victimized for even considering "a small place in the country" and that I should continue to live in the city in an apartment because that is after all a more effecient use of space than even a house in the suburbs, let alone a few acres outside of town.

Just my thoughts.

By the time I graduated from high school in 1983, there was no way anyone could make a living on 150 acres. My father had gradually rented out more and more (eventually all) of the land to other larger farmers. We had a few cattle and sheep around for 4-H projects and such but only in small numbers. By the time all the kids left home, the farm land was sold to the person who had rented it for several years before.

I went away to college and earned a degree in agri-business economics (but I also took a lot of computer classes).

The reality was by the time I graduated from college (1988), it was painfully obvious that agriculture would not be a good way to earn a living. I started working in the IT field (first at a small grain elevator, then a food re-distributor, and now an electrical supplies distributor). I started out working in the agriculture field, but gradually moved away from that.

I now have a good job in the computer field in a city with pop. ~100,000. I am recently married (no kids) and we live in a nice 2 bedroom apartment. The apartment meets our needs. But I have become interested in things like owning and maintaing a classic GMC motorhome, possibly building a home-built airplane, and most recently and importantly restoring a Ford 640 tractor my father used. The restoration is largely for sentimental reasons, but it is simply something I want (not need) to do.

All of the above interests would require at the vey least a very large garage, and more likely a small/medium size shed to have a place to work on them. With the homeowners covenant's that exist in all the developments near where I work, a house in the suburbs is simply not going to work. None of them are going to let us put up a Morton building in the backyard.

Living in out-lying small town where I could have the type of building(s) I want, and still have city water & sewer service (growing up with a well & septic system has made me acutely aware of the advantages of city utilities) would be ideal, even if it meant 90 minute commute to/from work. But again with zoning restrictions that can be difficult even in a small town.

So that means the option that seems most reasonable is "a little place in the country" I really don't want to farm, but I would consider buying 40 acres or so, building a small house and shed, and cash renting most of the rest of it to a competent farmer. Cows bawling, dogs barking, and tractor driving are certainly things that do not bother me. Still reading this thread, I feel as though I am being victimized for even considering "a small place in the country" and that I should continue to live in the city in an apartment because that is after all a more effecient use of space than even a house in the suburbs, let alone a few acres outside of town.

Just my thoughts.

Old farmer Ted had three kids, and they all left. None of them want to farm the place. There is no one else to inherit, so he has to sell. Do we enact some sort of law prohibiting him from selling it to anyone but another farmer?

What if he didn't have kids and needs the sale money for his retirement? Are we going to tell him he's got to live a paupers life because he can only sell it at a low price (to another farmer) instead of the much more lucrative price he could get from a developer?

I recently talked to a woman at a "citizen's advisory committee" meeting of the local fire district. She explained that she and her husband had bought 10 acres and had downsized into a new house in the country, as their children were grown. She then said that this year the land was being farmed by the farmer who had sold them the land, but their plans were to let the land go back to native grasses and were not going to pasture it or do anything to it. Now that land has probably been farmed for about 100 years and is good cropland. What I see happening is that they will get 10 acres of weeds (and the most popular ones are Canada thistle, Knapweed and Jim Hill Mustard. I bet their neighbors are going to love that! Oh and of course, she is one of the people on the committee that wants to make our fire department all paid at much higher tax rates.....

In my area they did a bunch of zoning over the last 20 years. Much of the area has a 10 acre minimum parcel size to get a building permit. But only a little farther out, the minimum parcel size is 40 acres. I think this is really dumb and really shafts the property owners. People who might be able to afford to buy 10 acres at a certain price per acre could never afford 40 acres at the same price per acre. So the farmer's land is effectively devalued by the government. On the other hand, 40 acres is much too little land to justify owning much machinery and really farming the ground. I envision a bunch of 40 acre weed patches and a bunch of retired farmers with a lot less money than they should have had.

One innovative solution that I have heard of is the way one farmer has subdivided his ground. As I understand it, he has right in the contracts that the property that the buyers are not using for their homes and are carefully maintained must be farmed at a reasonable lease rate to a local farmer. On that ground, I see a number of new houses spread out, but between them, there are productive grain and hay fields. Apparently this is working: the former farmer is having a good retirement, the current farmers are doing well enough that they continue to farm the ground, and the buyers get to have their new houses far enough apart for some privacy while the surrounding ground is taken care of and consistantly looks neat. Time will tell how well this arrangement will work over time, but in the relatively short term of about 10 years, it looks like a pretty good arrangement.

I grew up on the ground I now live on. My Dad began subdividing our land in the 60's and sold the last of it about 1985. I grew up poor, but my parents had a reasonably affluent retirement because of my Dad's investments and travelled the world in their old age. I have one corner of the former property--two 10 acre parcels. I have done all my development on one of the parcels and might some day sell the other one, if I have to. But it is nice to know that no one can move any closer than they are now unless I allow them to. Now I don't like all the additional people around here, and the higher taxes, more restrictions, higher crime rate, reduced freedom, etc, etc, etc. But that's progress.....and I can't change it almost at all.

Progress???

The folks in the path of this nonsense can sell out and buy cheaper land far away. But eventually, some generation will have nowhere left to run.

OK, I've vented and feel better now.

Mahalo,
Howard