Commissioners didnt do the math on the Baseline decision
Commentary by Pepin Corso-Harris
A pivotal point on which Blaine County commissioners are
basing their Feb. 14 denial of the Baseline Ranch Subdivision is flawed.
The commissioners quoted the countys comprehensive plan as the basis
for their responsibility to preserve lands in agricultural use, to encourage agricultural
activity and to ensure that commercial farmland will continue as a long-term use.
However, they seem to be working with a skewed definition of
"commercial agriculture" and a severely limited idea of how farmland can be used
productively. It seems they believe that a large agricultural operation is automatically a
viable commercial operationthe "bigger is better" school of
thought.
I have been at numerous meetings over the years when the commissioners
have received testimony from Blaine County residents who farm small spreads telling them
they can be productive. Some of their farms are as small as 5 acres. Some actually
out-produce the yield per acre of the mega-acreage farms! But are they viable? Can these
farmers make a living off of them? Many of these smaller farms are worked by owners who
have "day jobs" in town to keep them afloat.
My husband and I work 160 acres. We can only dream about being able to
support our family and work exclusively on a piece of ground this size. My husband works
uptown, too.
The reality is that the cost of raising a crop and purchasing and
maintaining equipment, compared with the revenue earned from that crop, just doesn't
pencil out.
So how much ground does it take to be viable? Many of the mega-acreage
farms appear viable, but in reality there is outside income helping those owners as well.
The bottom line: by denying the Baseline Ranch Subdivisionbased on
the endangerment of agricultural activitythe commissioners are ignoring the current
economic facts of farming.
Whats more, the commissioners stated they were concerned about the
effect the subdivision would have on surrounding farming operations. That's a strange
reason for denying the subdivision when a majority of neighboring farmers either
wrote or declared during the hearings that they didn't have a problem with the
subdivision.
After denying this division of land based largely on the comprehensive
plan's mandate to preserve commercial agriculture, I'd like to know how the commissioners
are establishing which parcels are the ones they are mandated to preserve.
Does the county have a written definition for commercial
agriculture? How do the commissioners choose which farms are commercially viable and which
aren't?
For all of these reasons, the lawmakers appear to have an illogical
position from which to deny an application to subdivide.
Pepin Corso-Harris and her husband, Mike Harris,
own a 160 acre farm south of Bellevue.