[Livingontheland] World May Be Up for A Drastic Shortfall In Food Stocks

elderberryjam elderberryjam at zippytech.com
Fri Sep 8 00:10:20 EDT 2006

"  There are huge new brick homes not 30 minutes from where I live that have 
no space to grow food, only a little tiny postage stamp lawn and when we 
drive past them we're struck by how ignorant it is to voluntarily live in 
places like this with such artificially inflated prices and a total 
inability to do anything but rely on someone else for food and energy.  Now 
I understand it's the UN agenda to urbanize and get everyone off the land 
that drove these developments.

  It doesn't take much land to grow enough chickens or have enough eggs for 
your family, just a little know-how and the liberty to do so (all those new 
urbanized developments have covenants to prevent you growing your own food 
so they can get a contract with a supermarket for them and guaranteed 

I've read a lot about the UN, and I have never had the impression that they 
had an agenda to urbanize people; nor interest in having overpriced, closely 
spaced homes developed. My ex-husband worked for a multi-billionaire who 
made a good bit of money having such homes built, however, so I'm a little 
bit familiar with the motives behind such activity. My understanding is that 
the "world class" homes added substantially to his already bulging pockets. 
The market for them was moderately wealthy people who didn't want to deal 
with large lawns. These people have no intention of ever raising their own 
food, nor playing badmitton in their back yards even. I don't think a 
covenant was made with any supermarkets for these developments - definitely 
none to intentionally prevent them from growing their own food. More likely 
the developments are intended to attract a certain mindset of buyers, and 
those buyers prefer a supermarket. They aren't the "back to the land" types. 
Had I desired that path in my own life, I'm sure I would have been capable 
of taking it. Those people wouldn't take a farm if you offered it to them, 
or if they did, it would only be taken if there were $$$ involved in 3 sets 
of triple digits.

Back to urbanization - there IS a movement to re-urbanize, to save valuable 
land in some areas from being developed. It isn't so much because of a 
current shortage as a possible one in the future. I for one, am thankful for 
the idea. I am thankful for the communities who adopt "green space" 
ordinances. Such ideas are not to prevent people from raising their own 
food, but rather to prevent miles of subdivisions and strips from being 
developed. Subdivisions as a rule, do have ordinances against silly things 
like parking pick-up trucks on the streets, or keeping boats in the 
driveways. As a farm girl, I was dismayed the first time someone threatened 
to call the health department when my grass got ankle-heighth during my 
first marraige, when we lived in urban Columbus. HEALTH department? They 
were afraid of ...ticks... in the city....HARHAR! I see no problem with 
those people staying in the city, and me in the country. T'was not so 
laughable then though. They guy next door was importing horse manure for his 
raised beds in the back yard. THAT was okay. There is freedom in this good 
country to live where you please. In my opinion, urbanization is fine; 
suburbanization we can do without. The 'burbs give a little more space, but 
not enough to do much more with than a backyard garden. 5 to 20 acre plots 
without ordinances would be better.


More information about the Livingontheland mailing list