Elk Grove farm icon plans to sell

Sacramento Bee ^ | August 3, 2003 | Michael Kolber

[farmfriend]

Greg Hardesty lost an arm and part of a leg in a tractor accident 11 years ago, but that hasn't stopped him from working his Elk Grove alfalfa farm.

Instead, the southward push of tract housing and shopping centers may force him off the land.

[farmfriend]

People do not understand, it is not just the farmland that needs to be saved. You must also save the infrastructure that supports agriculture or it becomes unprofitable to farm the land. This is the prime argument against agricultural easements. What do the heirs do when the land is surrounded by development and there are no services for farming.

[farmfriend]

Both the rights, farms, environment ping list and the Sacramento area ping list.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from these lists.

[countrydummy]

We going to bump heads a few times on this one! lol

Ok, it is my feeling, that if I own the land and I want it to pass on to my heirs, and as such, get greater in value every so many years, and knowing that some things change, that change is inevitable, that someday, my children would be able to sell the land as profitably as possible, made something more out of the land that my blood, sweat and tears had initally put into it, then, no, not ALL farmland needs so protected it becomes useless!

I do think the opition of either protecting form development or selling as needed should ALWAYS be left up to the private land owner and no one else! For the reasons I stated above.

I guess what I am saying is we need to keep all farmers save from political agendas that are all destroying the Agricultue/American everyday farmer!

Before we "protect" we all really need to try and see just whom in "perpetuaty(sp)" (forever) we are "protecting" this land for? !!!!!!

[editor-surveyor]

This is a problem that will eventually begin to solve itself, when the lack of farmland causes the price of agricultural goods to sharply rise. At that point though, people in the bottom economic classes in the U.S. will really be starving to death.

[countrydummy]

ping!

[farmfriend]

And just exactly where were we going to bump heads?

[countrydummy]

well I could have been wrong! lol (wink)!

[MissAmericanPie]

The Fed is snapping up farm land. The farmer might come out way ahead given that the Fed offers something like 50% off his capital gains tax if he sells to them. So if his farm land is worth 5 million and he sells to a private individual or corporation, half of that goes to the Fed.

On the other hand he could sell his land to the Fed for as little as 3.5 million and still come out ahead on what he gets to keep in his pocket.

[blam]

Bump for the farmers.

[farmfriend]

Fed offers something like 50% off his capital gains tax if he sells to them

There was a 25% capitol gains credit if you sold to the feds or conseration group in the energy bill of all places. I believe that provision was taken out but I could be wrong.

[marsh2]

Even our remote county is vulnerable to development. The extreme environmentalist's agenda is to take water from farmers and ranchers for retention as instream use. When a farm has no water, it may challenge the "prime ag" zoning that currently prevents it from being subdivided into less than 40 acre lots.

The short sighted water policies being pushed by the tribes and environmentalists will end up promoting tract retirement homes in lieu of agricultural use. Obviously, farmland is of greater benefit to salmon than subdivisions.

[countrydummy]

Marsh, farm is your friend, but she don't mind be used on occasion! lol

Seriously! She is huge in landrights!

[farmfriend]

CD, marsh2 knows me. Everything she says is well documented in Carry's book. The more the environmentalists restricted land use in Santa Cruze, the worse the development problem got. Too bad they can't see the forests for the trees, so to speak.

Marsh2, I'll tell Julie Clausen you said hi.

[Consort]

[hedgetrimmer]

Bump

[Delphinium]

This is a problem that will eventually begin to solve itself, when the lack of farmland causes the price of agricultural goods to sharply rise. At that point though, people in the bottom economic classes in the U.S. will really be starving to death.

I agree with that, and wonder if its part of the agenda.

We are land developers, and this is a hard one. I also agreed with countrydummy's comments

[I_Love_My_Husband]

It makes me ill. I am totally FOR farmers. I only wish farmers wouldn't hire illegals...(but that's another thread...).

[breakem]

It's too late for Elk Grove, the party's over. Get ready to annex Galt.

The tanks are much closer to high density housing than the proposed commercial site. I know, I lived in the housing tract across from the park.

[lewislynn]

This is a problem that will eventually begin to solve itself, when the lack of farmland causes the price of agricultural goods to sharply rise

Devolopment of farmland didn't just begin with the recent housing boom.

It's likely your own neighborhood is former farm land...Do you notice exorbitant prices or food shortage at the grocery store?

Take a look at the map in this article...

The map covers a large area (about 4 miles square or 16 sq miles). About 3/4 (12 sq. miles) of the entire map is undeveloped land. Compare that to the shaded 167 acre ranch in question.

There's still plenty of land to be farmed and per acre farm production is increasing all the time.

[lewislynn]

People do not understand, it is not just the farmland that needs to be saved.

If saving farms to you means government restrictions not allowing farmers to sell THEIR land for whatever reason then you surely aren't a "farmfriend".