Currents

Sometimes it's hard not to be carried away by strong currents. Two of the the strongest local currents around here, unaffordable housing and an unforgiving employment market, are presently threatening to sweep my husband and I away. How so? We learned about a week ago that the owner of our rental house needs to sell. Our lease is up soon anyway, so, although we don't relish the idea of finding other housing, we were at least somewhat mentally prepared to conduct another housing search soon. As it turns out, we only have about a month to find another place and get ourselves moved. No, the owner hasn't sold the place already. It's not listed yet. But I learned that, as tenants, we will very soon be expected to have work crews in the house at all hours, will have to keep the place extremely clean on a DAILY basis, so that it can be shown at any time, and that we'll have to keep our house rabbit, who currently enjoys the better part of a room to herself, confined to her cage for days at a time, so that she doesn't "disrupt" the staging of the house. We will not be compensated in any way for our trouble, however. It's just the way it goes.

In all candor, I think that sucks. In three days I'll resume what is, to me, a very stressful job, whose most demanding season falls between late September and early December. If last year was any indication, my evenings will soon be comprised of me hiding out, choosing not to answer the phone, and trying hard to insulate myself from the world. I'm an introvert who happens to work with very demanding, needy people who are frequently in some throes of a crisis. I don't begrudge my clients their difficulties. Not at all. I just happen to really need a lot of downtime in order to recover from being in an intense, people-centered mode for most of the day. My husband is in a similar situation, only he has to talk to people about money, so, his conversations are arguably even more intense than mine.

There is absolutely no way that either of us will be able to devote time every day to making the house spotless for potential buyers. It's not going to happen. I also don't have time during my day to check my home voice mail for messages from real estate agents wishing to show the house. Finally, I don't really need to have people rifling through my (admittedly rented) closets and drawers. As tenants we have very few rights in this matter. Given our limited power we have both decided to just move as soon as we can to avoid as much of this chaos as possible.

Unfortunately, finding housing in a college town with one of the few remaining inflated real estate markets is truly challenging. Since we can't afford to buy anything we'll be competing with students for a roof over our heads. Rental properties around here are, by and large, poorly maintained, dismal structures that seldom allow pets and not infrequently involve weekend telephone calls to the police. We were very fortunate to find this place and don't kid ourselves that we'll find anything else as nice that we can afford. To be brutally honest, I nearly end up in tears every time I think about this housing current that keeps us in a very uncomfortable (metaphorical and often literal) place.

I should mention that both my husband and I have "good" jobs. We work in higher education. But our combined salaries are not enough for us to own a home and rents on properties that are barely decent are on the rise. We've been trying to leave the area for more than a year now, but nothing ever seems to pan out. We're stuck. It sucks.

I can't help but feel that if we had a local community land trust in our area, and if the real estate were owned by people who actually intended to make their homes here (instead of speculating with the property), we might have a shot at staying here and making a life for ourselves. As it is, that is unlikely to happen. And frankly, not having a stable home life is tearing both of us up inside. We're one part of the ugly side of speculation. What about people who don't have jobs that even come close to paying a living wage? Imagine what our truly poor neighbors are up against. No one should have to struggle to keep a safe, reasonable roof over their heads. It's shameful.

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to put both of my blogs on hiatus until we can sort out our living situation. I'll be back when I can be.

Loosen MSG's Hazardous Hold By Eating Local

Photo by gardngrl

MSG. Most of us are already aware that the stuff isn't good for us. Few of us are probably fully aware of just how health-damaging it really is, though. MSG is a popular food additive, used to enhance or improve the flavor of a food. But glutamate is also a neurotransmitter. MSG is classified as an "excitotoxin" because it excites the glutamate neurotransmitters in the brain into electrical and cellular activity, much of which is destructive (see http://www.smart-drugs.net/ias-excitotoxins.htm for a much more detailed explanation). It is believed that glutamate (mono-sodium and others) and aspartate (found in some artificial sweeteners) are behind numerous chronic neurodegenerative diseases.

Unfortunately, mammals don't just have glutamate receptors in our brains. We have them in every major system of our bodies, including the cardiac, endocrine, and digestive systems. Excitotoxicity from glutamate has been linked to infertility, cancer, diabetes (especially in children), obesity, fatal and near fatal heart arrhythmia, migraines, and a host of other serious illnesses that plague modern societies. Our bodies are wired to respond to MSG, and we suffer for it.

Most of us would like to avoid consuming MSG, but how many of us know where to look for it? Each of us can begin by looking at our supermarkets. The shelves are literally stacked with MSG-filled foods. It permeates the processed food supply. The next time you're doing your grocery shopping scan the labels on your favorite foods and see if you read any of the following ingredients: hydrolyzed vegetable protein, gelatin, yeast extract or autolyzed yeast extract, malted barley, rice syrup, or brown rice syrup. All of these ingredients contain MSG. Many labels come right out and list MSG as an ingredient, which is helpful. For those that do not, the odds are good that most processed foods will contain one of the aforementioned ingredients.

Once you've taken a closer look at your pantry or at the grocery store shelves, try not to panic. MSG, as well as a number of other commodities-based food additives are ubiquitous by design (more on that in an upcoming post) and they go hand-in-hand with processed food. And it makes sense. Food that has been highly processed seldom retains the same flavors, colors or textures as its unrefined counterparts. It's meant to last, often for a very long time. It's meant to be shipped around the globe. So the food industry tries to fortify the food with vitamins, minerals and agents intended to make this less-perishable food more palatable. And is it ever! We love MSG. On a molecular level, the excitotoxins in MSG create pleasure while exacting their physiological toll. If these foods didn't taste at least pretty good we would have stopped buying them a long time ago. Instead, we fill our carts with processed foods at unprecedented levels. And we're paying the price in preventable chronic illness and premature death.

In order to free ourselves from the grip of MSG we are going to have to reacquaint ourselves with fresh foods. Most likely a lot of the fresh foods we'll need to begin eating will be best procured locally. Why? Fruits, vegetables and meats procured from sources thousands of miles away aren't going to taste very good by the time they reach us. They also aren't going to have retained a lot of their beneficial nutrients. The fact is, locally-raised, minimally processed foods are extremely unlikely to contain MSG in any of its forms. And if you're not sure about everything that goes into the making of the product, with local foods you're likely to have the opportunity to ask someone about the food who actually knows the answer. Highly processed foods, on the other hand, often pass through so many different hands before they reach you that it's nearly impossible to trace the ingredients' origins. Ask yourself the following questions. Which food supply is more secure? Which is least likely to undermine my health? With local foods we have the opportunity to improve our health by steering clear of MSG and other harmful additives.

"Ultimately, Our Problem is Consumption..."

"Sustainability." The term used to mean what it implies: balanced stewardship of resources whereby materials are procured in ways that enable their availability in perpetuity. Truly sustainably managed resources are never taken at a rate greater than replacement. This is what ensures long-term viability. Sustainability. Yet this term has been co-opted by marketing and all manner of industry because corporations know that people, when given the choice, very often want to do the right thing. And they're willing to pay for it. So the great corporate-sponsored greenwash is unleashed, and a lot of people, to0 busy with their own hectic lives, fail to notice the lack of substance, and the very unsustainable practices behind the hype. Shame on them. And shame on us.

