The next step....Occupy the land.

[zeemike]

It is really a fantasy of mine but one worth considering.
What if people that were tired of being a worker for someone else and that was interested in farming and sustainable living just occupied the land?
I would bet that there are thousands of young people that would jump at the chance to have their own place to live...especialy if they could live sustainable on the land.

[pipi_k]

1. What (or whose) land are you speaking of, here? n/t

[zeemike]

3. Ideally corporate land.

Using the reason that sense they are not living people they have no right to land...
Most of the good land is owned by corporations or the ultra rich.

[Cool Logic]

7. Corporate owned land is in production...

On the other hand the fegov owns 30% of all US land (650 million acres), that is unproductive and unoccupied.

Greedy bastards, eh...?

http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/fedlands.html

[zeemike]

8. You mean except for the land they are getting paid not to produce on

by the tax payers to keep commodity prices high.
And most of the federal land is not suitable for farming...and where it is it is given over to the cattle people for a small fee....so we subsidies the beef industry with a lot of that public land.

[MadHound]

11. Ah, so you want to come occupy my land?

My sister and I took the family farm and put it in an LLC. We currently get a modicum of money to "grow nothing, though in reality we're getting paid to grow trees and native grasses. Yet you want to come occupy my land?

I don't suggest that you try that, it really would be a bad idea on your part.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Xithras]

46. Do you understand farming economics?

"by the tax payers to keep commodity prices high."

So, you want to take all of that corporate owned fallow land and put it into production, thereby bringing commodity prices down? Do you understand WHY the government works to keep commodity prices up in the first place?

Because commodity prices determine how much money those small family farmers will make from their land. If you put that land into production and bring down commodity prices, you will dramatically reduce the amount of money those family farmers will make on their crops. You will, in effect, put far more family farms OUT of business than you will create.

Some farms are paid to not produce. By doing this, the remaining farmers can make enough money on their crops to survive until the next years.

If all of Americas arable land were put into production next year, the prices would temporarily plunge at the supermarket, but most of this countries small farms would be out of business within a year. Who would benefit from that? The small family farms would be gone, food prices would skyrocket, and only the wealthiest farmers who could expand into mega-scale agriculture would be able to weather it.

[zeemike]

49. A family farm is foolish to try to compete with corporate farming.

You will never make it if you try to grow yellow dent corn or soybeans.
But a family farm has one asset...diversity...you have cows to provide milk...chickens for eggs...hogs for meat and fruit and veggies for sale
A family farm has been in the past and can be again a sustainable system for a family while producing for the market in smaller but higher quality food.
A hundred years ago every farm was like that...

[RC]

9. Not all unproductive and unoccupied land is suitable for much.

There are many hundreds of square miles of land in NE Kansas and probably elsewhere, that is basically a thin layer, as in inches, of sod on top of solid rock hundred of feet thick. It doesn't plow too well.

[pipi_k]

19. In the hilltowns of Western Mass...

the land is generally composed mostly of clay, and is very rocky.

By rocky I mean, when you plow the land, you get lots of rocks and small boulders. A few months or a year later, more rocks and boulders come to the surface. It's a never ending battle.

Also, the climate isn't conducive to growing much of anything but the native plants and weeds. Mostly weeds.

Also, finding enough flat land for farming is sort of a problem.

I don't worry about anyone grabbing my land... :7

[Kingofalldems]

31. GOP talking points --wow , same post on another thread

[pipi_k]

14. OK, so let's say that happens....

and then a few months later, the original occupiers of the land...Native Americans...decide they want their land back. All of it...the whole country. Let's say they tell anyone not of NA heritage to get the hell out of the country because they have no right to be on their land.

What then?

[zeemike]

17. It was their ancestors that originally occupied the land.

And they believed you could not own the land....which put them at the mercy of the white European.
And most of them that are left alive still have some of that land on reservations...which cannot be bought up by real estate speculators.
I am not concerned about righting the wrongs of the past as I am with righting the wrongs of the present.

[pipi_k]

24. Well, what you are concerned with...

wouldn't matter to them.

And see, that's a big problem.


So, basically, the reply we would give to them would be, "Sorry...it's your ancestors' faults for not fighting for their land, so you're out of luck".

