Human settlements gravitate towards arable regions. For obvious reasons we live where it’s easy to grow food. When population densities are low there is no problem with this set up, in fact any other social organization would seem ridiculous.
However as population densities increase the arable land that drew people in begins to fall prey to residential, commercial and industrial development. Houses, roads, industrial parks, subdivisions, stadiums, train stations, etc. are all built on the good dirt that sustains the surrounding civilization. In places where there is nothing but arable land for hundreds of miles in every direction, the growth of cities over arable land is still not much of an issue. But as populations increase and the climate changes the cities that are afforded this luxury are becoming fewer and further between.
Left to its own devices the free market for land has proven ineffective in properly forecasting and pricing the social costs of developing farm land. In the short term any farmer who is approached by a developer to buy out his property for its residential development value would be either extremely idealistic or stupid to forgo the windfall that he/she is being presented. In fact in many places farmers depend on being able to sell their property at the end of their career as a means of providing for their retirement.
With the development of low cost transportation networks the next question may be: Who cares? However for political, economic, and social reasons food security has never been an issue that responsible governments have felt completely comfortable with assigning to the whims of the international free market. In short, being dependent on someone else for your food is fine in times of peace and plenty, but not so good when times are lean and mean.
Right to farm legislation and agricultural land zoning have been introduced in many jurisdictions to deal with the erosion of the arable land base and the inevitable conflicts that arise as farms and subdivisions bump together. The former is meant to protect farmers from being sued by their neighbours for the noise, smell, and other nuisances that their work inevitably entails. The latter is meant to force development onto less viable land leaving the arable land protected and productive.
The right to farm is always initially presented by lawmakers as the farsighted protection of pastoral heritage and the promotion of food security and agricultural viability. The reality is that the legislation is often drafted in a way that ignores the real needs of ‘family farm’ type operations and protects the interests of large agri-business conglomerates to the detriment of neighbouring land owners. The shield that the law was meant to give the average farmer is converted into a sword for those who would otherwise be subject to noise, odour, and other pollution based litigation.
Limiting the use of land in favour of the preservation of arable land also has its detractors. Free market adherents point to the Silicon Valley and question what the benefit to the area, California, and the planet as a whole would have been if high tech development in the area had been limited in favour of fruit trees. Farmers themselves are often at odds with ‘farm preservation’ plans that lock in the marketability of their land and fail to be encated with corresponding plans to properly compensate the farmers for the loss of development potential for the land.
Whenever the law is used to protect minority rights and alter economic conditions the results will depend on the details. However in the agricultural sphere, the difference between the rhetoric and the reality of the law could in the very near future mean the difference between food security and going hungry for much of the planet.
This article is legal commentary only and should not be taken as legal advice. Consult a lawyer in your area with any particular legal questions that you may have.
 |
