Hacker News Reader

Comment by KingMachiavelli | Hacker News Reader

> Our farm has mainly been hay producing for fifty years

For those who don't know, Boulder has a bunch of land outside the city that is designated openspace/'farm' land. Being from the midwest I always sort of laughed at these land parcels being called 'farms' since economically it really can't be farmed outside of selling niche products at affluent farmers markets. I am glad to see that Boulder is finally letting the land be used for something more productive.

And this is a very cool idea. My family grew strawberries in eastern Colorado for a few years and one of the big problems was the extreme sun. In order to extend the growing season we used low tunnels to shield to plants from frost. However, the low tunnels during the peak summer months would act like a lens melting irrigation lines and even damaging produce.

View on HN

> Being from the midwest I always sort of laughed at these land parcels being called 'farms' since economically it really can't be farmed outside of selling niche products at affluent farmers markets

The midwest can't be economically farmed outside of being propped up by a trillion dollars in government welfare called "the farm bill." That includes paying farmers to not grow anything, and to grow food that is shipped to warehouses where it rots.

Then there's all the non-farming federal spending in those states.

Then there's all the military spending to employ all the midwest kids coming out of high school with no job prospects.

Then there's the tariffs and other trade policies to protect midwestern farm crop prices.

Then there's the mandated use of ethanol from corn in gasoline.

Then there's the price fixing on sugar which drives processed food to use corn syrup.

Also, he farm was a hay farm for fifty years goes a bit contrary to the claim about "niche products ad affluent farmers markets."

> My family grew strawberries in eastern Colorado for a few years and one of the big problems was the extreme sun. In order to extend the growing season we used low tunnels to shield to plants from frost. However, the low tunnels during the peak summer months would act like a lens melting irrigation lines and even damaging produce.

Sounds like problems more ground-coupling of the thermals would help mitigate. This guy used "Earth Tubes" in combination with partially buried and appropriately oriented greenhouses:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD_3_gsgsnk

Is it just me or is not letting the rightful owners of the land use it for the most productive (and not damaging/harmful/polluting) thing possible seem insane?

Why does Boulder get to decide whether these farmers are allowed to install solar on their own land?

The fact that they had to fight a battle and take time out of their life to obtain permission to do this (on unprofitable farmland) seems tremendously unjust.

My mind reels.

In America (land of the free) it is considered normal for all the surrounding landowners and/or voters to decide how you may use your own property. Typically you must ask permission or change local laws to use land in other-than-narrowly-prescribed ways.

Seems to me that "land of the status quo" might be a better term.

that or “land of I got mine”

Since land covenants were legally neutered in the 60s, law is sort of the only avenue people have left for trying to make sure the community they live in is the kind of place they actually want to live, and doesn't turn into a factory district or a ghetto.

You forgot about trusts. And HOAs. Also, CC&Rs are still a thing.

They exist but you can't do much with them anymore, hence why zoning is such a popular strategy.

Personally I'm rather glad my neighbor can't turn his property into an industrial hog farm.

yes but the reason is because of smells that will cross onto your property. plain tort law will allow you to seek compensation for that

There's not a single country in the world that doesn't put restrictions on what land owners can do with their land, on the basis that everywhere in the world has realised that what you do with your land affects the lives of everyone surrounding it.

You can consider that a limit on freedom, or you can consider that allowing a total free-for-all would infringe on the freedom of neighbours to enjoy their land - maximising freedom involves finding compromises that minimises the restrictions, not having none.

The “total free for all” is used as a scare tactic to justify an otherwise unjustifiable infringement on property rights.

Arguing for the us local property zoning scheme is the same as arguing for corrupt local developers to control local land use.

I'm not arguing for the us local property zoning schemes. I'm pointing out that painting giving your neighbours a say as a problem is no more of an argument for liberty than arguing for restrictive zoning.

Both significantly harm any prospect of liberty.

Because Boulderites love their open space and spend a ton of tax dollars protecting it. It makes for a very nice city.

(I was born and raised in Boulder)

I assume upthread is talking about Boulders “urban growth boundary”.

I think the most likely “free market” result of removing the restrictions would be what they call “suburban sprawl”.

There are a lot of reasons to consider suburban sprawl damaging/harmful/polluting.

There are a lot of valid critiques to be made of an arguably NIMBY policy like the urban growth boundary, but it’s more than just “farms are pretty”.

My mind reels

Then you've never lived in a place with no zoning, where someone can open a junk yard next to the home you spent 20 years saving money to buy.

You can do what you want on your land. But at the same time, you have to live in a society with neighbors. There is give-and-take.

If you want to do anything you want on your land without restriction, feel free to save your money and buy your own country with no other residents. Until then, you'll have to learn to get along with other people and understand that what you want may not always be what is best for everyone.

Yes and... I feel the "it's _my_ land" perspective is constrained by human lifespan.

There's a big difference between banning the construction of anything and letting people run a junk yard. And TBH inactive farms tend to have a lot of old junk and falling down buildings anyway.

I lived in incorporated and rural areas most my life and it was never a problem.

Plus for every law prohibiting junk yards and nuances, there are laws and HOAs actively doing harm like yard and lawn requirements.

Did you experiment at all with swapping out different materials? IE: using a thicker material to shade from the sun and then something else in the fall to hold in warmth. I’m debating doing something similar in my garden. In my area we have a lot of orchards that are now completely under sun canopies due to our extreme heat / sun.

A major modern greenhouse operation I saw recently dealt with this by spraying the exterior with some sort of chalk solution (I think). Just made the glass panels look slightly opaque. Then they'd wash it off when they needed more light through. In this case, there was generally less rain when they wanted the solar protection, so they didn't have to worry about it washing off out of schedule too often.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com