While I don't intend to discuss sustainable consumer goods in this post, I do think it's important to pause and think about the meaning of sustainability. Why? Because even a locally-produced, sustainably-managed product won't make the world a better place if we--and by "we" I'm referring to citizens of industrialized countries--don't bring our consumption in line with total available resources. As Eamon O'Hara recently wrote in a BBC News post, "The modern Western lifestyle...has an inbuilt dependency on the cheap resources and low carbon footprint of developing countries, which has compounded global injustice...The world simply does not have the resources, renewable or otherwise, to sustain Western lifestyles across the globe." In the aggregate, our consumption is creating misery, injustice and global instability, as well as environmental devastation. This is a huge problem, and we, the ones using up more than our share, have to be the ones to begin solving it.

One way for industrialized societies to begin to address their global footprint (carbon, political, human suffering, etc.) is to begin relocalizing their economies and learning to live with what's available around them. Now, obviously, this would not be a simple undertaking, even if you do happen to live in a beautiful place with many wonderful natural resources close at hand. Not only do many people live in places that are just completely unable to support the population (Arizona comes to mind), but the poorest of the world's poor, the people's whose resources we're exploiting, have also become dependent on a system we've imposed upon them. Simply removing that system won't necessarily help them and will likely even hurt them in the short-run. It's a daunting and massive undertaking that is bound to spawn greater suffering, whether perceived (Westerners learning to live much more simply) or real (poor countries losing foreign investment dollars). But what other ethical choice is there? In the short-run we're destroying the future potential of the world's poor. The long-run? Well, the long-run looks a lot like our poor behavior catching up with us. Fast. Shall we be proactive or reactive? Shall we do the right thing now or wait for our collective debts to come due?

There are organizations around the world doing the work of re-introducing displaced peoples to lands and practices that used to comprise their ways of life, before empire and corporate multinationalism moved in. Heifer International (www.heifer.org) is one organization addressing ways to relocalize food security on nearly every corner of the globe. We, too, are displaced, in many senses. The multitudinous skills of our ancestors have been replaced by service and expert economies in which most of us really only hone one skill and have to pay someone else to perform the other services we need to live. Trying to re-learn all of these skills may not be possible, but we can re-learn how to produce food, building materials and clothing, for a start. Food, shelter and clothing. That's more than a lot of the world's people have. And, collectively, I'm confident that a community can re-learn a whole lot more than just the basics. We'll just have to get comfortable with sharing what we know.

Prodigal Blogger

Photo by Kate Downing

I have something to confess. This summer I'm struggling to find my way. This is true professionally, personally, and it's certainly true of my relationship to this blog. The reasons I started this blog are legion, but I do believe I was guided by my own passionate belief in the transformational power of relocalization. I am an earnest person with solid convictions and I believe--almost above all else--that most of us are going to need to fix our gazes and focus our efforts on our immediate surroundings if we're going to thrive. It was my intention to create a mostly upbeat space to promote relocalization by fostering discussion and providing real life examples, as well as counter-examples, of what a local focus has to offer. I also hoped to educate others, as well as myself, about the complexities of our current situation.

But I now think that I have to admit to something else. I started this blog because I feel profoundly disconnected from most of the people around me, and I believe it's difficult to begin discussions of relocalization with others. I'm an introvert. I may be able to hold my own in one-on-one conversations, but I still feel awkward. Group discussions are even more challenging. So, for someone like me to begin asking other people to think about how much their quality of life might improve if Wal-Mart folded, if we looked to ourselves and our neighbors for a lot of the products and services we currently buy, and if we ate only what was in season and locally or regionally available, is, well, a really tough assignment. In this country, people like their choices to be nearly infinite. We expect it. But as good as it feels (temporarily) to get what we want when we want it, the psychological as well as cultural and environmental consequences of such entitlement are real and damaging. I guess I have the hope that through this blog I can connect with a few kindred spirits out there, but also contribute in some small way to cultural healing.

This is a tall order. Perhaps it would be easier and feel better for me to carry out this work if other aspects of my life were in better order. I recently had the privilege and delight of marrying the person with whom I want to spend the rest of my days. My relationship provides a supportive foundation where much else is shaky. It is a gift for which I am most grateful. But like everyone else, I have a lot of struggles with which to contend: health, family, and the depression that comes with work that is an un-fulfilling necessity. Most days I would trade a kidney for a stable, affordable living situation. Like most people, I am struggling so much with getting by when I'd much rather be going about the business of living. Modestly and happily. Building community and creating thriving local economies. But I can't do it alone. And right now, a few months into this blog experiment, that's how I feel. Alone.

I want to continue to build this blog and to fill it with ideas. I want to share it with you and I hope you'll share something of yourselves and your ideas in return. The Prodigal Blogger is limping along, but she's back.

Local Bounty, Forgotten Harvest

Earlier today I went for a walk into the hills south of my house. In addition to my comfortable walking shoes I was armed with one of my cameras and a sharp eye, intent on capturing some images for my daily photo blog. With my senses tuned to notice some of the details that I ordinarily filter out, I wanted to see and document my surroundings. What I saw, over and over again, was an incredible bounty. Beautiful, ripened fruit hung from trees all around me. More than half of the properties I passed had trees bearing some kind of orchard fruits, many of them cherry and apple, some of them pear. With so much fruit ready to be picked and enjoyed I wondered for a moment why nobody seemed to be harvesting from their own trees. Why would a person waste what's free and easily accessible? Then I remembered that as a group, humans-- particularly those in "developed" countries--choose what must be purchased over what is plentiful, and they do it frequently. We squander. Why?

Is it that we're used to the presence of bounty and so it has long since failed to merit our attentiveness? I believe this is part of the reason. I can't imagine that humans living through subsistence in a less forgiving climate would allow ripe, edible and delicious food to go to waste. But in this country, where the majority of us buy our food from grocery stores--buildings that house and categorize a remarkable number of ostensibly "edible" options from around the globe--we fail to see the local bounty all around us.

I believe, too, that we've become so pressed for time that we prioritize exchanging hard-earned currency for cherries picked, washed and packaged by the hands of another over spending a couple of hours twice a week for a month or so to pick the cherries growing in our yards. It's much more expedient, after all. I know this is how it is for many of us. I see this as a problem. And not just because it wastes food. But I'm only covering the scope of things related to our forgotten harvest today, so I will let the time issue lie for now.

Additionally, there is the problem of harvesting equipment. Most of us with orchard fruit trees of any maturity are going to need ladders in order to harvest the fruit. Do you have a ladder? I'm a renter and not a homeowner, and I don't have a ladder. I know a few homeowners in the area who are also without ladders. We're all hard-pressed to gather the fruit without a little something to stand on. But how many of us know our neighbors or someone who would lend us a ladder? Do you see where I'm going with this? The logistics of harvesting fruit from trees becomes complicated rather quickly. I think that we've witnessed some fundamental cultural shifts in the last several decades that have put us into this predicament. I have to imagine that the original property owners who planted all of these trees did so for more than ornamental purposes. They must have done so with the realization that they would need ladders. And while ladders are commonly owned by homeowners, I imagine that a few decades back more people knew their neighbors and could depend on them for the use of equipment from time to time.

