Lexington To Fully Enbrace Community Supported Agriculture?

I am a big fan of CSAs, as in Community Supported Agriculture.  We have looked at joining a CSA for several years but most have required a substantial payment before the growing season begins and it just wasn't in the budget at the time.  This year things were different.

We have joined an alternative style of CSA called the New Roots Fresh Stop.  It is designed for those of more limited means and works more like a subscription farmers market.  Our farmer knows that a certain number of members will be arriving on the delivery days and buying the bi-weekly agreed upon quantity of what they need. Each family will be getting a different variety of produce. 

This CSA plus whatever we can harvest from our own garden and our work with Seedleaf will be worth whatever we have put into it.

On the other hand, I believe that there is another aspect of community supported agriculture and that pertains to the encouragement of neighborhood community gardens and the ability of a neighborhood to feed itself.  Every family in Lexington needs to realize food security through local food access.

Lexington has worked with Seedleaf, a local non-profit, which teaches about and operates small plots of neighborhood gardens, especially in our local food deserts.  It now appears that Lexington is creating an ordinance to promote and regulate not only community gardens but also what they are calling "market gardens".  The stated primary purpose of private, community and market gardens is to promote sustainable and affordable local food production for local consumption.

Market gardens would be defined as "an area of lane less than five (5) continuous acres in size for the cultivation of food and/or non-food crops by an individual or a group of individuals to be sold on-site or off-site for profit.  Think about that for just a minute.  A neighborhood could develop a parcel or group of parcels, not just as a garden to feed themselves but a way to raise funds to make the garden sustainable over the long haul. This will change the concept of local foods for many people.

While the market gardens are allowed on-site sale facilities the community gardens are not.  I see no reason that some sort of cooperative agreement could not be reached where the market garden sales site may sell produce from one or more community gardens.  

Provisions are also made for up to 15% of a community garden site to be covered with accessory structures  Accessory structures are identified as storage sheds, hoop houses, trellises for shade, picnic tables and benches.  Add the possibility of a fire pit or a grill and we could realize the truth of "farm to table" right in the community garden with your neighbors.

I also like the inclusion of permitting such gardens within a FEMA floodplain as long as one meets all the regulations on slope and existing vegetation retention.  There are several locations which are currently quite underutilized and their neighborhoods could benefit from a community garden or two.

The information I have referenced here is only in draft form but I think that it is far enough along to bring to you.  I am happy that we are actually moving toward a reasonable food policy which allows a sense of food access and food security.  If you feel as I do, please let your Council representative know that we need this to come to pass.

Can We Get A Farming Community Subdivision?

Anybody know what an “agrihood” is?

If you do, would you expect to see on in Lexington any time soon?

It has long been known that the best place to build a subdivision is also the best location for farming but seldom have the two uses successfully coexisted, much less symbiotically, in American cities. In Central Kentucky, the historical trend has been to clear an agricultural property of all vestiges of its previous use, then name the development for what used to be there. To do otherwise goes against all rules of subdivision design and development. Agrihoods bend those rules into the symbiotic relationship of pioneer days.

They seem to be a growing item in other parts of the country. One of the latest agrihoods, Willowsford, is being planned in northern Virginia and will include about 2,130 units plus 2,000 acres of open space. 300 of those open space acres will be reserved for the cultivation of fruit, vegetables, chickens, and goats.

You could look at this as similar to a subdivision built around a golf course. Think Andover or Griffin Gate, where the links were built first and the prime housing units looked out onto the fairway or the 18^th green. In this case, the view over the back fence is of a tilled field in the community farm. Instead of golf, the amenity which draws these homeowners is the benefit of fresh food within walking distance. Their own CSA or farmers market in the backyard where they can participate or not.

Developers are counting on fresh veggies to tempt retired baby boomers looking to eat local and parents intent on nurturing children on organic meals. DMB has integrated produce fields and edible gardens into their projects in Arizona, California, and Hawaii. I cannot see Ball Homes doing such a concept here, but why not build our community one farm at a time?

Agrihoods have been around since the 1980s with the 359-home Prairie Crossing development being a widely acclaimed conservation community in Grayslake, Illinois outside Chicago. The Prairie Crossing Farm with its working organic farm, was one of the first parts of the community to be established and remains at its heart. 

Will agrihoods be affordable housing for the Millennial who is looking for the walkable, vibrant city life that we generally of as downtown? Maybe not. Willowsford’s farm, in northern Virginia, runs at a deficit for now but is expected to break even by about 2018 as more residents, local restaurants, and markets purchase its food. Housing units are running about $6K+ at this time and only about 500 are built. This can still be considered sprawl despite having two community centers with demonstration kitchens for wine tastings, culinary classes or pop-up restaurants.

Do you ever wonder just how many of the residents actually join to play golf at those country club type communities? My personal feeling is that the number is not that high. I find the thought of living adjacent to a working farm, with its aromas and activities, far more alluring than being on a golf course with its errant projectiles and chemical grooming methods. Establishing and maintaining a community farm can run about 20% as much as doing the same with a golf course.

The key to correctly maintaining a good golf community is finding and retaining a qualified golf professional. Likewise, having a knowledgeable farmer, willing to assist the community's residents and follow sustainable farming practices, will go a long away toward success. I suppose that an agrihood could be branded as a ”Kentucky Proud” community just as well as a golf course community on a PGA Tour.

Eastern Kentucky's Agricultural Box

Last week, in an op-ed to the local paper, Bill Best wrote “When articles are written about Appalachia, the most frequently left-out words are "gardening" and "agriculture." Yet Eastern Kentucky was once self-sufficient in food production and could easily be again.” As true as that wording is, it is difficult to conceive that most people don't think that way at all. 

I have never thought of Eastern Kentucky as a hot bed of food production but the hill folk, from the settlers on forward had to feed themselves some way. I can also relate first hand that there are many fine cooks who have made their way out of the hills. Eastern Kentuckians have survived of much more that coal jobs.

There has been a lot of talks lately about what could or should be done to aide in the relief of the region's economic problems, but they all seem to center on incentives or developments which are generally better suited to urbanized areas. A large industrial park or an outlet mall style shopping center need both population density and transportation access to be successful. These are items that the area lacks.

