Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - Re: [Livingontheland] World May Be Up for A Drastic Shortfall In Food Stocks

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "elderberryjam" <elderberryjam@zippytech.com>
  • To: <livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] World May Be Up for A Drastic Shortfall In Food Stocks
  • Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 00:10:20 -0400

" 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 shoppers),"


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.

Gwen





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page