I also assume that earlier generations of folks were much more accustomed to the physical labor required to pick. There is ample evidence that as we continue to invent and acquire labor-saving devices, as more and more of our paid work takes place from a seated position or within a narrow range of motion, we're all becoming more physically dysfunctional. Muscles and joints that, in our grandmothers and grandfathers, were sufficiently developed through a wide range of physical activities, are, in us, losing functionality and leaving us very susceptible to chronic pain and injury. A dear friend of mine recently spent about 3 hours picking berries in her yard and her back bothered her for almost a week afterwards. I should also point out that this friend would be widely regarded as "fit" and "active.

It's this person's opinion that we've misplaced an awful lot of priorities in recent decades. In this state, where hunger coexists with ridiculous excess, we're wasting what I would estimate to be tens of thousands of pounds of fresh, edible, and in many cases organic food, growing in people's yards. And those of us that would like to change this find no shortage of obstacles in our paths. I recently moved into a rental house that has two giant cherry trees, now burdened with lots of ripe fruit. Because I can't find a ladder to use I am left to watch, helplessly, as the fruit drops to the ground and rots. We need neighborhood equipment exchanges. We need willing and healthy bodies. We need to care about and invest in our local food security. We need to find the time to feed our neighbors and ourselves. Anybody got any bright ideas?

Re-localization: An Answer to The End of Suburban Sprawl

Ah, the suburbs. Safe, quiet, green. Every American's dream, right? A soothing retreat from the workaday world. A place to proudly inhabit one's home/castle. A gentle setting for raising one's kids. The impulse that drove the development of the suburbs seems reasonable or at least easy to understand. But the fact remains that suburban America was built on numerous unhealthy, un-neighborly and unsustainable assumptions. Kids who live in suburban housing developments--many of which do not even have sidewalks--cannot safely bike or walk places and so must be driven instead. Often housing is located at a distance too remote to other daily necessities for it to be practical to do anything other than drive. Indirectly the development of suburbs has led to disconnected children with poor fitness. Likewise, the tendency for suburban families to inhabit their cars when they are not inhabiting their homes means that they miss opportunities to connect with neighbors and others who live nearby. Finally, the car culture that is fostered in suburban settings contributes to pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, road congestion, auto fatalities (there are more people on the road, right?) and numerous other negative, unintended consequences.

If you believe that we've reached Peak Oil on this planet--and there is a lot of scientific/geologic evidence out there suggesting that we have--then you have to imagine that systems dependent on petroleum are going to eventually break down. Suburban development has been made possible by access to cheap and apparently limitless fossil fuel energy. We wouldn't, after all, consider commuting 30 or 40 miles each day if gasoline was $15.00/gallon. We wouldn't consider building 2,500+ square foot homes if it cost us at least as much in dollars each month to heat them. Folks, the fact is, life in the suburbs cannot be sustained. Biofuels--which, by the way, have to be grown and therefore displace food production--can't fill our gas tanks, keep our computers running, heat our homes and power our lights. Why do we assume limitlessness when our resources are finite? We need to re-group and re-localize. And we need to do it now.

An interesting essay linking the current housing crisis and peak oil can be found at: http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2007/06/peak-suburbia.html

I need to devote more time and attention to generating ideas that support local developments and local economies. One way that I do that is with this blog. I hope some of you will share your ideas on ways to embrace re-localization as an answer to our very fragile and unsustainable way of life. For other ideas you might visit: http://lawnstogardens.com.

As one nearby neighborhood sign noted: "We're All In This Together."

Reasons to Support Your Local Musicians

Okay. It's been a long day. And, yes, these photos of a band that hasn't existed in more than a decade are rather old. What can I say? My stock of music photography is rather meager.

A few weeks ago my friend Rob pointed me to a fun site listing 13 reasons to support local bands. The site is http://ohms.nu/localmusic.htm. I used to be a big supporter of local music, back when I used to go out more. I have to figure out how to keep supporting (and enjoying) local music, without staying out too late and regretting it later (can I help it if I need a minimum of 8 hours of shut-eye?).

I hope you'll visit the site. Better yet, I hope you'll go see a band in your area. Support your local artists. As Suff is quick to point out, local music is a "much better value."

Local Interrupts the Tyranny of the Monoculture

Why is local (insert just about anything here) better? Today I will let Michael Pollan, New York Times Magazine writer and journalist, supply a response.

“Here, then, is a whole other meaning of the word monoculture. Like the agricultural practice that goes by that name, this one too—the monoculture of global taste—is about uniformity and control. Indeed, the monocultures of the field and the monocultures of our global economy nourish each other in crucial ways. The two are complexly intertwined expressions of the same Apollonian desire, our impulse, I mean, to elevate the universal over the particular or local, the abstract over the concrete, the ideal over the real, the made over the natural.” from The Botany of Desire, pg 228.

Rather than appease us with the illusion of control, as a monoculture does, a locally-oriented consumption actually affords more direct personal control. In a localized economy my continued consumption is important to a producer. My feedback and suggestions (and complaints) are much more likely to be heeded. If you, as a reader of this blog, can find no other reason to consider going local, please consider the implication of the privileging monocultures over your own culture.

Friday Local Photo

I offer no real content today. Just a photo, and an exclamation of joy at the turning point today represents. After 5 p.m. PST my lighter summer work schedule begins. And what does this mean (apart from less time spent at a desk)? More time spent up to my elbows in garden soil. Cha!

Local Education for Local Jobs

Photo by gardngrl

Many of us make much ado about the role and value of higher education. Is its primary purpose to shape well-rounded citizens or is it vocational training? Does higher education teach people how to think critically or does it simply offer a credential? Is it worthwhile for states to invest in higher education? It's this last question that has me thinking today. I don't actually know the answer, but, in all candor, I fear that it may be "rarely."

The argument touted by higher education representatives (of which I am one) and policymakers alike is that a baccalaureate degree confers greater earning potential on its recipients than a high school education alone. Studies of this hypothesis seem to support that, in general, this is true. There are still plenty of people for whom the degree will not make an appreciable difference in earning power, and, recent studies have even shown that the earnings gap between degree-holders and high school graduates is narrowing. But the point is, if there are still any benefits to be had from four-to-six years of post-secondary study, they are supposed to be largely economic.

Where I don't see enough analysis is in the effect of specific career outcomes on the places that subsidized the gaining of the credential. If a state provides financial support and subsidies to its state schools it is presumably with the hope that many students will stay and contribute to the state's economy. But if my own state is at all representative, I worry that this is not happening.

This morning I sorted through a pile of accumulated departmental and institutional documents that were cluttering my desk. In the pile was a Guide to Employers from the most recent student Career Fair. I noticed a disturbing, but not surprising, pattern when I began to peruse the document: the vast majority of employers represented at the fair were national or multinational enterprises. Just 14% (or 12 of the 82) employers represented had any local connection, and most of them were school districts and governmental agencies. This university's career center actively encouraged students to seek employment with distant employers.