While progress has been made in reclaiming many a strip mine site and the coal companies conducting “mountain top removal” are required to put things back to as “natural” as they can, preparing the land for agricultural production is not on anybody's radar. Neither the coal company's nor the local's, since Eastern Kentucky is not a “farming” area.

Best points out, correctly, that the necessary skill sets are not being handed down from the grandparents, who eked out a living on poor land, or the parents, many of whom could not wait to leave the area, or the education community, which is preparing our youth for global competition. The idea that having a place to call home and having it be able to sustain its residents simply escapes many of us these days.

If east coast investors were the foundation of the coal companies that caused such damage, could it be farm investors that will begin the turn around? A Lexington based company, American Farm Investors, has been purchasing farm properties in Central Kentucky, then utilizing Kentucky farmers and selling grain to Kentucky end-users. What would prevent a similar group of investors from making agricultural land out of reclaimed land?

It may be time to redefine the box that is the concept of Eastern Kentucky agriculture.

The British Can Admit It - Will We?

Major food price rises are all but inevitable. Philip Clarke, the chief executive of Britain's biggest supermarket chain Tesco, has admitted as much to the British press. Tesco, was heavily implicated in the recent horse-meat scandal, has said that rising global demand means the historic low prices to which British consumers have become used are now unsustainable. This is tantamount to the CEO of WalMart or Kroger admitting that they can no longer commit to keeping prices low for all Americans.

Any one who has been shopping lately can attest to the fact that the “invisible grocery shrink ray” is at work in our local markets. The packages may be rising slowly in price but the quantity in the package is smaller over all. The organics and locally grown stuff is characterized as for the elite and other who want to be upper class.

Is Kentucky (or America) that far behind this time? A recent poll, commissioned by the Prince's Countryside Fund to mark National Countryside Week, reveals that a majority of British consumers would be prepared to pay more for food if they knew the extra was going to farmers rather than to supermarket shareholders. With the recent introduction of the “Udderly Kentucky” milk program by the Secretary of Agriculture, James Comer, is he seeing the same sentiment from Kentucky shoppers?

The “Buy Local First” movement seems to be making headway and local farmers markets are establishing themselves in more locations every year. Still, the primary comments are that they are out of the reach of many residents. Sadly, such costs are reflective of the unsubsidized production costs for local entrepreneurs.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization forecast last month that global food prices could rise by as much as 40% over the next decade. Much of this as a result of a growing middle class in countries such as China and India. With the prospects of America's middle class waning and poverty moving to our once booming suburbs, this global rise will hit Americans very hard.

Usually, supermarket bosses (British and American) have proved extremely resistant to admitting economic pressures would affect the cost of groceries. WalMart has recently committed to its sourcing more locally produced fruits and vegetables without discussing whether price differences will be kept to a minimum. One way the WalMart has kept their prices low is to require the producer (or middleman) to do more preparatory work so that their “associates” don't have to.

What comes to mind next is WalMart's (and possibly the federal governments) definition of locally produced. Generally, the range of 500 miles is sufficient for most programs and for Lexington that means as far away as Central Michigan or the Gulf Coast. Local could them mean about 2/3^rds of the Eastern U.S. National brands and the monoculture farming of agri-business can still dominate our food choices at that rate.

I can see that a growing number of Kentuckians (and Americans) are awakening to the reality that many of our corporations are (and have been) leading us astray with phrases like “supermarket to the world” while importing more and more under “trade” treaties. With all of our corporate farming debacles, many countries will not accept our exports for reasons like GMO's or processing concerns.

America's food system has become unsustainable and there is more than enough blame to cast in all directions. The big question is, can it be turned around in time to prevent it from crashing like a house of cards?

Larger stores and bigger selections may have helped get us to where we are but simply reversing those trends will not be a solution. Our seasonal treats of yesteryear have become the culinary mainstays of the declining middle class. Farmers who took great pride in their goods on the farm now see disease and pestilence introduced in the processing and packaging plants. Corporate marketing gurus have persuaded us that only the perfect looking fruit or vegetable is worthy of purchase. These trends also need to be altered.

The way it is major food price rises are all but inevitable, which leaves us with only one good option – to change the way it is.

Opportunity For A Local Neighborhood Option

Back around the first of the year I wrote about the need for more neighborhood options and decried the lack of walkable local shopping areas in our subdivisions. I also have a history of wailing against the suburban shopping layout when I comes to those missing options. That may be about to change.

Many people look at the Romany Road Shoppes as a prime example of a walkable shopping area which went out of favor somewhere in the late '40s. It has buildings which sit right up on the street and parking behind the stores. It may not have the required parking but it seldom is necessary to walk an excessive distance to do your shopping. In short, it serves the neighborhood to their satisfaction.

Today's developers are working on a whole different mindset. Shopping areas of that size and nature are considered too small to be successful and the traffic arrangement is not to the shoppers liking. These and other reason are always trotted out as to why such an area will fail, therefore not one such area has been attempted in over 50 years.

Think about it, no suburban shopper has been given the choice of such a layout for generations. Walking to a grocery is nearly unheard of in much of suburbia, simply because they never did.

The Millienial generation of today seems to have decided to avoid the suburbs of today and is seeking the most walkable areas of most cities. This generation is just beginning to enter the home buying phase of their lives, yet the still want the walkability when they do. They are driving less – we are driving less and the walkable shopping areas are not being built.

This coming month there is a plan before the Planning Commission for the long delayed Greendale Hills Shopping Area toward the back side of the Masterson Station development. It will be off the proposed Citaton Blvd/Greendale Rd intersection yet still walkable to a large number of residential units.

As proposed, it is laid out just like the typical model even though it lends itself to mimic the Romany Road style with only a few minor tweaks. The number of curb cuts/driveway access points could be reduced greatly with better inter-connectivity at the rear of the properties, yielding a better pedestrian experience for the shoppers.

It appears to me that the design is being driven by a generic CVS/Rite-Aid/Walgreens style building, with a drive through, on the sole prominent corner. The drive through is basically hidden toward the rear, while all other parking is displayed out front as if it was on sale. The rest of the proposed structures appear to be purely speculative. Even the apartment over retail - typical of new Urbanism – buildings are out of place along the rear property line.

