First posted on the 'Alex's Weblog' page

Down on the Farm, on the Eastern Shore

07-12-2006 11:55:08 AM

Posted by: Alex Marshall

Farm policy in this country, or the world for that matter, is one of the most tempting things to write about, but also the most frustrating because there are so many inputs and outputs. It’s hard to write about what we grow and eat without eventually discussing environmentalism, economics, transportation and full smorgasbord of larger issues.

In my last Governing Magazine column,, I wrote about proposals to build a new Bay Bridge from Maryland over to the Eastern Shore and some of the issues that raised. But despite the huge implications such a new bridge would have for farming, which is a big industry on the Eastern Shore, I didn’t have a chance to raise any of them precisely because it is so hard to do so in small column.

I’m not going to raise them fully here, but I did want to mention one thing that didn’t see the light of day in the published column. Trent Kittleman, executive director of the Maryland Transportation Authority, told me in an interview that it made little sense to worry about the effect of a new bridge on farming because it was an industry headed downhill.

Her exact quote from my notes is: “The big thing with farming is that it is obviously a declining industry, and can’t provide the jobs that young people need to stay in the area.”

Is this really true? Is farming on the fertile tidal plains of the Eastern Shores not competitive any more? Could young people really not expect to work on farms? Another interview I did for the story, which also didn’t fit in the column, was with John E. Hall , executive director and founder of Chesapeake Fields Institute and the Chesapeake Fields Farmers Cooperative. Hall and his groups were working to keep farming competitive, in part by vertically integrating the industry by having the farmers make and sell their own products with the crops they had grown, like chips made from soybeans, special breads made from their own wheat, and specialty popcorns.

“We figured if we can keep farming profitable, it will help reduce sprawl,” Hall said. “Here, there is a real movement because people are starting to realize we’re screwing up this country, and we’re not leaving anything for our kids.”

Hall opposed a new bridge because the increased traffic, residents and land values would make it difficult for farmers to stay in farming. Pretty soon, subdivisions would be mixing with soybean fields, and no one would be happy.

So who is right, and who is actually leaving something for the kids? Kittleman, who says a new bridge would bring more jobs to young people, or Hall, who says keeping a new bridge out would help young people have a chance to stay on the farm. It’s a good question.

Categories: Transportation