Am I the only one to see this as a problem? Although there is a system-wide problem in this country of too few small and local businesses and too many big box and chain employers, there are still thousands of local employers in this state. Why weren't they represented? Are they simply not hiring? Was the vendor fee too high? Is anyone paying attention? If our tax dollars are going to the support of higher education, why are we sending our best and brightest away? They could be applying their problem solving skills to local issues and responding to local needs. Instead we're foisting these students on global financial advising firms, national staffing agencies and insurance underwriters. Is this flagship university all about the short-term financial gain of tuition dollars or does it have an interest in the local community and the state more generally?

I'm well aware that, philosophically speaking, college is intended to broaden, rather than to circumscribe one's view of the world. For that reason it's a challenge to argue for entirely localizing departmental curricula. Nevertheless, I suspect there are countless overlooked opportunities to apply classroom learning in the interest of addressing local problems. Why don't more majors have service learning components, for instance? Asking each student to devote four credit hours of time and energy toward community objectives seems like a very reasonable request. The community benefits from student and institutional efforts. What's more, perhaps a few students will make connections that will lead them to jobs right here.

If we're going to come up with local solutions to local problems, we're going to have to create the infrastructure to make such a reality possible. To avoid doing so is folly.

Local Resource Networks

Photo by gardngrl

It has been some time since I’ve written anything substantive for this blog. I’ll admit that I’ve been waiting for more reader comments, since they are frequently excellent sources of additional data that gets me thinking and helps me generate more content for more posts. Unfortunately things have been pretty quiet on the reader comment front for a few weeks and so I’m back to scratching my head and searching for content that will inform and interest all of you.

I’m happy to report that I have a few ideas marinating, but each of them will require me to do some research, and right now I simply don’t have the time. So, given the constraints of my personal and professional life I’d like to write today about Local Resource Networks (LRNs). What are they, you ask? LRNs are generally not-for-profit enterprises whose sole purpose it is to facilitate and encourage the development and patronage of local businesses and organizations. One example of an LRN can be viewed at http://www.heliosnetwork.org/. This particular LRN happens to be truly local to me, as I’m a resident of Lane County. There are other LRNs in other locales, however, and this is a good thing. It would be even better if there were LRNs in, let’s say, every town with a population of at least 10,000 people. Why? Well, let’s take a look at some of the things that LRNs can do for a community.

~ LRNs can, with citizen input, develop local measures that can be used to assess needs and develop responsive programs.

~LRNs can develop surveys and studies to help a community learn more about the unique strengths and liabilities of a place.

~LRNs can serve as networks that link people in search of services to local service providers.

~LRNs can provide matching grants to encourage the growth and development of local enterprises that meet local needs.

~LRNs can promote and facilitate discussion about local needs and initiatives.

~LRNs can provide and promote locally-responsive educational opportunities for community members.

This list is far from exhaustive, but it covers many of the more vital functions of an LRN. In the absence of an LRN, a town or city is likely to be without a means of locally-based networking. In developed nations most of us learn about products and services, and even community events, from viewing television advertisements or from reading our local papers. In most cases, only those companies and institutions with advertising budgets (ie large and frequently not local) are likely to reach us through these channels. This is why, in my opinion, many places need an LRN. Serving the specific needs of a specific locality, LRNs facilitate the much needed linkages between community, services and industry.

I’m very interested in developing a list of LRNs in the U.S. If any of you readers from outside the Lane County region have an LRN to add to the list, please do. I’d love to hear from you.

A fantastic Friday to all!

Local Economies = Fewer Choices = Greater Peace of Mind?

I stumbled across this video recently http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/93
and it has led me to think about the effect the global marketplace has had on our collective psyches. Consumerist culture in a global marketplace certainly affords the greatest number of product choices. Conversely, a localized economy, it's many benefits aside, would almost certainly circumscribe one's ability to "shop around." But while the prospect of losing many consumer choices as a result of localizing economies and production may sound painful, psychologist Barry Schwartz would argue that such a loss might ultimately be to our psychological benefit.

The video's run time is about 20 minutes. I hope others will take the time to view it and to begin to think about how product choice (among other choices) impacts your own life.

Sourcing Your Food

Photo by gardngrl

Although my friend created a link to this article in a comment to an earlier post (Is It Safe?) I am posting the URL to this great article from the LA Times entitled "From a Chinese Oil Refinery to your Twinkie." If you're at all concerned about the quality or source of your food, this article is a good place to begin your exploration.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-0e-ettlinger29may29,1,4306189.story?coll=la-news-a_section&ctrack=1&cset=true

Undermining the Heart of Organics

Photo by gardngrl

For those of you who are interested in local, sustainable food production, the following article from the Canadian Globe and Mail about the co-opting of organic as a marketing coup by industrial agriculture is for you:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070530.wfood30/BNStory/National/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20070530.wfood30

Here is a small segment of the article:

Has big business turned organics into 'yuppy chow'?

MICHAEL VALPY

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

May 30, 2007 at 4:21 AM EDT

SASKATOON — Organic food is being taken over by big business, marketed as "yuppie chow" for the privileged, and increasingly packaged with as little concern for the environment as conventional food production, says a York University academic researcher.

In a paper to be presented on Friday at Canada's largest gathering of social sciences scholars, Irena Knezevic says that most of the major organic brands on the North American market are now owned by large corporations such as ConAgra, Cargill, Kraft, Coca Cola and Pepsi.

Mobilizing vs. Localizing

Photo by gardngrl

On some level I think it's tacky to open a post with an apology and an excuse. That, however, is exactly what I'm prepared to do today. I want to apologize (to myself as much as anyone) for not attending better to this blog. My thoughts and ideas haven't come to an end, but my downtime at work certainly has over the last three weeks. Alas, given the cycles of the academic year, my busy-ness is likely to only intensify in the short-run. But come mid-to-late June, I should be back on top of my game. So please pardon the infrequency of my posts and responses to comments. The end of the school year is in site.

Today, in the few minutes that I have, I want to point to something I read in today's New York Times. It's from the editorial entitled "Pondering Some Old, Familiar Questions on the Road Across Country" by Verlyn Klinkenborg. His editorial reads like a short essay on what it means to be able to live just about anywhere. The quote that stood out for me is the following: "...what I’m really asking when I wonder 'Could I live here?' is 'Who would I be if I did live here?' To that question I never know the answer."

Why does this quote intrigue me so? For starters I like Klinkenborg's implicit acknowledgment that a place imprints the people who live there. Moreover, in these few words of Klinkenborg's I believe there can be found the view that one cannot begin to know a place unless one has settled in that place for some length of time. What does that have to do with anything generally and this blog particularly? Well, I think the farther we get from something the less we know about it. Sure, distance may make it possible to take the macro view of something or somewhere. But in distance, relevant details are lost. It is this realization of the importance of proximity to familiarity that makes me doubt technology's ability to stand-in for local controls. Local is better because it can be witnessed, and not just by the eyes and ears. Viewing life through a local lens is also critically important because mobility undermines imprinting and the investment of peoples' time, energy and good will in a particular place.

