Archive for Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Douglas County losing its farms

February 13, 2007


Who will be the last person to operate a family farm in Douglas County? Will it be a Wulfkuhle, Flory, Leary, Ross, Pine or Pendleton? Will it simply be a case of the last man left standing, or will it be based on factors such as historical significance or quality of the land? Will it happen in your lifetime or in your children's lifetime?

To ask such questions a generation ago would have been unthinkable, but in our inexorable march to replace lands never before built upon with taupe-colored suburban housing, these questions begin to creep into possibility. The alternative to asking is to march blindly on.

My own childhood was spent in an early 1950s ranch home development in neighboring Johnson County, two generations removed from the family farm. One grandparent did well operating a feed mill. The other was in the hatchery business and barely got by. The playgrounds of my youth were after-hours construction sites and the disappearing agricultural landscape.

For years I rode my bike without realization past the two farmhouses whose owners sold the land upon which my family and others came to live. The creek where I caught crawdads and box turtles is now gone, the hedgerows gone, the tree houses gone; the abandoned pear orchard where I caught a vicious case of poison ivy a week before class pictures is gone. The Schwegler family farm on the northwest corner of 87th Street and Pflumm Road was the site of spring picnics at my grade school. The Schwegler farm is now gone and my grade school torn down. You'd be hard pressed today to explain to a modern grade schooler that Johnson County was once a prized agricultural center.

Here in Douglas County we sometimes have trouble agreeing on much, but we do know that we don't want to be like Topeka (as it relates to commercial development), and we don't want to be like Johnson County (as it relates to suburban development). The truth is we can't afford to be so smug.

Look at the subtle dishonesty of our feel-good place names. "Quail Run" should be "Where Quail Used to Run"; "Orchard Lane" should be "Where the Orchard Used to Be." Now we're seeing residential developments with the word "farm" in them, but the farm is no longer there.

Much as we designate certain lands for industrial purposes, should we also designate other lands for agricultural, in perpetuity, no residential development allowed? Certainly some farmland is more productive than others, but who makes that call? Our community will be richer if many criteria are factored into the equation, and poorer if left only to the cost analysis of the developer.

The Meairs farmstead, for instance, established on the banks of the Wakarusa in 1854, is thought to be the oldest farm continually operated by one family in the state. There are other family farms that, under other criteria, would be similarly compelling. At what point does eliminating prime agricultural land for mediocre suburban housing become like trading the golden goose for a handful of magic beans?

In the '80s and '90s, Lawrence was cutting edge with the development of upscale housing built around golf courses. While golf course residential development centered on the leisure theme of those times, our catch words today, in an era when even President Bush has to admit that global warming is real, are words like "sustainability" and "sense of place." Should we build residential "smartcode" developments around working farms instead of golf courses? Could those neighbors be walking to the vegetable stand just down the road instead of harvesting errant golf balls that have found their way into the backyard? Planning for the preservation of prime agricultural land is what our community should be thinking about if we don't want to "lose the farm."

- Dennis J. Brown has owned and operated a small family business in Lawrence since 1978.


just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 10 years, 10 months ago

"Save the dirt! Hell, with the people."

More reflective of what's actually happening-- to hell with the dirt, along with the people it used to feed.

snowWI 10 years, 10 months ago

I have observed first-hand the dramatic changes on the landscape in both Douglas and Johnson counties myself. I am old enough to remember when most of Olathe was covered in farms with corn and soybeans being the primary crops. However, with the emergence of the interstate highway system more rural areas that had been remote were more accesible. Some of the demographic trends in Johnson County are quite troubling as well. For instance, Gardner, Edgerton, De Soto, and Olathe all have around 30% of the total population under the age of 18. This is an extremely high percentage even for a rapidly growing suburban area. These areas are also known as being quite conservative for the most part as well. In Douglas County I have seen the rapid development of housing along "transportation routes" and other areas that are easily accesible for the "commuter" Overall, the population growth of Douglas County is much slower with a much lower percentages of the total population under the age of 18 and under the age of 5.

snowWI 10 years, 10 months ago

The interesting thing is that a lot of the suburban housing was built in the 1960s and 1970s. A lot of these neighborhoods were located close to the outer highway (I-435). Years later, the outer belt highway keeps getting more and more packed and the once quiet neighborhoods near the highway become increasingly inundated with noise even with all the sound barrier walls they put up.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.