Urban agriculture: weighing the pros and cons

Photo by Michael Klassen

Heavy subsidies for urban agriculture in the long run will do more harm than good

By Mike Klassen
City Caucus
Aug. 29, 2010

Excerpt:

I’ve listened to the arguments, I’ve watched Food Inc. a couple of times, and my thumb couldn’t get much greener than it currently is. However, I’m not convinced by arguments put forward by the eat local movement that we must invest more land, time and financial resources into urban agriculture. This is not to suggest that I think we should eradicate community garden programs, but that we fully consider the costs of “being green” and weigh them against other city priorities.

The Vancouver Park Board has an exhaustive set of guidelines surrounding community gardens that undoubtedly were hammered out after much consideration. These guidelines require that the gardens be built at the request of a local community, and that the gardens have a base of local support from nearby residents, and that the cost of operating the garden is maintained by that community.

That last point is an important one, because if we attach too high a price to the garden boxes then the public subsidy toward making outweighs the net benefit. In Vancouver we’ve experienced the phenomenon of $350 tomato plants by altering the zoning of private commercial land, albeit temporarily, into public park land.

While it might make some people feel good to see flowers and beets rising up in an empty lot, and non-profit groups who receive further grants to employ coordinators, these projects are built upon the backs of taxpayers who might have other priorities.

See the complete story here.