What do others think?

A good Wednesday to you, one and all.

Is it Safe?

Photo by gardngrl


Does local oversight of goods (locally-produced or otherwise) result in greater consumer safety? I don't know the answer to this question, but I think it's one that is well worth asking. If you've listened to the news or read a newspaper in the last month you're probably aware of the U.S.'s mounting concerns over the safety of food (mostly as animal feed) and health products imported from China. Full disclosure: I have no particular quarrel with China. I do, however, see the folly of a U.S. import system so sprawling as to be overextended, and so underfunded and understaffed as to be dangerous. Does anyone even know who's driving this train anymore? Perhaps more importantly, can the system as it currently exists be mended? Is it possible that the system as-conceived is incapable of assuring consumer safety?

In the U.S., one of our favorite silver linings in the clouds of collapse is the promise of new technology. I suspect, however, that the safety of globally-traded commodities is something that improved technology cannot fix. Perhaps my readers will disagree. I certainly invite and encourage feedback. But in the absence of a technological fix, does it seem advisable to search for local solutions? What would they look like? What might the unintended consequences be?

Feeling very optimistic this last weekend I decided to take on a particular aspect of the health product safety issue to try and find out if it would make sense for a locality to produce their own, safe products. Since one of the recent New York Times articles features the problem of producers replacing glycerin in products with a toxic industrial solvent (diethylene glycol), I decided to try and figure out if a locality could produce its own glycerin for food, medicines and toothpaste. It didn't take long for me to become somewhat discouraged. While glycerin can apparently be manufactured from any number of plant and animal substances and is therefore not particularly problematic in terms of resource availability, it's manufacture is apparently labor intensive. Profitability seemed more and more questionable, the further I read. I can clearly see the benefit of economies of scale when it comes to the manufacture of glycerin. What I don't know is just how necessary glycerin is. Could we do without it? Given enough incentive, couldn't a suitable (and safe) substitution be made? Maybe? I haven't a clue. The point I want to get at here is that, the more I looked at this problem, the more complicated it became. Perhaps that was just reality dawning. What is certain is that a whole lot of people (and not just those people on the inside of the problem) need to be discussing the safety of the products we consume and the sourcing and inspection of those products. It seems obvious that, if it were possible to locally source and produce more of these goods, we could also more reasonably assure their relative safety. Alas, things are not that simple.

I'm very interested in what others think about this issue. I think it will take a lot of new thinking and the ideas of a good many people to being to turn things around. Is there a local solution to food and drug safety?

Friday Local Photo

I'm afraid I don't have much in the way of content to offer today. I'm a working stiff and by Friday I'm generally spent. So, perhaps this is the first of many Friday Local Photo postings (presuming I keep snapping photos--something I certainly hope to do). I snapped this photo a few days ago while walking about three blocks east of my house. This duck mom was pretty nervous about my loitering near her babies. She made a point to stay close by. I was able to snap a couple of closer-in photos of the ducklings, but I'll save them for another day.

I wish everyone a gentle and relaxing weekend.

Transforming Spaces into Places

So far in this blog I've written a lot about the benefits of localizing many of our structures and the things we depend on. And on some level, it's hard to argue with the claim that, for instance, local, shared ownership in trust of an area's land can increase access to affordable housing. But you may be asking yourself how a city or town can ever hope to get there. Just how does a location becomes a community? I ask myself some version of this question daily, and one response that consistently comes up for me is this: So much of how we live isolates us. In order to build a community and encourage local enterprise, we must first connect with one another. We must find ways to create ties that can lead to meaningful change.

I recently moved to a new house and I have yet to have a conversation with either of my neighbors. I'm not proud of that fact. I'm actually somewhat mortified. I also suspect that I'm not alone. When was the last time you had a conversation with someone on your street, meaningful or no?

I happen to believe that the structure of commerce and societal institutions conspire (perhaps without meaning to, or perhaps with intent) to keep us isolated. We are confronted with incredible inertia when we consider breaking routine or convention. For starters, many of us work too much and we're tired. But that fact isn't exactly to the point. What I want to make clear is that I believe building community and reducing personal isolation will take some doing.

So, where do we begin? The City Repair Project (http://www.cityrepair.org/wiki.php/about), based in Portland, OR, started with the assumption that the problem of isolation is literally "built" into our lives by the use of the grid as an organizational principal. Because of this, efficient movement of individuals from place to place is prioritized at the expense of truly public use of space. City Repair aims to actually "build" culture by creating places and therefore opportunities for public gathering. Through their "intersection repair" projects they have helped bring neighborhoods together to create lasting public spaces that truly belong to their respective neighborhoods. City Repair calls this transforming "spaces into places." Many intersection repair participants report some measure of transformation in their relationships with neighbors, and the activities themselves have apparently had a transformational impact on Portland's bureaucratic structure. This is because prior to the first intersection repair it was illegal to claim an urban space by painting it or installing a gazebo (or whatever, you get the idea). But the unified actions of that first neighborhood led to a city ordinance that allows these "repairs" to take place.

There is an interesting video about the history of the City Repair Project at the aforementioned URL. Information about current repair projects is also listed. I encourage you to check it out. And I will be interested to see what other kinds of community enterprises may be developed as a result of the City Repair Projects efforts to reconnect people and create shared space.

Happy Wednesday!

Local Foods from Family Farms

According to the website www.foodroutes.org, there are a great many reasons for each of us to support our local food producers. By itself, the reduction in fossil fuel usage when products are produced and consumed locally makes for a pretty compelling argument (approximately 10% of food's fossil fuel usage is in production--the remaining 90% of fuel is consumed in packaging, transporting and marketing food products). Then there is also the issue of food safety--an issue I plan to take up in a future post. Keeping it simple, imagine how much easier it is to make choices about food, with your own health and safety in mind, when you know where it's grown, who grows it and the methods they employ. The transparency is simply much greater when your food comes from nearby.

But neither of these tremendous benefits are at the heart of what I want to write about today. Instead, I'd like to focus on what many call the "endangered" family farm. Why are they better, and, perhaps more importantly, why are they endangered? In this blogger's informed view, independent, family-owned farms localize wealth to a greater extent than large, corporate-owned operations. Not only do local family farmers spend more of their money locally, they also have more of it to spend, because when we deal directly with farmers, we eliminate the middle man and farmers make a better profit. What's more, family farms are responsive to local needs and demands. They promote local control of food systems and promote healthful eating in ways that distant, large-scale industrial farms simply cannot. These are just a few of the reasons why, I would argue, independently operated family farms are better than the alternative. They are, unfortunately, endangered. Why? Because not enough of us support them.

Due to huge subsidies on a few commodities (corn, soybean, wheat, etc.), and through the "efficiencies" of industrial agri-business, price has become the leading consideration for most of us when we buy our food. As I mentioned in an earlier post, however, the price of a particular product seldom reflects its cost. And although there are a lot of costs that our current industrial system of agriculture passes on to the rest of us, perhaps the biggest is the loss of family farms.