This property still has a window of opportunity to make this a walkable destination, a local option worth making the trip by foot.

The B-1 zone, like literally all zones, has no recommendations for placement of buildings but the B-1 really sets the tone for a whole neighborhood. Thoughts like this were not included in the latest re-write of the B-1 zone, and perhaps that ship has sailed. Royal Caribbean thought that their Granduer of the Seas was prepared for many more cruises after it latest refurbishment last year, only to do it again.

The window is open for a better shopping area. Is there a breath of fresh air?

Continuing Thoughts

“I don't think the city really cares about food issues.”

Danny Mayer of North of Center

I, on the other hand, am sure that this city's residents do not feel that there are any real food issues to care about. As a whole, this city believes that food availability will be provided as it has through history, yet history is a poor prognosticator of future events.

Reading further in Danny's comments, it becomes crystal clear that he is wanting some action from out City government to compel food production for the poor or, at least, publicly purchased food to be distributed at little or no cost to the poor. I find this to be against even our Founding Fathers' concepts for our country.

I know that people in Lexington do not concern themselves with the possible long-term effects of global warming/climate change or the idea of Peak Oil. Private enterprise has always solved these problems and will do so again – but at what cost and to whom? It is what they think that our country was founded upon.

Private enterprise in America at the time of the Revolution was of the small, family owned variety and not the large multi-national corporations of today, especially when it came to food production. Government saw no need to force or limit food production until the large corporations got into the act. What was necessary was the freedom of farmers to farm and production was naturally limited by what they could sell. Frugal farmers would not expend the energy to produce more than a small portion above that distributed.

Today, our small, family owned farms are producing more than enough for themselves and a growing following of CSA members and loyal, farmers market enthusiasts. Many of them do it organically or with a minimum of chemical additives. Most of this food is priced accordingly and above corporately produced food. Most obvious of all is that these small farms cannot feed all of Lexington, regardless of ability to pay.

During the Second World War, small backyard and neighborhood “Victory” gardens were touted as a way to aide the war effort and stave off starvation. That time also saw the wide-spread use of family owned neighborhood grocers. It may well be that these two elements were the vital parts which enabled the country to get through that time. I worry what will happen if there is a next time, when these elements are missing.

I see some opportunities to create some of these neighborhood gardening locations (without impinging on public parkland) and locating some “pop-up” style markets within short reach of our residential areas. I think that more opportunities need to be thought of and allowed.

Now is the time to prepare. I do not think that we are prepared so I can only echo Danny. 

“I don't think the city (or the country) really cares about food issues.”

Urban Food Thoughts

Neal Pierce had an excellent piece of the subject of local food and the rise of cities this past Sunday.

We think of hunger – global hunger – as a third world problem yet of the millions who go to bed hungry each night, more and more of them are in cities. The bigger the city, the bigger the number of unfed.

As Pierce points out, over the next 40 years our planet will have to produce as much food as we have ever produced and I, for one, am worried about its quality. I am also reasonably sure that a majority of it will not be local food.

Cities, by their very nature, develop in the same locations and utilize the same type of land which is ideal to grow food crops. As cities grow they expand across the very land which they may need to feed themselves, devouring acre after acre in non-agricultural and resource consuming urban development.

There are those who stress that cities are where brilliant minds are more likely to intersect with others of like bent and innovations can spring forth. So, where are we going to find the innovations for feeding our ever growing urban areas? The University of Pennsylvania’s Institute for Urban Research recently held a “Feeding Cities” conference looking for answers.

Historically, with all of our cities swallowing up so much fertile farm land and creating climate altering “heat islands” in the process, our family farms have been evolving into massive industrial operations which are highly susceptible to floods and droughts. Scientists say that the altering climate will see many more of these floods and droughts. Did this conference have any good answers?

One suggestion was that cities can try to toughen themselves by assembling disaster emergency funds, strengthening their infrastructure and building their resilience. WOW – whose idea was this? When we cannot even maintain our pension funds or our roads, bridges and sewers adequately we need to establish a massive rainy day fund (which will probably be blown on the first event)? Not my idea of a complete solution.

Other conferees stressed the preservation of land for agriculture, either within their borders or in surrounding regions, apparently similar to our Rural Service Area (RSA). Lexington has already done that but the majority of crops being grown in the RSA will not feed our local population, since we don’t eat horses. Some conferees saw this as a food buffer and a flood buffer – two public goods, but our experience may say otherwise. In a free market no one can tell the farm owners to actually grow food for people and not commodity crops or inedible animals.

It was mentioned that fending off powerful business or political forces to preserve agricultural lands may be a tremendously difficult task. From gated communities and golf courses to the starter homes evolving into suburban slums amid a food desert, Lexington needs to think about better access to local food production on what remaining land we have.

In the developing third world nations it is estimated that 40% of the food produced annually is lost due to improper storage or delivery systems. Yet, in America we waste nearly 650 pounds per person a year, more than any other country in the world. The losses by careless farming, inefficient food processing or from retail stores simply discarding foods that are past their sell-by dates probably trail our own personal inability to control what we buy and fail to eat. It hurts me to see what remains from many restaurant meals and I don’t see what is discarded from the kitchens themselves.

Did we always have this waste? Could we feed all of the estimated 9 billion people anticipated by 2050 with more local production and less transportation related product spoilage? There is a joy to greater self-sufficiency and local food production which Lexington is beginning to understand, yet we still fail to create real community gardens in our communities. I get the feeling that community gardens are thought to be only for the poorer sections of town. The HOA where I live will only allow a few tomato or pepper plants in pots and less obvious herbs.

Pierce concludes his article with this: 

“To date, city-produced foods account for a tiny share of urban food needs. But one is led to wonder: If city food demand is a top 21st-century concern, perhaps city ingenuity – and spirit – can also help to forge answers.”

For Lexington, those answers are not forthcoming. Nor do they seem to be in other larger communities, since Pierce is still looking for them. That would indicate that we have not achieved a critical mass of intersecting thinkers on this part of Lexington's problem – though there are a handful of pioneers.

That Lexington developed, in part, where crops are known to do well and parts of that development has proven to be a detriment to the whole, just may be a hint toward an answer.

