This is a public-interest archive. Personal data is pseudonymized and retained under GDPR Article 89.

Re: Farmers and Conservation

Why is it ironic, they are offered a lot of money.  Are they offered equal
compensation when the land is to be preserved?  If not, why not?  I give to
TNC knowing that it sometimes takes a lot of cash to buy and protect land.

I tend to doubt any agrument where one side is labeled as evil (most
arguments these days).  It's like getting the facts about a divorce from
just one of the partners. I am sure the Farm Bureau would scream bloody
murder when developers come in too, why wouldn't they?  Either way they are
going to lose farmers.  Perhaps we don't have all the facts here?  We (not
you personally) cannot claim the Farm Bureau is acting selfishly on one
hand, but not the other.

The issue seems painfully simple, and I think you explained how simple it
can be if done correctly.  It appears that Cypress Creek was done in such a
way that people were presented with facts and could make an informed
decision.  Either this is not happening at Darby, or I just have the
misfortune of speaking to people who don't know all the facts.

mark stephens


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed and Gale" <galed@midwest.net>
To: "Prairie Group" <prairie@mallorn.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 2:14 PM
Subject: Farmers and Conservation

I find it a little ironic that farmers will sell readily to any suburban
developer and will scream bloody murder about the demise of family farms
when a refuge or park is established. If farmers really wanted to save
farmland, they shouldn't have been so greedy when the subdivision developers
and mall developers were handing out the big checks.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE PRAIRIE
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index