I think that a huge part of "righting the wrongs of the present" involves righting the wrongs of the past.

Nobody can convince me that the wrongs of the Bush administration don't matter now and don't deserve to be righted.

I would bet that 99% of DUers would piss themselves with glee to see Bush, Cheney, and a whole lot of others put into prison for the wrongs of the past.

So...wrong is wrong. What does it matter when it happened?

[zeemike]

35. righting the wrongs of the past is great when it is possible.

But it is no longer possible to do it and we all know it.
Bush is still with us and can still be made to pay for his ignoring of the law.

[pipi_k]

42. Well, Bush and his ilk

are still with us, yes, but they will never again have the power to do what they did.

It's over and done with, never to happen again. Nothing will change the past, so why should they be charged with anything?

So how about the Native American casinos? Some of them are huge. People really want to take them down? Grab their land? Or would they be immune?

Anyway, I'm sure we can sit here and debate that part of the issue all day without resolution, which I sort of expected anyway. Because I know that what people consider "right" will usually boil down to what THEY want.

[GreenStormCloud]

53. They didn't "own" land because they didn't farm it.

Actually some tribes did farm land and those tribes had a system of ownership, usually family based. Ownership of land is common to ALL farming cultures.

[ret5hd]

10. This land is your land, this land is my land...

from california, to the new york island.

[pipi_k]

25. And the words to that song

weren't penned by Black Hawk, Geronimo, Sitting Bull, Red Cloud, or any other Native American whose people ended up being forced to live on some of the shittiest land the world ever produced.

:(

[H2O Man]

52. Love that song.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

34. Yours.

[pipi_k]

43. Doubtful...

not if they want to have productive farms.

And, like Madhound, I don't think anyone would want to try taking my land...

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zeemike]

4. now that would be sweet.

Just think of all the veggies you could grow on one of those things...

[Desertrose]

5. If you could get rid of all the chemicals they use

to get those pristine greens.....

There is so much land that could be used to grow food...I like the idea of using empty lots in the cities....and rooftop gardens.


We need to take back the "land as well" as so much else in this country!!
:)

[zeemike]

6. It would take a few years to do that.

But there is usually a lot of organic material in the soil and would probably recover pretty quickly with a little TLC.
But lots in the city's are probably the most effective...and probably mostly owned by banks or other investors who will not like the idea at all....and they will put up just as good a fight against it.

[csziggy]

38. Or occupy suburban houses that were claimed by the banks

And use the yards to grow food.

[itsallhappening]

13. This post proves that the "cause" is really about getting the rich, not helping people.

Are golf courses in gated communities the only place to grow food for the poor?

Of course not.

Are you advocating people take over the John Kerry's properties and grow food for the poor? They Kerrys are worth $193.3 million. How about the Kennedy properties?

Of course not.

Are you figuring out ways to use undeveloped land to grow food for the poor?

Of course not.

This is nothing more than class envy (not "warfare," it's really envy).

[zeemike]

22. Well maybe the rich need getting.

Not all of them but surely the ones who have allowed greed to become such a part of their life that they cannot be satisfied with making 5% on an investment....they need 50% or more....allways more.
And they could care less who or how many lives they wreck to get that more ether.
And that is why in the end it all comes down to them saying "let them eat cake"

[mainer]

12. Except for the fact farming is darn hard work and not for the timid

We've been trying to maintain our plot of asparagus and veggies using organic methods, and it feels as if we burn up more calories pulling weeds and squashing bugs than we'll ever get from eating what we grow.

It's not just a matter of "occupying the land." Are you willing to slave over it, ache over it, and probably live on a subsistence income for it?

[ChandlerJr]

18. NPR had a wonderful report over the weekend on urban farmers in

Detroit actually feeding themselves and making a living on abandoned city lots,\.

Found it:

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/02/140903516/the-gift-of-detroit-tilling-urban-terrain

Weertz has been buying abandoned homes and vacant parcels in his neighborhood, where lots go for as little as $300. He's been encouraging young people who want to farm to move into the neighborhood. Weertz's neighbor, Carolyn Leadley, runs Rising Pheasant Farms when she's not caring for her 10-month-old son.