Over the last decade or so, our city has purchased property which was adversely affected or, by its placement, caused that adverse affect on others. Said property has neither been re-purposed for suitable urban use nor been reverted to the other job for which the land is quite well suited – growing food crops.

Do some of these properties fall within an area which can be called a “food desert” or could become one should the nation's transportation costs skyrocket? Could producing healthier food closer to the mouths which need it help? Could production of such food be coordinated under the auspices of a “Local Foods Policy Advisory Group” go a long way in averting urban hunger? Maybe.

A Sustainable Food Policy For Lexington?

I was recently caught by a tweet from Mary Newsom, an urban aficionado and writer from Charlotte, North Carolina, about a local government's support for local food production. Mary does not know this but she has had a great influence on what and how I write on my topics.

The link that Mary supplied led me to a new and different take on local, sustainable agricultural development. I don't understand why many other local communities are not looking at following a similar path.

To begin with, this NC county wanted to re-evaluate its economic development efforts, which it and most others have followed for years with mixed results. These efforts are usually characterized by luring (or poaching) the jobs from some other community through wage and tax incentives. It does not “grow” the local economy with new jobs without paring down some other community's economy in the process. How often will some other desperate community come along and “raise the ante” just as he “exemption” periods expire.

As an alternative, they began viewing the development of local food production for the growing farmer's market movement and an eye on making it a sustainable process.

Some of the alternative strategies to be employed included;

• Hiring a local food system program coordinator.
• Establishing a Food Policy Council.
• Hiring a sustainable local economy project manager.
• Establishing a Council for a Sustainable Local Economy.
• Commissioning a consultant to study the local economy and recommend ways to bolster local entrepreneurship.
• Paying to build a slaughterhouse to allow local farmers to harvest livestock close to home.
• Starting an incubator farm to cultivate a new generation of farmers.
  

In a county of 178,000 people and considerable tillable land, does this sound too far fetched to work? I think not, because given time I believe that it will work and will grow. The natural foods movement, which I think that we can trace back to the '70s and probably the Foxfire book series, has started to gather a good head of steam and become a bit more mainstream of late. Farmers markets add locations and growers every year to the point that the larger agribusiness folks want a piece of the action.

But will something similar work for Lexington and surrounding counties?

Take a look at the Homegrown Kentucky project being started down in Owsley County, The county high school has an extra 10 acres of rich bottom land, much better suited to teaching sustainable agricultural practices than other education functions. When they pair the student and community gardens developed there with the relocated farmers market on the school grounds and the school cafeteria needs, it looks to be a winning situation all around.

I feel that some of the results of activities like those list above could fall in line with the motives and efforts of existing organizations such as the Fayette Alliance and the PDR program without mentioning the mayor's support of the Local First movement. Are the thoughts behind the Locust Trace AgriScience Farm, which the Fayette County Public Schools is developing, not working toward sustainable, entrepreneurial graduates to enter the local employment scene? This latter sounds like an incubator farm to me.

I have watched the growth of local food programs like the Good Foods Co-op and the various farmers markets and they seem to each have a separate, yet similar, food policy. No one is attempting to establish a coordinated policy for our city or region, even as a guard against an economic disaster. If the ongoing debate and wrangling on the subject of food trucks is any indication, I am not sure that our current council could come up with a valid local food policy in less than the time it would take to starve to death.

The attraction of high paying jobs and the expansion of local organic farming are topics which the media seems to trumpet from time to time but we must not lose sight of those on the other end of the economic spectrum. All cannot make it to a farmers market on a regular basis, either on a scheduled day or due to distance/transportation issues. Some families cannot get to a grocery nor afford the meals which use ingredients on minimum processing. What if there was a coordinated way of guaranteeing access to some community farm/garden plots for anyone who wished to participate? Not someone to do it for them, but access or transportation to the plot.

From what I understand, most residents of Lexington do not realize that we have probably the largest stockyard operation in the state if not the region. But there is no local slaughterhouse in town. We have a number of beef producers in our county who raise grass finished stock and sell to the more finicky buyers at the farmers market. The Good Foods Co-op buys whole meat carcasses and trims out cuts for their members. So, where is the closest slaughterhouse for these dedicated folks? The answer is, either in Garrard Co. or in Bardstown. This a great deal better than Chicago or elsewhere in the mid-west, but it still adds to the transportation cost of supplying it.

Do, or could, any of our myriad of new restaurants downtown plan to raise their own herbs and savories in close proximity to the kitchen? Some of them have planned for rooftop patios or could bargain for the seldom used roof space in our parking garages. It amazes me the amount of wasted solar energy that we allow to escape each and every day.

I do not think for one minute that CommerceLex will pick this up as a possible economic development tool but as I have pointed out, it seems to have a decent foothold in Cabarrus Co. in North Carolina. At least some people are looking toward food sustainability and somehow a balance can be struck. The above ideas may be well worth trying and Charlotte is not that far to go to check it out.

Can Raw Milk Save Local Farming?

Last week I wrote about the pre-filed bill for the legalization of raw milk which made me research the dairy doings in Kentucky. Looking back at the Community Farm Alliance site archives from July of last year, I somewhat remember the news that our state's dairy farms are continuing a fairly steady decline in number.

Back in 1975 there were 22,000 “operations with dairy cows” which may not mean that they were actual dairies but probably that the milk was sold as part of the farm operations. This year, we are at 892 farms that the state considers dairies or have dairy cows. That was 58 less than last year and it will most likely fall again this year. Of that total under 30 have herds of over 500 head and may be called industrial dairies, all the rest appear to be smaller type farmers and the real producers of local milk.

The idea that Kentucky farms can produce all the milk to be consumed is understandable but the fact that we import some of our retail milk from as far away as New Mexico starts to baffle the mind. Milk that has been shipped that far can easily lose any of the nutrients that may be left after pasteurization and will probably need some supplements added. Doesn't the cost of shipping a product that far enter in to the retail price?

The State tells us to “drink more milk” and the dairy industry keeps saying that “Milk is the real thing” but our dairy farms are literally drying up and blowing away. Past legislative actions to benefit dairies have stalled due to the fear that the fees collected to pay for government loans or grants would have come from surcharges to the retail milk price. We cannot do more for our farmers by removing barriers to business, we have to find ways bill both the farmer AND the consumer for manipulating the free market.

