Should land bought for conservation be leased to farmers?
The San Juan County Land Bank buys land to preserve it. In June and July 2021, 404 people voted in a conversation about how it should look after its land, including whether it should lease fields to farmers.
A public Polis conversation in the San Juan Islands, Washington
From a public Polis conversation in the San Juan Islands, Washington, June 2021 to August 2021: “JOIN THE DISCUSSION BELOW: Land use and conservation in the San Juan Islands”. People wrote statements and voted agree, disagree or pass on each other’s. These rows are the statements most voters agreed with, the ones that split voters most evenly, and the ones the fewest agreed with, out of 178 that at least 15 people voted on. Statements about the voters themselves, insults and unchecked factual claims are left out. Passes are not counted.
Allowing commercial farmers to lease Land Bank property creates an unfair subsidy that undermines the sustainability of the larger community of farmers.
Polis sorts voters into opinion groups by how they voted across the whole conversation. This one found 2: Group A (264 voters) and Group B (91 voters). These are the statements every group was most likely to agree with, ranked the way Polis ranks common ground: the chance of agreeing in each group, multiplied together. Under them is the statement the groups were furthest apart on.
The Land Bank should operate with transparency.
Group A124 agreed, 1 disagreed (99%)
Group B68 agreed, 1 disagreed (99%)
Thoughtfully structured access to Land Bank lands is compatible with preserving the natural habitat.
Group A30 agreed, 1 disagreed (97%)
Group B29 agreed, 1 disagreed (97%)
The Land Bank should always take into consideration care/maintenance of wetlands and soils.
Group A170 agreed, 2 disagreed (99%)
Group B63 agreed, 10 disagreed (86%)
Where they split
The Land Bank does an excellent job of managing its properties
Written for the hearth so this question has a whole card on each side to argue with. No visitor wrote them, so the two parts only a person can fill are empty: what happened to you, and who on the other side called the case against fair.
Yes
Where this card stands
Yes, on terms that protect the soil and water. Farmland that stays farmed keeps working farms and local food on the island, and the lease pays for upkeep.
How sure, before and after the case against
The strongest case against it
Leasing public land cheaply to a few farmers subsidises them over every other farmer in the county, and conservation money ends up underwriting a business.
What would change this card’s mind
If the leases were priced well below what comparable private land rents for.
No. Land bought for conservation should be managed for habitat and public access. Farming it is a different mission, with different winners.
How sure, before and after the case against
The strongest case against it
Fields left unfarmed don’t turn back into native habitat on their own. Without grazing or crops many fill with weeds and brush that support less wildlife.
What would change this card’s mind
If restored former farmland held fewer native species than nearby land still farmed under conservation rules.
“Argue with this card” opens the card on the front page with this card’s position as the case against you. You write where you stand and what would change your mind.