"We're definitely micro-farming, but we're making a living off a sixth of an acre," Leadley says. "I've been very pleased — pleasantly surprised at how much I've been able to pay myself per hour. We took on an employee. I'm like, 'OK, We're a real business now. We have to pay taxes and do things right.'"

[Terry in Austin]

41. Glimpse the future! -nt

[Shagbark Hickory]

16. That's not really the next step you really want.

Reverting back to a centuries old lifestyle.

It's hard work, it takes money to get started and while thousands- no make that millions of young people that would jump at the chance to have their own place to live, they're going to be expecting climate control, reliable hot water and wifi.

Your dream is basically to give up on regulating the industries that are not operating sustainably and also to give up on sustainable modern homes.

[zeemike]

26. There may be some truth to that I have given up on regulated industry

I just think we need to make a leap into the future...and the way I see it the future is one where every one has a piece of land and we beat our swords into plow shares.
but it does not have the meaning it once did....the swords of today are cruse missals and smart wepons....which when beaten into a plow will be a smart one...one the goes into the field and does the plowing for you while you monitor it from your house.

[Mr Deltoid]

20. Shutting down factories

Is the only thing that will get their attention

[pipi_k]

27. Yeah, and...

it will also get the attention of the thousands upon thousands of Americans who won't have a job when the factories close.

But hey...fuck 'em. They can just go find a farm someplace and grow radishes and green beans.

:eyes:

[Mr Deltoid]

30. When those same factories are cutting pensions, healthcare and salaries...

...and jobs, to increase their profits?

That is the republican 'Right to work' position.

That states the 'right' to be actively working overrides concerns like fair compensation.

In the 1930s many factories were struck. It hurt their bottom line and forced them to bargain with the unions.

[pipi_k]

37. Well there you go...

it's never just black and white, is it?

Most things are shades of gray.

But I would imagine there are people who still HAVE jobs who are glad to have them in spite of everything you listed.


You can't just run around shutting down factories, putting lots of people who need jobs out of work, no matter what's going on in those factories. Have a Plan B ready before carrying out Plan A, or a lot of innocent people are going to get hurt.

[Mr Deltoid]

47. Sometimes you have to sacrifice for the greater good

Otherwise the Oligarchs will always win. Doing nothing plays into their hands. Close down the factories. Close down transportation. Bring the whole economy to a screeching halt until they give in. A general strike would be awesome.

No pain, no gain.

[pipi_k]

50. One thing never to say...

"Sometimes YOU have to sacrifice..."


If you, personally, don't mind sacrificing, then fine.

But nobody has the right to lay that trip on others.

[Xithras]

21. Less than 5% of arable U.S. land is owned by corporations.

I live in farm country, and most of the farmers I know with smaller properties ALSO have full time jobs working for other people. Why? Because you can't make enough money on 10-20 acres to pay the bills, much less live a modern lifestyle. Smaller farms, at best, make enough money to pay for themselves. Many don't even do that.

In order to make money in agriculture nowadays, you need to start with the largest farm you can possibly afford, and plant the densest crop possible to maximize your per acre yield enough to generate a profit at the end of the year. If you can't do that, life is going to suck for you.

There are 350 million Americans living in 112 million households in the U.S. There are 400 million acres of arable land in the U.S., and according to the U.S. Census Department, only about 5% of that land, or 20 million acres, are owned by corporations. If you seized all of that land and chopped it into 50 acre parcels (the minimum you really need to be economically viable and sustainable, though you'll still be very poor), you would end up with about 400,000 new poor farmers in this country.

112 million American households. 400,000 farms. Unless you plan on taking land away from private families to redistribute to others, a wide-scale anti-corporate "back to the land" movement just isn't going to work.

And, FWIW, I have many farmers in my family. My dad owns cattle land. My home is surrounded by farms. I worked on farms and dairies in high school as a summer job. Personally, I wouldn't even consider dedicating my life and future to a farm unless I had at least 200 acres to work with. I have no interest in living like a pauper just so that I can call myself a "landowner". It's one thing to own a couple of acres and run a "hobby farm" for larks and to make a few extra bucks in addition to your day job, but actually making a LIVING at farming requires a lot of land, a lot of equipment, a massive amount of hard work, and a lot of money.