The July article states that a farmer who is able to sell raw milk could ask a premium of about $4 dollars a half gallon but does not state why. Since raw milk sales are not legal, that sales difference is lost to the local farming community. Raw milk sales will not increase the availability or supply of milk but it may allow more farmers to add to the products that they now have. Just another way to add to the farm operations bottom line.

If the annual economic impact of a single milk cow is $4,500.00, then the impact of 10-15 head dairy herds in small communities spread over state will do more that a handful of industrial feedlot dairies, yet it is the big boys who influence regulations and laws. Why shouldn't the 99% of the farmers be “Ky Proud” and not just the 1% of industrial farmers who can buy the designation?

I will end in echoing the comments of the July article which says:

We need a way to allow farmers to dairy on a family-sized scale while rewarding them for responsible herd and land management.  This means paying dairy farmers a fair price for what they produce–something that hasn’t happened for decades.

We Need A Real Energy Policy

Once again, an American president has called for a reduction in oil imports. Once again the “leader of the free world” is making an effort toward energy independence, albeit a token one, that many are skeptical can succeed. I also do not believe that it will succeed because the American people have been told that we will succeed if we want to. Former President Bush said, “We are addicted to oil” and as true addicts, do we really want to get off of this addiction?

Funny thing about this new reduction plan, just like all the others before, it is short on details. It is not a road map to oil independence like some would like and it really doesn’t point to an eventual goal like the recently announced European Union plan. A one-third reduction of our 2008 import level would bring us down to 7.4 MBD, a possibly attainable level. It would be step one in our road to weaning ourselves off of our addiction.

"There are no quick fixes ... We will keep on being a victim to shifts in the oil market until we finally get serious about a long-term policy for secure, affordable energy," Obama said.

There are no quick fixes to addiction withdrawal and currently most Americans believe that any stepping down from the existing levels of consumption should be done by those who are the most hard core users. Man, see how much more bad off they are than I am?

We could also produce more of our own oil, but how is using more of a local drug any better that using somebody else’s product? In the end we are still addicted and we will need more, and more and more… More local drilling will not solve the problem, in fact, it will only make the problem worse. Currently, we rely on foreign imports for roughly half of our daily needs. American vs. Arabian oil or American vs. Colombian coke, does it make any difference?

Previous presidents have made similar promises on energy imports, calls for cut-backs, pleas for “voluntary restraint” in oil usage. In fact, all fossil fuels are being urged to cut-back since we know what it has done to our environment. That ecological damage is now so great that it will take nearly twice as long to undo as it took to get us to the point that we recognized the damage done. From the toxic bayous in Louisiana and Texas to the massive scars of mountain top removal in Kentucky and intermittent spills along the coasts of Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, the damage costs are so great that we now want to prevent the EPA from even trying.

Americans have allowed this situation to exist for far too long now. Either by ignoring the handwriting on the wall (the oil embargo, the wars in oil rich countries, etc) or believing that should we ever run out, that our technology will save us. It has now become a political football, each party has solutions to which the opposite party will object and neither can convince the American people to abide by. So on it goes, no long term goal and no short term changes in the rising status quo.

Of the four areas identified in the most recent proposal, no political party will endorse them all. More local production (drill, baby, drill) will not sit well with the democrats and environmentalists, while the fostering of natural gas vehicles will cause the cause a restructuring of the existing fuel delivery systems. More efficient cars and trucks is only thought of in the context of gas mileage and not better mass transit or high speed rail. Lastly, the alternative fuels card is aimed directly at the auto industry not any other fuel users. Oil is still used as home heating fuel in many areas of the Northeast and a changeover will cause much gnashing of teeth.

At roughly 20 million barrels a day (and half of that imported) we really should stop and think about how much of that is truly NEEDED. A great deal of it is abused, strictly by the decisions that we have made about where we choose to live and work. Those decisions are compounded by our choices of how we get between the two. How much of the travel that we do is really necessary and do we do it because it is cheap. Remember, the “drive till you qualify” method of looking for a place to live may really be a thing of the past.

Analysts and experts said Obama's goal is ambitious and that truly reforming U.S. energy use would involve sweeping changes, including possible fuel taxes to encourage Americans to change their habits, which could be politically toxic

The goal is certainly ambitious and sweeping change will be involved, but whether by governmental edict or by global demand for the remaining fossil fuel, our resulting energy needs will march to a new drum beat. The fact that it has NOT happened in our lifetime yet, in no way indicates that it will never happen. We continue to see polls where a high percentage do not approve of the sitting president’s actions/positions on energy so I feel that most of us would like to go back to the days of $.25 a gallon gas and an open road. The corporations that took us from there to here don’t want to go back and have made it difficult to do so.

The people are not wrong and the corporations are not wrong, so we will just have to blame the President. Good luck with that.

ProgressLex Is Supportable

I follow the folks over at ProgressLex not only because I want to see what they are up to, I also want them to help bring about change. I am sure that a majority of them feel that I am just another impediment on their path to a glorious future for Lexington, but their methods could be interpreted as “riding roughshod” over others like they feel that they have been for years. I comment on their site, not to antagonize them but to get them to think a bit differently about what they may be doing. Some of them wish that I would supply them with answers and directions but that would just be me giving them a box to think outside of. And, believe it or not, I do agree with their stated beliefs and mission statement.

Our Beliefs

ProgressLex’s mission is to create and sustain a thriving, diverse and beautiful Lexington that serves all citizens. Specifically, we will foster meaningful citizen participation, improve government transparency and support visionary citywide leadership toward the following ends:

* encouraging downtown design excellence
* promoting smart and sustainable economic development
* advocating for social justice
* pursuing environmental justice
* broadening support for arts & entertainment

I want a sustainable, diverse and beautiful Lexington that serves all its residents, not just the ones downtown, but all its residents. Even the ones living in the suburbs, they deserve a beautiful surrounding too. I want a true visionary in the lead for Lexington, not a politician who figures out which way the wind blows and set his sail. I want one who will chart a real progressive path.

I also believe that their specifics on their efforts are a bit too limited. Why not encourage good design for all of Fayette County? Why limit it to downtown? Why can’t the same excellent design that we want for downtown work in the new developments closer to the fringe? Is the typical suburban sprawl a smart and sustainable method of economic development?