According to the USDA, since 1935 the U.S. has lost approximately 4.7 million family farms. It is estimated that there are fewer than 1 million remaining family farms in the U.S. Since we certainly haven't scaled back our eating in the last 72 years (and our population has grown significantly), it's a safe assumption that our diets have become increasingly supplemented by food produced overseas and by domestic industrial agriculture. Independent family-owned farms cannot hope to "compete" for your food dollar when corporate-run farms receive the added benefits of federal subsidies, widespread distribution and marketing, and the economies of scale that hundred-acre mono-cropping makes possible. Food Routes Network also reports that, in 2002, family farmers received the lowest real cash income for their labor since 1940. That means that, given the current heavily-subsidized, price-driven system, family farmers' own access to the things they need to survive is being dismantled. While they're at work feeding others, they are struggling to feed themselves. Is this how we want to treat those who make it possible for us to live, and to live well? Perhaps more to the point, can we afford to lose the remaining million of these family farms? Do you think that corporations care whether the food they sell you is actually good for you? Do you think they're concerned with your long-term health? Most independent, family-owned farms should and do care. Without your patronage they have no livelihood. It's in their long-term interest to do right by you. I'm merely suggesting that it's in our long-term interest to do right by them, too.

If you are interested in learning more about local food systems in your area, copy and paste the following URL into your browser:

www.foodroutes.org

The Food Routes Network is a national non-profit whose sole interest it is to promote and support the efforts and development of local food systems. They achieve their mission by helping to connect you with food produced in your area.

If you need a more comprehensive list of reasons why you should consider supporting family farms, you can access Food Routes Network's page on the subject at:

www.foodroutes.org/whycare3.jsp

Lastly, if you're inclined to learn more about the issues facing family farmers today, visit the National Family Farm Coalition site at:

http://www.nffc.net/

Local Wage Standards

This morning I tried to gather information about the statistics that comprise the basis of the federal minimum wage rate (currently $5.15/hour). My efforts have thus far gone unrewarded, and that's after calling and speaking with someone at the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division. In the spirit of getting to the bottom of this issue I combed over the Fair Labor Standards Act for a while. Then my eyes began to hurt and I gave up. Does anyone reading this know on what set of statistics or indexes the current federal minimum wage is based?

I ask because a couple of days ago my friend Rob sent me this URL:

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html

I presume he was frustrated, as am I, with what the current federal minimum wage represents in terms of purchasing power. The aforementioned web page demonstrates, graphically, just how far the cost of living outstrips the purchasing power enabled by the federal minimum wage (this is done by comparing "nominal dollars" to "real dollars"). Now, to be fair, I haven't checked the sources of the data on purchasing power and cost of living. It would not be at all surprising to find the CPI referenced, but, as I said, I haven't looked into it. I try to look upon all statistics with some skepticism initially, and I also try to account for their situational nature. That said, it's pretty tough to laugh off the other basis of comparison that the authors use: that of the federal poverty level. According to the last chart, in 2004, the federal minimum wage equaled just 55% of the federal poverty level for a family of four. Does that seem right to you?

At some level, localities have always recognized local variations in needs and living costs. This is, I presume, why numerous individual states have, over the years, enacted their own minimum wage laws, with rates that often exceed the federal rate. Furthermore, as a response to the fact that in many places in the last decade the largest sector of job growth has been the unskilled, low-wage sectors, many individual cities have adopted "living wage" standards, to help ensure the long-term economic stability of their regions.

http://www.cfpa.org/issues/issue.cfm/issue/LivingWage.xml

For better or worse, the basis for this "living wage" is the 1968 federal minimum wage, adjusted for inflation ($9.12/hr) and rounded up slightly ($10/hr). If I follow this logic correctly, then, a one-earner family of four who is paid an adjusted wage of $9.12/hr can expect to occupy a space at 90% of the federal poverty level. According to the site listed above, however, an hourly "living wage" of $10 would move that same family just above the federal poverty level. While I applaud efforts to address poverty and raise earning standards, I'm not convinced that this is enough. I'm also not convinced that using federal standards as a basis for determining wages in a particular place makes sense.

What do other people think?

I realize that very few economies in the U.S. are currently primarily "local." This is why it doesn't surprise me that local "living wage" standards are adopted as a means of responding to human needs while working within the current, more generalized system. Even so, I cannot help but imagine that a local wage system, situated within a local economy, that is responsive to local needs, makes the most sense. What would this look like? In truth, I'm not sure. This vision of mine is highly dependent on a lot of assumed infrastructural factors already being in place: predominantly local employers, predominantly local markets, predominantly locally-sourced goods, etc. With these structures in place, it would be manageable to determine a minimum standard of compensation that takes the needs of a place and its people into account.

The problem is, this country, and the cities therein, are a long way from there. We're perilously dependent on unseen systems, distant suppliers and a "market" that determines the worth of our labor. Life as we know it in this country is supported by unsustainable energy resources (as we make unsustainable energy demands) and policies that will, at some point, come to a crashing end. That's why I'm interested in how we get from where we are now, to the place I'm envisioning. Or perhaps there are alternative possibilities. I'm embarrassingly ignorant about a good many things. But I want to learn more about our present state of things and start envisioning an altogether different response. Where would your thoughts take us?

Time-Strapped

This beautiful, pristine patch of earth near the Lakes Region of NH is where I'd like to be today. It looks so tranquil. Meanwhile I feel so besieged. The truth is, work commitments have prevented me from thinking about local issues much today, and my time for writing has run short. I have been letting a few ideas incubate, however, and I'm pretty excited about them. I hope to get to one of the topics tomorrow.

I want to thank those friends (you know who you are) who have proffered ideas and daily inspired me to think about the many facets of our fragile interconnectedness. Brainstorming possible local solutions to some of these complex problems speaks to my sense of purpose. At the very least it allows me to mentally step away from the numbing work that I do to pay my bills.

Let's hope that tomorrow I find a few minutes to write. In the meantime, keep those ideas coming!

Local Indexes: Honest, Representative Measures

So much for tomorrow. This has been a crazy week and I expect it to be an equally demanding weekend. Perhaps next week will bring relief?

Today I want to write a little bit about local economic indexes (do I know how to party or what?). A few days ago my partner initiated a discussion about just how easily the data in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) can be manipulated, and how there are some who believe the CPI is manipulated, wildly, already.

For those of you who wouldn't know a CPI from a GPS device (and I count myself among you), in its most simplistic terms, the CPI attempts to measure the average rate of inflation in the U.S. The term inflation represents a loss of purchasing power due to increased prices on goods and services. The increased prices are not reflected by increases in quality. So, in theory, the goods being measured are equal to the goods measured last time, and its the prices alone that have changed. Are you still with me? I hope so.