Most people, including virtually all young urban people, have zero clue about the realities of modern farming. Hell, most successful farmers either grew up on farms, spending decades learning the ropes from their parents, or have college degrees in the various agricultural fields. Many have both. Becoming an econmically viable farmer who makes enough from the land to lead a reasonable comfortable lifestyle isn't something that you can just learn from a book or a YouTube video.

[zeemike]

29. Well good for you if you are satisfied with the way things are.

But I am thinking about those that are not satisfied and are not doing to well in this predatory society.
I would like to see them have an option that they don't have right now.
And by the way what about the corporations that don't own any land on paper but have the land under managers so they can get the farm subsidies?
But you are right...you cannot compete with the big boys unless you go big....and this is exactly what the farmers were told in the 70s ...go big or get out....so they went in debt to go big and the commodity traders pulled the rug from under them and they lost the family farm....who owns that land now?

[Xithras]

40. I'm not satisfied with the way things are....

...but the solution is to go forward, not backward.

FWIW, most of the family farms lost to bankruptcies are eventually resold to other family farmers. While the number of family farmers has dropped considerably over the past 50 years, the number of arable acres owned by family farmers has not dropped similarly. Why not? Because those "closed" family farms are usually bought up by other family farmers who use that land to expand the size of their own farms, which allows them to remain viable in the market.

"Go big" wasn't bluster. Small farmers cannot compete nowadays, because of the relative increase in operating costs. If you push people back onto small farms, you are simply pushing them into poverty, by placing them in situations where they will be unable to make a living.

The facts here are simple. According to the US Census, 95% of arable U.S. land is owned by individuals, families, or family partnerships. While corporations certainly exert a huge amount of control over how those farmers plant and maintain their land, nearly all U.S. farmland still belong to regular people like you and me.

[mainer]

32. There's a reason farmers' kids don't want to be farmers

They've seen firsthand what a hard life it is.

I live in a state with lots of farmland that's not being used. It's for sale. Nobody's buying it. If there are so many city folks eager to become farmers, the land is up here but no one's taking it.

[zeemike]

36. And what would 40 acres cost you?

A million dollars?...That is what that amount of land goes for in some places...if people living in cities trying to survive on McDonald's wages had a million bucks they would have no problem.

[mainer]

44. A million bucks?

I just found a listing for about that much farm acreage plus a HOUSE, for about $230,000.

No takers.

So maybe it's not near a major town. Maybe it's away from the coast. But the farmland is here, not being farmed. And for sale.

[Xithras]

45. Most farmland isn't that expensive.

And, with federal FSA loans, pretty much anyone who wants to start a farm...and has a realistic chance of making one work...can do so.

I just did a random search, picked a random state, and found a random farm for sale right now. 75 acres, in Illinois, for $420,000 with a two story house on it. Under FSA rules, you could own this farm right now if you could demonstrate these four things:

1) You have no delinquencies on your current credit report (You will need credit for your annual seed purchases...no credit is okay, but bad credit = no farm).

2) You can come up with a $21,000 down payment. Is that a lot? Yeah, but if you can't afford that, there's no way you're going to be able to afford the rest of the expenses that any farm owner has to deal with. Fencing? Fuel for the tractors? Electricity for the well pumps? Routine equipment repairs? This isn't something that ANYONE can walk into broke. A farm is a business, and you can't start a business with $0 in the bank.

3) You have to demonstrate that your farm will be economically viable. What will you grow? What will your per acre yields be? How much money will that bring you on the open market? Will you make enough to survive and pay back the loans?

4) You have to demonstrate that you have some idea how to run a farm. Did you grow up on a farm? Have you ever worked on a farm? Have you ever run the books on a farm? Do you have any kind of agriculture-related education? Do you have ANY idea what you're doing?

Every year, the FSA hands out loans to thousands of family farmers to help them stay afloat, and a certain percentage of their spending is dedicated to first-time farmers, and to people with socially disadvantaged backgrounds including women and minorities, and who are dealing with other obstacles to farm ownership. The USDA also runs educational programs to help people become farmers with the sole goal of increasing the number of family farmers in America. If you really have the drive to do it, it's NOT an impossible goal.