This nation and this city have come so close to a real economic collapse in the past few years and, to some, we are not out of the woods yet. Should this be a lull in the storm and we again begin to fall, will the current suburban development model, with its lack of connectivity or alternate transportation modes, be able to survive? Will those who bought in to that lifestyle be able to get by on falling real estate prices and rising fuel fees?

The advocating for social justice and pursuing the environmental justice are very nebulous phrases and can be stretched or confined in many ways, while support for arts and entertainment should come from those who want and are able to support those kinds of things.

For Lexington to reach its full potential, we believe it needs:

* Urban design practices based on principles of sustainability, usability and aesthetics;
* Sustainable and innovative economic development strategies;
* Residents who are treated equally and compassionately regardless of gender, race, creed, sexual orientation, or socio-economic status;
* Green spaces that are respected and that preserve the region’s biodiversity and geographic beauty; and,
* A local arts and entertainment scene that is valued and citizens who appreciate how vital they are to the city’s culture and long-term economic well-being.

In order to achieve these items completely we may have to dismantle our free enterprise system and remove all profit motives. The free market system relies on taking advantage of somebody in order to get ahead, remove the incentives and progress slows dramatically.

Further, we believe the keys to achieving these depend upon:

* Our ability to work together as informed, engaged and empowered individuals for the common good;
* Establishing ProgressLex as a 21st-century grassroots organization capable of uniting many voices; and,
* Engaging citizens and working with local leaders to make government more transparent and responsive to community needs.

I have found many of the writers for ProgressLex to well informed of a wide range of topics and yet somewhat lacking on the details for their “cause de jour”. I have been accused of not being helpful while causing some of them to pause and rethink. They certainly engaged and definitely asking to be well more empowered than they presently are. I really do believe that ProgressLex WILL become a viable grassroots organization and WILL work well with our local leaders in making them more responsive.

Unfortunately, there are still a great many of our suburban residents out there who embody the sentiments of a recent Twitter entry of a ProgressLex’er,

“As a native suburban Lex'er, I never once gave one thought to downtown's design & appearance. I never even CAME downtown - except for Rupp…” Eric Patrick Marr

These grassroots residents are the ones that need to be reached.

Sustainable And Nourishable Places

It is no secret that I am very pro local food. Mrs. Sweeper and I have tried our best to find, buy and prepare local foods. That is why we frequent the farmers markets of the area and have joined a cowshare program. I also have not been shy in commenting about the shortcomings of the Kentucky Proud program that is run by the Ky. State Agriculture Department.

It has not been an easy task to find certain local food services, but why is it an even more onerous task for the local farmer?

The idea of knowing where your food comes from is appealing to more and more families every day. Concern over food safety and eating of a healthy diet is in the news on a daily basis. So, why are the local, state and federal regulatory agencies not doing more for the growing “locavore” enthusiasts?

Sustainable development and sustainable cities have been buzzwords in the planning literature for several years and yet we are no closer to achieving such a system than we were thirty years ago. These words are now creeping into our mayoral election and yet we still hear of no solutions being put forth by any of the candidates.

Lately, I have seen a new designation put forth, a label of Nourishable Places. Nourishable Places are ones that grow a significant portion of their food within a few miles of where it is eaten AND could grow more in a long emergency. Unfortunately they are found in very few locations in the First World today. The typical ingredients for a family meal – what is that these days?- will travel over 1,300 miles to get to the table. It is getting worse daily.

In some parts of the country, particularly the Northwest, things are changing. According to Crosscut.com there are more, smaller farms developing on the urban fringes of their Olympic area cities. Even places like Detroit MI and Dayton, OH. are looking at vegetable farming on some of their abandoned residential properties. There are places in Lexington where we could use some of our reclaimed urban floodplain land for community garden plots if need be.

Those actions may help us out in the fruits and vegetables department but will do us no good for the rearing of farm animals. But here too there we are seeing an increase in the number of small farms.

There are now new problems with this rise on farm animal production on small farms and that is, where do they get their processing done? The number of slaughterhouses nationwide declined to 809 in 2008 from 1,211 in 1992, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. America’s small independent farmers are now being forced to schedule their slaughters BEFORE the animals are born AND drive them hundreds of miles to slaughtering facilities. This added movement causes an unneeded stress on the animals and expense to the farmer.

The interest in grass fed and finished or even organic beef and lamb and the non antibiotic, no hormone added production of these animals means that using some of the larger slaughterhouses opens the possibility of introducing e-coli and other unwanted contaminants.

Slaughterhouses should not be placed just anywhere and certainly not in the most urban parts of a state, but as a matter of economic development and employment generators, they are something that a politician should be aware of.

Lexington may one day find that the concept of “peak oil” or “climate change” is real, or maybe there could be a natural or man made disaster requiring that we sustain ourselves. So far, I think that we as a city would fail the sustainability test. We are somewhat positioned, with the PDR program, to have land in the county that could be used for food production (you know, we cannot eat the horses) but we are lacking in the processing facilities necessary for a city of this size. Home canning, for the most part, is a lost art among the youth of today and butchering may mean that they would have to get their hands dirty, so we may be in trouble.

High-tech, healthcare and horses may be of some priority is certain circles and a vibrant, socially conscious downtown is a priority in others, while health and human safety or social responsibility and government corruption will highlight another’s political rhetoric. If we don’t try to arrange for our very basic needs of good food and water, all of it locally grown or collected and processed, then it may all be for nought.

What Is To Be Proud About?

I don’t know that much about the “Kentucky Proud” initiative and maybe I should, but it sounds like something that promotes a very local oriented, food production and slow food lifestyle. I get the impression that more and more of the local restaurants are receiving fresh produce from a local source and that there is a minimum of processing involved. And, I don’t think of canned vegetables or fruit when I hear the words “Kentucky Proud”. That is why I was enthused to hear about an expansion into the distribution of locally produced beef products carrying the “Kentucky Proud” labeling.

The press release from the Commissioner of Agriculture Richie Farmer’s office was written to indicate that a statewide food distribution network has been established for all products by three experienced food service companies, but several key phrases lead me to realize that we are now talking about processed meat products - specifically beef.

