Wherever you are, go visit a Bishops storehouse. You will find fresh produce and fresh meat. The canned foods are mostly LDS packed, the bread from LDS bakeries where possible.
Is there anything we can do that you would say-Well Done! I doubt it!
Do you realize that Lds own 1% of ag land in the state of Florida? Do you realize that they keep up a good chunk of it w/"volunteers" who earn nothing? -- in fact, they are less than slave labor because these retired couples have to pay their way to "serve" the farms there. Do you realize then that they are able to operate like a commercial enterprise w/little labor overhead @ non-profit tax rates?
Hey, that's OK. Jim Jones did the same thing first in Northern CA & then in Guyana.
Then there's the other problems the LDS church creates w/their commercial produce enterprise -- like this article from Jan '08 re: Idaho (& states it did the same thing in Washington state):
Source: http://www.agweekly.com/articles/2008/01/29/news/ag_news/new s55.txt
Headline: Farmers face off with LDS Church
By Carol Ryan Dumas, Ag Weekly editor January 18, 2008
BURLEY, Idaho — What riled up Cassia and Twin Falls county farmers and drew about 250 people to a meeting at the Pella Stake Jan. 9 might have been fueled by nothing more than rumor and conjecture, said an official from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
In question was what local farmers believe was the church’s intention of turning 10,000 to 12,000 acres it owns and leases to area farmers into a direct operation, wherein a church management team would handle production and local farmers would lose their leases.
Farmers here worried the church would mirror what it did in the Pascal, Wash., area, where its huge land holdings went from locally operated to church operated.
Heber Loughmiller, a Twin Falls County farmer and LDS Church member who raises three pivots of potatoes, among other crops, said the church was going to use the land to tie up a large amount of contracts with Lamb-Weston. That would put area farmers at a distinct disadvantage in negotiating contract prices because the church-operated farm could produce spuds cheaper.
“Three-hundred and fifty acres of potatoes is pretty key to us,” he said of his operation. “The LDS Church could come in and raise 40 pivots.”
In addition, farmers who lost leases would be competing with other farmers for ground, and area businesses and vendors would be out of the loop.
“The problem is they (the church) don’t buy anything local. The church doesn’t do that, they buy direct,” he said. “The only money locally would be salaries.”
Loughmiller said he sees quite a few farmers loosing their leases and contracts if the church changes to a direct operation.
“How would this be a gain for the community?” he asked.
“Their reply was they weren’t coming to where they’re not wanted. But they didn’t commit to more than one year. “We held ‘em off for a year,” he added, saying the same thing happened last year.
Loughmiller also contends the church intentionally planned the meeting at a time when many of the active local church leaders were away at conventions and the like.
Clark Hirschi, a manager in public affairs at LDS headquarters in Salt Lake City, said Loughmiller doesn’t have things quite right.
He said the church doesn’t operate that way, that it is upfront and candid.
“And that would imply we had something to be afraid of,” he added.
He said rumors that the church had already made a decision to go to direct management was why the meeting was held, and farmers’ attendance and comments didn’t affect any nonexistent pre-made decision.
“No decision has been made or had been made,” he said. “There is no decision, there was no decision and there is still no decision. Up until now there has been no intention to go to direct operated.”
Hirschi said the Washington operation and the fact that the church only gives one-year leases could have sparked the rumors, but that’s all they were.
Declo farmer Mark Darrington, however, is also concerned the church intended to take over management and does not see that as being in the best interest of his community.
“I am an active member of the Mormon Church, but facts is facts,” he said. “I did not want them to turn this into a big corporate farm because of the impact on the local community.”
For one, he said, “local vendors are bypassed. I think that puts a bad taste not just in non-members’ mouth but also in members’ mouth.”
He said the church’s Farm Management Corporation (renamed Farmland Reserve Inc.) is “well run, well managed, and well capitalized and has to take advantage of all opportunities. But sometimes taking advantage of all opportunities steps on some toes.”
Those toes would be area farmers and businesses.
He said the church setting up a large entity and garnering large potato contracts would have an adverse effect on growers’ ability to negotiate a good price. Growers would be competing with a “thing” not other growers. And the church keeps its negotiations confidential, where growers are more likely to collude on prices.
“The church tends to not cooperate with growers,” he said.
“They (church) have a history of making very large contracts,” he said. “It makes it very difficult on the rest of the folks trying to bargain a contract.”
“You don’t like to compete against your own government, and you don’t like to compete against your own church,” he added.
Darrington said he also worries about access to services if the church doesn’t deal locally and puts those service suppliers out of business.
“We don’t benefit from someone like that. I’d like to keep a healthy economy, local businesses,” he said.
Darrington said the church has huge holdings south of Burley, and the issue could have a huge impact on the local community.
“I don’t mean to be disparaging,” he said. “I just don’t agree that’s the best way to manage that land for a healthy community.”
Hirschi said he couldn’t address the local vendor issue. The church does own its own storage and processing facilities and, logically, the church would run its operation as economically as possible. But, he said, there are two tenets on which the church establishes a direct operation: It must be in the best interest of the community, and it must be welcomed by the community.
Clearly, neither is the case here, judging from local response.
I like the graph about how Farm Management Corporation (renamed Farmland Reserve Inc.) is “well run, well managed, and well capitalized and has to take advantage of all opportunities" coupled with the competitive advantages the Lds church holds. I mean, if they're bringing in virtual slave labor, of course they're "taking advantage of all [competitive] opportunities!"