My thanks to Chris Larson on this one. (Not sure how I missed it...but it's been busy around here, because while all the heat may not do much good for you and me, it does wonders for the tomatoes).
Anyway, you can go back and read Mr. Larson's response to my last post. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Agency publishes facts and figures on foreign ownership of American farmland. The good news is that as of the end of February 2009 (the most recent period for which information has been published), foreign interests still hold slightly less than 1% of all land in the U.S.
The bad news is that the latest figure – 22.2 million acres – is almost double what it was twenty years ago. That figure represents almost 2% of privately held agricultural land in this country. The year before that, it was just under 21 million acres. Six years ago, it was 14.6 million acres – which means that since 2004, foreign ownership of American soil has grown by a whopping thirty percent. (Yes, that's an approximation, but a fairly accurate one.)
Should we be concerned?
Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, that would have depended on who your asked. A lot of ordinary folks were pretty worried about it, though the "experts" in government and academia didn't seem to think it was much of a problem. One author back in 1979 said the fears were "largely emotional:"
"Included among the emotional objections to foreign ownership of farmland are the fear of the loss of local control of rural communities, a feudal-like system of land control, a system of absentee landlords, and the demise of the family farm. While people’s fear of these assumed impacts is an important factor affecting legislation, an analysis of historic trends indicates that there is little basis for most of the fear expressed." (Lutrell, 1979)
Today, the issue seems to elicit some mixed responses. Down in the Escambia region of Alabama, foreigners own about 160,000 acres, almost half of which is forested. This was in an article published at NorthEscambia.com, a local online news source. The responses were varied, ranging from all-out xenophobic rants to attitudes of "who cares?" At least one person pointed out that Americans and American corporations own property in other countries. Another one suggested that the foreign investment in wooded land was a good thing for the American timber industry, since that industry has been having a hard time in recent years. It should be noted that that nationwide, 58% of the agricultural land owned and controlled by foreign corporation is timberland, and the majority of foreign ownership is Canadian. I'm willing to bet that there's a good amount of land in Canada that's American owned as well.
I guess the bottom line is the question of whether foreigners buying up our agricultural land is a good thing or a bad thing – or if it even makes a difference either way. Sometimes this issue gets conflated with the growing concern that almost nothing is manufactured in the U.S. anymore and the fact that other countries that are not particularly friendly hold a large amount of U.S. debt. Another issue that raises its ugly head is the use of these lands as tax havens by wealthy individuals who simply don't want to pay their fair share in their home country – or for the privilege of doing business in the U.S.A.
More on this to come...
Comments
There are various reasons that this should be concerning, and some arguments that it shouldn't.
However, what I have rarely seen hand wringing or even reporting/ discussion of in these same circles is the fact that the Federal government owns 650 million acres ( a figure that dwarfs the 22 million "foreign owned" land).
This figure includes the following startling percentages of land owned by the Federal Government out West:
1. Nevada : 84.5%
2. Alaska: 69.1%
3. Utah: 57.4%
4. Oregon: 53.1%
5. Idaho: 50.2%
6. Arizona: 48.1%
7. California: 45.3%
8. Wyoming: 42.3%
9. New Mexico: 41.8%
10. Colorado: 36.6%
This is concern gap is even more glaring when you consider:
a) states & local governments could come up with a legal means to restrict foreign ownership and more importantly, these are, generally speaking, private individuals & entities purchasing properties from other private individuals & entities who have the right to sell them their property (or not sell then their property) at a fair market price.
The sellers cannot be coerced into selling (or giving) the property. Local people, governments, and concerned organizations haves some voice or recourse if these foreign owners mistreat their neighbors, abuse the land, or otherwise act in an unacceptable fashion.
b) On the other hand the Federal government can (and has) forced individuals, private entities, and state/ local governments to sell (or give) land to the Fed Gov. There is no real option of saying "no, I'd rather keep this place".
If the Fed Gov is abusive, poor stewards, or poor neighbors -- there is no real recourse. Protest, call you congressman, sue (ha), or other long, tedious, laborious, and occasionally dangerous challenges to abuses by Federal agencies/ agents on & around Federal land are generally very costly and rarely yield favorable results.
Finally, this should be of concern for us because in the Constitution the Federal government is not granted the authority (from the people or the States) to own or "manage" (BLM, Forrest Service) land. They are allowed to own & manage a small percentage of property for military bases, government buildings, the capital. etc.
Eminent Domain allows the government to purchase private property at fair market value for very limited, clearly public purposes that benefit all the citizens (i.e. highways, water management, dams, etc).
Beyond this, shouldn't we be more concerned about the Federal government owning or controlling 650 million acres than foreign ownership of 22 million?
Farmers & other rural interest/ localist/ property advocates where you are in the Midwest and where I am in the South are rarely impacted by Federal ownership.
Out West, ranchers, farmers, timber/ mining interests, hunters & recreational users and advocacy groups for these folks focus their time and energy on obtaining favorable leases/ use permits, fighting abuses (like the timber wolf fiasco), and other "fruit" issues while we all ignore the "root" issue.
If we agree to allow the Federal government to own or "manage" land beyond what they are granted the authority to do in the Constitution they have been ceded the ability to take possession of ALL the land (Communism/ socialism) or to manage all private property while maintaining the veneer of private ownership (Facsim/ corporatism).
We should be calling for the Federal government to auction off and/ or open up homesteading again for all lands that they are not specifically granted the right to own in the Constitution