People aren't exactly beating down their doors for these programs.

[zeemike]

48. That's interesting

I based my million dollar figure on something I found out when doing some ancestry reserch....My ancestors came from west central Illinois and I found a 40 acres for sale at one million dollars....no house just nice flat land.
So it appears I was mistaken to assume it was like that every where.
Here in NM if you could find 40 acres of irrigated land it would be a million dollars or even more.

[mainer]

54. Wow, look at this listing

90 acres, a gorgeous house and barn, $300,000 +
It's not far from where I live. Sounds like a good deal.

http://www.landandfarm.com/property/90_Acre_Farm-382019/

or you could get 280 acres (no building) for $330,000
http://www.landandfarm.com/property/280_Acre_Surveyed_Farm-189657/

[zeemike]

55. Nice find

The kitchen even has a big old wood cook stove...And the house looks plenty big for a large family.

[Doctor_J]

23. Big Media should be next

Occupy these 1000 hate- and lie-infested outlets using our airwaves to turn this into a police state

[maxsolomon]

28. The Earth was made a common treasury for all?

Private property rights are the essence of America. They'd be treated the way the Diggers were in 1649.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

33. Better make sure the water isn't owned or depleted by some corp

before you occupy it. They're being bought up by corps and depleting the water tables
in many places causing other property owner wells to run dry. Can't grow crops or do
much of anything without water.

I own a cabin along a river at the base of a mountain. Talking Rain came in and now the
area is experiencing a far lower water table than in the past.

Water ( potable) will become the greatest commodity in the next few years.

[tawadi]

39. It's called "Land grabbing"

Not exactly a new concept.:-(

[Imajika]

51. A lot of federal land is protected for environmental reasons...

Other than that, your talking about seizing private property. If that's the road you want to go down, then the strongest and those with the most guns will have everything. Really? Is that what you want?

"I would bet that there are thousands of young people that would jump at the chance to have their own place to live"

Sure, some would think it's pretty clever to go out and seize someone else's land. Most of those people will end up shot.

"...especialy if they could live sustainable on the land."

LOL. Your fooling yourself if you think for one minute most of these "thousands of young people" would have a clue how to live off even the most sustainable land.

[zeemike]

56. I was not talking about seizing land form people

But from banks and corporations who probably got it by re possessing it from people...that is how most family farms dissipeared....they convinced the family farmer to go big to compete with the corporate farm and lost their land to the banks...Millions lost their land to the banks in the 70s and 80 in just that way.
I want land for people who want it....if you are content to work for someone else then don't go there.

[uppityperson]

57. Living rural can be a good thing. But most of us don't "just occupied the land" but work it, buy it

etc.

And many of us don't quit our day jobs since making it financially is quite an undertaking. Have you read Barbara Kingsolver's book "animal, vegetable, miracle"? It is about eating locally, her family took a yr to do this and she wrote about it.

Even back when I was a youngster, going back to "the land", I always hated that term "the land". It is property, land, home, not this romantic "the land". Minor gripe but hey, get off my lawn you kids, come in and have some lemonade.

There are places around the country that are more affordable than others. Living and working at home can be an enlightening process. Figuring out what you need to be happy, how to go without. Try living without electricity or running water. use an outhouse. Dig your garden, plant and nuture it and eat what you grow. All great things for helping figure out that you are...a part of things.

Good luck.

[zeemike]

58. True...most of us do.

But there are people in this world that could not buy a buss ticket to the land if they had it.
So how do we deal with it"...we let them sleep under the bridge and go through our garbage when they are hungry.
And the counter to this is that these people are just bums and alcoholics or drug users...and that could be true to....but not all of them are....some are there though no fault of their own.
If they had a piece of land somewhere you can bet they would rather be there than huddled under that bridge or sleeping in the car with your whole family.
It would be so much better if there were a program for those people that gave them a piece of land in the country to where they had the option of where to stay...and I think many of them would take it up and learn sustainable living...and this country would be all the better for it.