Agritourism Ordinance RevisitedBy James Goche' The Thurston County Commissioners have been patting themselves on the back for their adoption in April of an ordinance which they have labeled "agritourism". Commissioner Sandra Romero recently wrote an article for the South Sound Green Pages (Summer 2012 issue) saying that the ordinance was the result of collaborative work by local farmers and others and suggesting that the new law is now receiving broad public support. A review of the ordinance and its development however paints a different picture. The ordinance began as a well-intentioned idea to help promote economic development in south Thurston County but during its two year development, grew into a draft full of vague definitions and discriminatory provisions. When the measure received its one hearing before the County Commission, local farmers and farm organizations asked for changes in the language. Specifically, they requested that the ordinance include small acreage farming (farms smaller than the specified 10 acre limit), non-commercial agriculture (for example, farms which raise food for the Thurston County Food Bank), and most importantly, that the ordinance apply county-wide so all farmers would be treated fairly. Rather than listening to these constructive requests, the Commission refused to consider any amendments and expedited the adoption of the ordinance. Now, despite its fancy title, the ordinance is now little more than a waiver for some of the many regulations and increased fees which the County has been adopting - provisions which make it difficult for farmers to grow crops and provide fresh local food to the public while they are trying to support their families and pay their bills. The ordinance also discriminates among farmers by offering its benefits to only a select group of rural landowners who the County Commissioners included in the two 'overlay districts'. These districts, in parts of south county and Nisqually, exclude much of the county's agriculture and scenic areas, many farms and u-pick operations which presently draw visitors to rural areas (i.e. real agritourism), and many of the farms on the Thurston County Farm Map. As a result, the county now treats farmers, neighbors, and property owners differently for no clear reason. It allows one farmer (in the overlay district) to construct necessary facilities without obtaining certain permits or paying fees but requires the farmer across the road (outside the district) to spend thousands of dollars in fees, apply for a variance, and then go through an appeals process which may or may not result in a permit for constructing the same facility. Farmers have protested this unfair treatment and picketed the County's hastily organized "agritourism summit" in June. The Thurston County Farm Bureau has written to the Commissioners asking them to rescind and rework the ordinance so that it treats all farmers fairly and applies its economic development benefits to all of Thurston County. The Commissioners have refused, saying that they will not consider reopening the ordinance for 18-24 months. Questions have also been raised about the circumstances under which this ordinance was developed and how the 'overlay districts' boundaries were drawn. The "Agritourism Planning Committee" which Commissioner Romero has presided over for the past two years, has no established members, no written goals or procedures, and no published minutes. The majority of participation appears to have been by county staff and organizations which are funded by the County. Farmers who have attended some of meeting have not returned, saying that that they were cut off and not listened to when they attempted to discuss their needs. It should be added that now that the public is starting to better understand what the "agritourism ordinance" is, rural landowners who the County excluded from the 'overlay districts' are coming forward and asking to be let in. In response, Commissioner Romero recently announced that the County (despite its stated 18-24 month moratorium) would adjust the boundaries to include more parcels but when asked what criteria would be used for this, she was not able to say. And when Commissioner Romero was again asked to move the Commission to abolish the 'overlay districts' entirely and apply the benefits of the ordinance county-wide, her answer was 'no'. The County's "agritourism ordinance" therefore is a good reminder that we should judge neither a book nor an ordinance by its cover but rather understand what it says and does. This is especially true for regulations which affect our ability to grow food locally and feed ourselves. The increasingly uncertain world that we live in gives us good reason to work together to support agricultural innovation and entrepreneurialism and sustainable local food production. This means questioning authority and insisting that policy-makers develop reasonable regulations which encourage farmers to work the land and obtain a reasonable return on their investment. It also means getting beyond name-calling and ideology and looking at the issues that we all have in common. The good news is that fresh wholesome food is an interest that we all have in common. Local agriculture is a fundamental community resource and the wonderful things that it produces feed our children and sustain our families. At the beginning of the 21st century we are relearning the lessons of the 19th as we rediscover the joys of fresh food and return to the land as farmers and gardeners. But if we are to keep this ball rolling, our government officials must do a better job of listening to and working with us. Regulations with fancy titles but vague and discriminatory provisions take us in the opposite direction. We deserve better. Jim Goche' has been restoring a century-old farm north of Olympia and reorganizing it as a family-run small acreage operation. The farm also hosts a Kiwanis garden project site and produces fresh food for the Thurston County Food Bank. Goche' has a background in law, legislation, and local government.
Back to Home page. |
