Preserving farmland isn’t just saying ‘no’

As the argument continues on whether the installation of solar arrays on Worcester County farmland is in the best interest of the general population, the point that is being overlooked is that agricultural property in this county is not communally owned.

It’s private land and county residents have no standing to insist on how it should or should not be used, and that includes whether it is preserved, returned to wilderness or chopped up into a dozen mini-golf courses.

If it’s not next door, or just down the road, it’s not their concern … unless residents from one end of the county to the other and county government itself are willing to make it their business by pitching in to save open fields from development by saving the farmer who owns them.

That is the essence of the problem. If a farmer can’t make it financially by keeping a tract under the plow, or is done with a lifetime of working sunup to sundown, or the kids have no interest in following the family tradition, what alternatives are available to the landowner who needs a source of income?

According to the publication, Agriculture Dive, the Department of Agriculture estimates that farm sector net income will decline by about 25 percent this year, largely because of higher production costs.

In addition, farmers across the country are up against the wall as they wait … and wait … for Congress to pass a new farm bill, which may not come in time for many of them, “Farm Progress” reported last week.

Most people would agree that open farmland is far more preferable than a vast tract covered in reflective glass. But instead of telling these property owners what they can’t do,  county officials and interested residents need to offer some solutions that will protect the land from development in general, and they must do it by protecting the interests of the owners who are dependent on it for income.