The network is distributing beef raised by Kentucky producers such as the Greathouse family of Midway and other cattle purchased through Kentucky’s Certified Pre-Conditioned for Health (CPH-45) program, in which source-verified cattle are raised under a strict health regimen. The cattle are finished on a nutritional diet developed by Alltech of Nicholasville and processed by PM Beef of Windom, Minn.

I guess that I should be happy that they are buying locally raised cattle, but finishing them out of state and then processing them in Minnesota seems like insulting our intelligence. Does it matter to anyone else that cows are supposed to eat grass and not some other nutritional supplement, even if it does come from a local supplier in Alltech? Does it matter that the cost of shipping the animals out of state, slaughtering and processing the animals and then shipping the product back in to the state, has to be added to the final sales price?

To be sure, all of this transporting, slaughtering, processing, re-transporting and distributing is supplying jobs for folks but are they Kentuckians who are getting these jobs? I would think that, being a state government initiative, a primary purpose would be to promote local jobs and the local economy. I can understand that some of our local meat processing facilities may not be able to handle the estimated volume, but isn’t that just a matter of building our own infrastructure to be able to handle our own needs? That is how we can build our sustainability.

According to the article in Business Lexington, “Kentucky Proud” has been in place for nine years and “working to help Kentucky producers and value-added processors market Kentucky products” and yet for nine years we haven’t noticed that we have no local meat processors of any scale capable of the volume envisioned. Only lately, approximately six months ago, did a processor from out of state call upon the Kentucky Department of Agriculture (KDA), when they recognized our state’s need for their services. They were the one to propose a project, so there must be a profit in it. They were the one to initially identify a distributor.

If I may quote from the above referenced article:

It begins with family farms looking for a steady market for their products working with family focused processors like PM Beef. The processed products are then distributed by a network of family owned distribution businesses which deliver the Kentucky Proud products to small family restaurants across the state. Snell (a spokesperson for KDA) believes this system goes to the core of what the Kentucky Proud program is about, helping Kentucky families by promoting local Kentucky Proud products.

It also begins with the family farms which raise their livestock in a traditional way, unlike the giant agri-business herds, and the quality conscious consumers looking for such a producer. The missing component here is a local, traditional, quality conscious processor who will not dictate changes to either the farmer or the consumer that neither one wants. This is also what should be “the core of what the Kentucky Proud program is about”. Can the KDA and the Department of Economic Development not co-operate with each other for the advancement of all Kentuckians?

This article goes on to describe the potential for this beef program by stating, correctly, that people are requesting more quality in the products that they buy. Many Kentuckians also relate local production with better quality and so are looking for local products like those having the Kentucky Proud label. Some of us realize that just meeting the USDA standard is not enough and that even their “organic” qualifications are starting to be watered down, at the request of the large agri-business multi-national corporations. We would like the “Kentucky Proud” quality to be higher than it is. The estimate for full scale production is set at 400 head of cattle a week. That seems very low to me for a statewide program.

Once again quoting:

That is 400 head of cattle each week that were born and weaned on farms in Kentucky. That is 400 head of cattle each week that were sold through Kentucky markets to PM Beef for finishing. Then those 400 head a week would come back processed to be distributed…

That is 400 head of cattle that are trucked out of state and maybe not by Kentucky truckers. That is by truck, not rail which is 11 times more efficient than trucking. That is 400 head of cattle finished on something other than grass. That is 400 head of cattle that are slaughtered by non-Kentuckians and trucked(again no rail) back to the local folks to be sold as “local” products.

"As the largest beef cattle state east of the Mississippi we should be proud to see our beef come back to Kentucky as a branded product,"…

As the largest beef cattle state east of the Mississippi, we should be embarrassed to have no local processing plants, which employ local labor, and force our consumers to pay extra for a “local” product for which we are so proud.

"At the end of the day this is going to be bigger than the Kentucky Proud beef line. The distribution team is also networking with Kentucky family farms for chicken, pork, dairy and lamb," said Snell. "We are looking for sustainability and what is good for Kentucky, and we are building relationships and networks that will last. This is what being Kentucky Proud is all about."

If I recall correctly, a local economist told the Urban County Council lately that agriculture accounted for only 2% of the state's output and it is not expected to grow. With deals like this going on, then I can concur with that assessment. We in Lexington, have enacted a PDR program to preserve farm land. The Fayette Alliance has called the preservation of farmland and the local production of food a necessity and yet we still want to send our products out of state for processing.

I am still waiting for something to be really proud about.

Will We Miss Out On The Money?

Is anybody here aware that the US Department of Transportation has $1.5 billion in ARRA funds available. These funds are multimodal discretionary funds, also known as TIGER grants, and are part of the stimulus package passed earlier this year. There is a small catch, this funding is to be used to support livable cities.

The criteria used to evaluate the projects that request this funding have livability right up at the top, along with safety and economic competitiveness. All we need now is the true meaning of "livability" or at least in the minds of DOT.

The deputy assistant secretary for transportation policy, Beth Osborne, gives the description as focused on mixed use, walkable neighborhoods, and pedestrian access to transit, jobs, stores, schools, and other public buildings. US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s definition is, “Livability means a community where you can take kids to school, go to work, see a doctor, go to the grocery store, have dinner and a movie, and play with your kids in a park, all without having to get into a car.” It is also felt that DOT will likely request funding for a livable communities program in the next surface transportation re-authorization

Any one of you who have read my last two entries will realize that I do not believe that Lexington would meet these criteria. Although our city officials have talked of it, I don't think that there has been near enough progress to say that we are moving into being a "livable city". There is so much more that we could be doing but we still come up short. We keep waiting for someone else to make the first move.

Earlier this year a Partnership for Sustainable Communities was formed in a collaboration involving, DOT, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Their aim, under the Obama administration, is to promote sustainable and livable cities.

HUD’s 2010 budget calls for $100 million for sustainable communities planning grants and $40 million for community challenge grants that could be used for zoning reform and other implementation tools for smart growth. How much of that will be looked at or requested by our administration?

While Lexington has not been hit as hard by the foreclosure crisis as others, HUD studies have shown that neighborhoods with a higher livability rating have a lower foreclosure rate. Can you imagine how we could have fared, had we been more transit and pedestrian oriented?

