![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Replace Abandoned Buildings With Urban Farms
Walking around the city of Baltimore this weekend, it struck me once again how many abandoned and boarded up buildings there are. On certain blocks, as many as half of the buildings stand completely vacant with plywood up over the doors and windows, with stencils spray-painted about who to call in case an animal gets trapped in there…
It’s not just on the out-skirts of town either, or just in the ghettos - which are plentiful. Abandoned buildings litter downtown and populated areas which, ideally, should be thriving with activity, business and simply *life*.
Instead, land-owners sit on property waiting for some eventual payoff when biotech or whoever comes in like a magical fairy and makes everybody with a parcel of unused land even richer.
But I was thinking, what if instead of letting all these buildings sit abandoned, there was some kind of initiative to knock them over, and reclaim the land? We could grow food and other crops for trade, and even slice off a portion of the proceeds or set up some kind of tax-deductible whatzit to get landlords in on the fun.
In one swoop, you’d be able to take care of abandoned buildings, give people jobs, food and training, pump the city full of healthy locally-grown food & extra money for the community. The idea could also be easily adapted into suburban areas as housing prices continue to slide downwards along with the value of the almighty dollar. It’s worked on a small scale in places like Chicago, and Los Angeles had a thriving urban farm for a while - until it was essentially smashed by the police. Why is growing food a crime, but letting perfectly usable land go to waste not?
April 8th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Because you can’t charge property taxes on land without a registered owner. And, you would have a hard time changing the zoning rules to allow agriculture due to the effect the zoning change will have on the value of surrounding properties. That’s why you only see it being done in what are essentially abandoned sections of cities. Thanks for the Chicago link. I hadn’t heard about them.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
This recalls the South Central Farm debacle.
The farmers could use the privately-owned land, as part of a settlement, until they couldn’t. In my mind, it was a cruel thing, because they were there for years and had invested a great deal of energy in the land. But, they didn’t own it . . . so.
In any case, the owners probably thought they were doing a good thing, because they would charge anyone else rent to use their property.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Central_Farm
In the U.S., and historically speaking, probably everywhere, private property rights trump human rights.
Why?
Because the land, when in responsible hands, predictably produces wealth, whereas excess humans cause all kinds of problems.
Humans come and go; the land remains, and those who control it reap the wealth. Control is by tradition, hereditary.
The working poor are divested of land by raising property taxes during economically difficult periods.
In the U.S., the latest trick is “eminent domain,” which is politically-connected private parties using the government as a fig leaf to take the land of less-connected, or weaker private parties, although occasionally, as with a military base, the government may actually develop the land. However, private contractors get to do the building and supplying.
Additionally, the government frequently rents private property for its offices.
April 8th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
I am interested in models where, instead of waiting for some huge surge of noble grass roots efforts, you make “green” type stuff profitible. Like for example Realestate investors buying up all these abandon properties and establishing little gardening franchises. Kind of like a cross between McDonalds and an organic farm.
I am just throwing ideas out there. The idea I am after is coming up with green bussiness ideas that are actually green and actually profitible.
I am just thinking it would be nice to see the earth getting greener and greener and less dependant on fossil fuel, but I see overthrowing all hierarchy and free market capitalism as maybe a seperate goal.
April 8th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Tim! Hey, without abandoned buildings, where would the evil villains, henchmen, and the Tyler Durdens live?
Urban farming … if we could just figure out how to grow unsalted yet crunchy Lays and Doritos products (salt them later) then something might happen.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Good point!
Yeah, I’m not really talking about overthrowing anything though. I agree with your point about finding ways to make initiatives like this profitable.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:24 am
http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2005/12/09/word-origin-villain/
April 9th, 2008 at 10:53 am
No, I know you aren’t trying to overthrow anything. That was aimed more at Snorkage.
April 9th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Human rights get a lot of lip-service; less so property rights, yet the latter prevails over the former in many instances.
The reasons why, while obvious after one has asked the question to oneself in the privacy of one’s own thoughts, are rarely discussed publicly.
April 9th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
The problem with humans is that they aren’t all self actualizing.
Humans have a lot of rights they never take advantage of.
I think squatting in an abandoned building is over rated. I squatted in a park, and after the initial rush of “sticking it to the man” and not being forced to pay rent, it was kind of lonely.
In Russia as the Soviet Union was collapsing there was a lot of squatting going on. It works better in large numbers. If everyone is doing it is OK. There are lots of squatters in Cuba, too, I understand.
But bottom line is that the best squatting situation its still camping out and having less ammenities and kind of being sneaky. Putting up with decay and increasingly ugly surroundings. I doubt most squatters take as much prides in their environment as owners. If you have other squatter type people over they will mess it up faster.
April 10th, 2008 at 6:24 am
http://www.guerrillagardening.org/
April 12th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
human rights are only for groups. the individual only has things he or she needs to do to survive and laws, regulations, codes, by-laws, signs, notifications, policies, amendments and postings to tell him what to do and when to do it.
one proof of my point is that when there is a demonstration people who behave like psychotics are tolerated and herded along, whereas if an individual did the same thing on his own he would be shot.