There are critics (of the current administration, of government regulation, or of economic forecasting more generally) who argue that the CPI is routinely manipulated by government to achieve specific political and economic purposes. Why would the government want to tinker with measures of consumer prices? Well, the theory goes that by suppressing inflation figures (current figures are below 3%) the U.S. saves a lot of money. How? Cost of Living Allowance increases (COLA), salary and pension adjustments and the interest on the national debt are all impacted by the rate of inflation. If the rate is low, the government spends less on all of the aforementioned things. There are allegedly many ways that the statisticians manipulate these figures, but I don't know enough about them to explain them satisfactorily. Apparently, "geometric weighting"(a process by which the prices of "volatile" categories, such as housing, energy and health care, are simply eliminated from the tabulation), rolling back price increases for products with quality improvements, and not accounting for subsidies on goods are the mainstays of this manipulation. In truth, I don't pretend to be an expert on this topic. I just think that it's interesting.

So, the critics (understandably) take issue with official numbers that are so low when it's obvious to anyone with a pulse that the cost for most things, especially essentials like housing, health care and energy, are increasing by double-digit increments nearly every year. I do find it interesting that there doesn't appear to be a whole lot of documented discussion of this dissonance.

The manipulation of these figures, the critics contend, leads to a false sense of consumer confidence and encourages overspending, due to artificially low interest rates. Ultimately, instabilities and vulnerabilities result. What would happen, I wonder, if we relied on local measures and indexes of cost and economic activity, instead of the Bureau of Labor and Statistics' CPI? Would the numbers be so easily manipulated? Certainly statistics can be massaged into saying just about anything, but wouldn't it be much easier to take the authors of a local measure to task if the lived reality and the report didn't match?

It seems to me that persons of a given locale would be better served by the transparency and accountability that is likely to come with designing and using local measures of purchasing power. Responsible spending might be one benefit. Employer COLAs that have some basis in the local reality might be another. And I have to imagine that when the persons of a community witness the rapid climb in price of an area necessity, some of them might be inspired to respond with creative and regionally appropriate solutions. Less manipulation. More problem solving. A clearer, more honest picture. I'll admit that I like the sound of that.

I'm interested to hear what others have to say, about the CPI or local measures. A good weekend to all!

Food for Thought

Well, folks, I'm back. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I'm limping along. Is it possible to perish from a migraine? While this is not a site dedicated to the discussion of health concerns, I'd be interested in tapping into the collective wisdom of how to cope with two or three days of agony every month. So, if you have something to add to the topic, don't be shy.

Anyhoo...my friend Steven posed a series of very interesting discussion questions to me last week and, post-weekend/post-headache, I'm finally able to attend to his questions and give them some thought. I hope to include the products of my ruminations in this and future blog entries.

Steven is interested (correct me if I'm wrong, Steven) in the role of information technology in fostering community, in breaking down the barrier of distance, and just generally collapsing the commonly-held notion of "local." Before I write anything else I should probably disclose that I'm more technology phobic than savvy. Am I, then, qualified to speak to this topic? Not terribly, no. But that doesn't mean I won't try. I'll bring to it what I can and I hope some of you will post comments and add to the discussion.

The question of Steven's that most interested me is this: How much inherent value is strictly in the physical proximity of a local producer? In other words, is something still lost even when technology makes it possible to know the conditions of production of your favorite tea 7,000 miles away? And while this is a question I hope to return to many times, my initial response to this question is, I don't know. Do I think something is lost? Certainly. I'll go into some of the more obvious qualities that would be lost by replacing localization with technological connection. How much is lost? Well, I'm not sure. It depends on what each lost quality means to an individual and to a community. In the end, all I can do is discuss what I think would be lost and why.

So, what exactly is lost when we substitute technology for actual proximity? The use of local resources to meet local needs, for one. The internalization of all of a product's costs (it's one thing to pay the true cost of a product when it's made nearby and you know some of the people you're supporting with your purchase--it's another thing to pay 3 or 4 times as much for the box of tea when you don't have a direct investment in the success of the enterprise that brings it to you) is another. Additionally, and, to my thinking, most importantly, in a scenario in which technology collapses distance and obfuscation in trade, wealth is still largely funneled out of a locale, rather than staying put. I see this as the biggest potential loss when one tries to imagine substituting IT for local economies. I would like to support communities all over the world, but that is impractical. A much more elegant arrangement is one in which I buy things that are locally produced, and I support, in perpetuity, the labor and resources that I consume. By the same token, if I'm the producer of a local good and I'm responsive to the needs and demands of my local consumers, I would rather have their business, than the business of someone from another place who could be helping their own community instead.

I realize that this is a simplification and that it assumes that other communities will be providing local goods and services to meet their citizens' needs. There is still another assumption that frames my thinking on this. I assume that the members of a community learn to discern between needs and wants. For surely no local economy can respond to all of the individual wants of its people. But I do think that providing for a community's needs and keeping much of its wealth localized in order to do just that is a desirable objective. That's the place I'm coming from.

Quite honestly, Steven's questions have triggered many thoughts, most of which aren't yet fully formed. But I'm inspired to continue thinking them through and to test my own understanding of what local means in the 21st century. I sincerely hope that others will (respectfully and productively) comment on this topic, or any other that it has inspired.

Until tomorrow...

Out Sick, Local Photo and Small Houses

Well, folks. Today I have a migraine. I usually get one each month and it lasts somewhere between two and three days. This is day one, so, it's possible I won't be posting much, if anything, tomorrow either. My apologies. Nothing takes me down like migraines. Ugh.

I will leave you with this photo I snapped in my backyard yesterday afternoon, and with a URL for a wonderful story my friend Rob sent to me about living on a very small scale.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2007/04/27/carollloyd.DTL


If you're at all interested in learning more about the small house movement, you can also visit:


http://www.resourcesforlife.com/groups/smallhousesociety/


Hasta pronto!

Community Development: Investing in People, Investing in Place

Energy, resources and ongoing commitment are all required to maintain a healthy, thriving community. The term "community investment" might refer to an investment of peoples' time, labor and expertise (sweat equity), or it might refer to a financial commitment. Both are absolutely necessary elements of a robust and sustainable community.

Developing and investing in community is difficult to accomplish if a city or county's priority is to invest it's resources in attracting non-local companies (ostensibly with the hope of generating a few jobs, usually at low wages) instead of in local enterprises. It is also difficult to accomplish when some of a community's hardest working but lowest earning citizens are denied access to reasonably-priced capital, and are forced to rely on predatory lenders.

A number of localities have established Community Development Credit Unions (CDCUs) as a means of providing access to financial resources, support and advocacy, to low-and moderate-income members of their communities. These community institutions are cooperatively owned by their members and governance is shared. CDCUs foster financial independence by providing reasonably-priced loans, safe places to save and financial education and counseling. Many CDCUs also develop partnerships with local businesses and the private sector in order to help revitalize impoverished areas of a community.

And where does the capital for community investment come from? In most cases, the community! Deposit accounts are obtained from local investors or the pooled resources of a community group. These funds are then used to provide small business and emergency loans to lower-income community members.

Although there are not yet nearly enough CDCUs in the U.S., there are many fine models demonstrating this elegant concept and how well it can work to build stronger communities. For more information try typing "Community Development Credit Unions" into Google or visit http://www.natfed.org/ (The National Federation of Community Development Credit Unions).

Happy Friday!

What's a Community Land Trust? Read on...