One last tidbit, it is estimated that if the US shifted just 10 percent of new housing starts to smarter growth development over the next 10 years, Americans would save about 5 billion gallons of gasoline and about $220 billion in household transportation expenses.

How much of that could be your share?

Kentucky's Future Energy Usage

Lexington has been a Sister City to County Kildare in Ireland since 1984 mostly on the distinct similarities of the land, climate and cultural resources prevalent in both locations. Our first settlers originally came from Ireland and England so there should be some sort of connection between our two counties. Now I find that our "older" Sister City is also a wiser and more forward looking community than we are.

Mrs Sweeper pointed out this link to me after looking though the Energy Bulletin for some ideas pertaining to Peak Oil. This blogger is comparing Kentucky and Ireland and their plans for energy production and usage. Ireland is apparently looking to reduce their energy usage in the next decade or two while Kentucky, along with the rest of the US, will continue to use more and more energy, possibly due to our coal industry's influence within the states hierarchy.

There are many points in this report that I can agree with and many more in the Governors proposal for energy independence that I find questionable. So many of our projections about energy usage is based on trend lines going forward from our recent history and I doubt consider either a major shift in population and economic trends or a collapse of the existing economic system altogether. Should the price of our fossil fuels, especially oil and particularly foreign oil, rise to a level where transporting food products long distances becomes prohibitively expensive, will our land be better used for growing bio-mass for fuel or for feeding our local population?

Ireland is probably setting themselves up for a better future both energy wise and local sustainability wise.

Economic Development With Sustainable Living

According to Neil Pearce "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s cautious if not hostile approach to climate control legislation isn’t just putting it at odds with the Obama administration.". I t may also be putting it at odds with its local organizations. It has certainly played a part in the decisions of national and international corporations like Pacific Gas and Electric and Apple to resign from the larger body.

The local Chamber, known locally as Commerce Lexington, is the entity usually chosen as the prime economic development arm of Lexington's leaders. What I'd like to know is, are they working with the Urban County Government to bring in the more environmentally conscious companies, or even is there an effort to work toward a climate controlled Lexington development scene. I don't necessarily believe that man is the cause of the recent climate changes or that the changes are irreversible. I don't even totally believe in the whole global warming scare theory, but the majority of the country's leading scientists do and yet I am not sure that I see our leadership working to do something about it. I do believe in the peak oil scenario(and the coming paradigm reset) and I certainly do not see any efforts to deal with what I see as arriving before any catastrophic effects of global warming. Our global economy may kill us all before global warming does.

A report from the Partners for Livable Communities details some of the local chambers around the country which have begun planning and doing projects in their hometowns all in the name of sustainability. Many of these chambers were in the southern and eastern US. Lexington was not on the list.

This is not just about global warming or peak oil or even reducing the outlandish per capita carbon footprint here in Lexington. It is about making and keeping Lexington a desirable place to raise a family. It will take dealing with each of the elements and making responsible choices when it comes to land use and transportation. How will we deal with our heat islands of parking lots and exhaust spewing autos? How will we reduce our use of fossil fuels, thereby leaving some for our children and grandchildren to use even more sparingly? How will we leave a more positive footprint on the Earth than our parents and grandparents did?

Where was our Commerce Lexington when we decided to expand the Urban Service Area in the mid-'90s. I think that they were right there helping to set the density targets for all the newly planned acreage. This was to be a new way of planning, a new way of looking at our fringe areas, more density in a more community center oriented setting. Now nearly fifteen years later, we look back and see that there are no community centers to which to orient and the density built that equals any development done prior to the expansion. We set the bar just above minimum and barely made it over the bar. Hooray for the status quo. And where is our Commerce Lexington these days? My bet is living right in the middle of that very expensive status quo, driving their luxury autos across town to work and leaving a larger carbon footprint than 75% of their employees.

So much for expecting a sustainable lifestyle in our economic development.

Some Solar Follow-up

On the heels of my entry about solar prospects in Lexington and the thoughts on moving forward with a "smart grid" for Central Kentucky, I read some very interesting posts this week.

First, an announcement of a solar powered car to be made available in the Spring of 2010. This is how the European auto companies are doing better than our own auto industry. The innovations that used to emanate from Detroit are now claimed to be "unfeasible or too expensive" for our companies to produce. This is one new that I can see myself getting, too bad they will just be introduced in Europe. A few of the details include:

The BLUECAR is a compact and elegant town car with four seats, five doors and an automatic transmission. Its L. M. P. battery gives it a range of 250 km between charges, well in excess of the 40 km clocked up on average by a driver in an urban environment. To recharge the BLUECAR, simply plug it into a public power outlet or a standard power socket at home. It takes six hours to recharge the car’s battery from a standard power socket, and only two hours on the future fast-charging outlets. If need be, the batteries can be fast-charged for five minutes, giving the car enough power to run 25 km. In big cities, car parks are already being fi tted with electric power outlets, demonstrating the commitment of leading private operators and local authorities to promoting and fostering the development of electric cars. In terms of performance, the BLUECAR will feature a top speed that is electronically capped at 130 km/h and enough acceleration to get it from 0 to 60 km/h in 6.3 seconds.

I would also NOT park this in a garage during the day so as to gain as much solar charge as possible, although I guess that the garages could add solar collectors and/or charging stations as part of the hourly fee for use of the space. At home the garage may then become a more usable space for living and not for auto storage.

Secondly, a post that I saw by way of Planetizen. This piece speaks to the need for the architects, designers and builders to lead the way in changing how our structures fit into our desire for a sustainable lifestyle. There is no reason why we cannot design some of the wind or solar power generating technologies into our new buildings, or even retrofit some our existing buildings to reduce our carbon footprint.

And lastly, a piece that ties both the European mindset and the design of a sustainable city together. The city of Amsterdam is moving ahead to implement a smart grid in which individual houses may install some sort of power generating device (wind or solar) and be able to sell the extra power to the system. In effect making the electric grid a community effort. Here in Lexington we can't even keep the power connected in a high wind and our electricity comes from destroying the natural beauty of our state.

When is Lexington going to make a move in this direction? As always , 20 years after the rest of the nation, and they will probably be 20 years behind the rest of the world.

Let me know what you think.