What do you think happens to a community when a lot of its real estate is owned by a business or by individuals who speculate in real estate in order to make a profit? For the answer, you probably need only look around you. Wherever you may live right now, odds are good that the situation I've just described is happening. Before I go about giving my answer to the question, I'd like to ask you to consider another question. What philosophy do you think motivates and informs the use of real estate as a revenue-generating venture? Would you consider it a long-term view? Would you consider it a philosophy that takes the needs of others into account?

Speaking in generalities, when much of a community's real estate is tied up in profit-motivated ventures--be it rental property, "flipping" for profit, or the diversification of one's investment portfolio--the non-affluent, non-owning members of a community are effectively prevented from access and long-term, responsible use of a community's land. When real estate is being held for short-to-medium-term private gain, the vast majority of a community's members' housing and agricultural needs are overlooked and "the market" becomes an often insurmountable obstacle. I could talk about the role of predatory, sub-prime lending that purports to provide "opportunity" to those alienated by real estate-for-gain, but since that will take me a little too far off topic, I'll save it for another day. Suffice to say that I believe the current crises in mortgage lending--and the resulting foreclosures--are directly related to real estate as speculation.

Nearly all of us have heard about the shortage of affordable housing, and some of us may even have heard about the shortage of agricultural land. But how many of us link these problems to real estate speculation? Although the problem of land availability and use has many root and perpetuating causes, I believe that at the present time, for non-First Nation peoples, real estate speculation is driving the lack of affordable housing and agricultural land. It is thwarting the efforts of hard-working community members to have a long-term place to call home.

Thanks for hanging in there with me, folks. I'm coming to my topic!

Community Land Trusts (CLTs) were created in the U.S.--sometime in the 1960s--to address the need for local control of land and other resources, and to make affordable housing and agricultural land stewardship possible. CLTs are democratically controlled organizations that hold land for common good. They provide long-term (99 years usually), renewable leasing of land to a community's members. They are usually either focused on conservation of land (such as agricultural land) or on housing and community development. How--you may ask--does this specifically make housing more affordable? CLTs usually enact "limited equity" policies that help maintain the long-term affordability of a property and make home ownership (via long-term lease) possible for persons with low or limited incomes. These policies essentially remove the "market" pressures that have so negatively impacted those with few resources. What's more, CLTs organize neighborhoods and communities, engage in community development and provide financing to try and address the long-term needs of a specific locale.

I only learned of the existence of CLTs about 15 months ago, and although there are now more than 80 CLTs nationwide, I was dismayed to learn there is not, as yet, a CLT in my community. There are more being developed all the time, however. If you're interested in learning more about CLTs, visit the Institute for Community Economics (ICE) website at www.iceclt.org/clt for information.

CLTs. Another way of keeping land and other resources in a shared, localized, community trust. A beautiful idea who's time has come.

Local Economies

I want to extol the many virtues of thriving local economies, but my time today is brief and so I will begin with a quick and dirty argument for local economies. I promise to try and flesh out my reasoning in later posts, but for now, I'll make some rather rough but expedient assertions.

What is a local economy, you may ask, and how is it different from any other economy anywhere? At its most basic an economy is really just a name for human activity related to producing, distributing, exchanging and consuming goods and services. In the present day the majority of societies use some form of currency (money) as the unit of exchange for a good or service, because each society has decided that the money represents a store of value. In most cases these currencies are also backed by a nation's banks. But I digress...In our era of globalization, at least in the U.S., our prevailing economy is based on goods and services that have been extracted, produced, and distributed from virtually everywhere. Take, for example, a box of Earl Gray tea in your pantry. The tea leaves were likely grown in India, then transported to a processing facility where they were dried and put into tea bags, the materials for which were probably extracted and manufactured on another continent and shipped to the tea processing facility. If the company selling the tea is "environmentally conscious" the tea bags will not be individually wrapped but will simply be put into a box or canister, which was also likely made in some other city or country, and transported to the processing facility. Once the tea is packaged, it will be transported to a storage facility where it will await distribution to cities and towns all over the world. Are you following this? Using the Earl Gray tea as an example, it is probably safe to say that, in our current globalized economy, the majority of the goods and services we depend on have similar, if not even more obscure and distant origins and distribution. The globalized economy is NOT a local economy.

Let's take a closer look at what it means that the Earl Gray tea you purchased for $4 at the local supermarket was brought to you by the global economy. Do you know where the tea was grown? Do you know how it was cultivated or how the growers and pickers are treated? Do you know if petrochemicals were applied to the tea plants in order to enhance growth or discourage insects and/or fungus? Do you know what affect that particular tea company has on the surrounding community? Are they a good employer? Does the company minimize pollutants and act as a good steward of the land? Were people displaced from their homes so that the company could clear the land for agriculture? There are a million other questions that could be asked of this one small part of the process that brings you your cup of tea, but the point is, you probably don't know the answer to any of them. You also don't have much, if any, control over them. How does that make you feel?

A local economy, just like it sounds, localizes to a community the activities of extraction or recovery, production, distribution, exchange and consumption. So, conversely, products brought to you by a local economy are products that you, or someone you know, will likely be able to weigh in about. What's more, a locally sourced and produced good--let's say, a bottle of fruit juice--should leave you with few, if any, of the aforementioned questions unanswered. Local economies are transparent economies. They are also almost always more democratic. What are some other positive attributes of local economies? What follows is a far from exhaustive, but reasonably thorough list.

1) Local economies require relationships. When was the last time you met the person who grew your food or built your bicycle? When was the last time you were able to provide feedback to the person who built your bookshelf?

2) Local economies mean fewer hoops. What do I mean by that? In a truly localized economy, the person making the decisions about a good or service that I need probably lives nearby. Any fallout from a poor choice will be readily apparent, and will require resolution to the satisfaction of the community. This is very different from a transnational or even a national corporation that can shield itself from criticism and any community obligations because it doesn't have a home within one community.

3) It is harder for local producers and companies to externalize their costs. Price is just one means (and often a not very good one) of measuring a product's cost. There are countless other indexes of cost that should be important considerations. Once a resource is extracted, is there enough remaining for continued production of the product, or will the rate of extraction eventually use everything up? Does the production of the product create other biproducts that cannot be safely disposed of? Was one or more persons displaced so that the producer could build a facility? All of these are additional costs usually not reflected in the prices of goods in a global economy. Because a community truly feels the full costs of any economic activity, a local economy is likely to be one in which producers incorporate the full cost of doing business into the price of their product. A local economy is also likely to be much more interested in developing goods and services that can be extracted and produced sustainably.

4) In local economies goods and services are often based on local needs and demands. Make sense? Enough said.

5) Local economies are in a position to promote business models of cooperation and sharing rather than competing and hoarding.

6) Accountability is much more readily facilitated in a local economy.

7) Local economies are interdependent and require cooperation.

8) Local economies are much more likely to produce a living wage due to mechanisms for feedback and accountability.

9) Local economies keep wealth localized.

10) Local economies mean local regulation and oversight of health and safety.

11) Local economies generally eschew mass production, affording workers the ability to see the fruits of their labor through numerous stages of production, and to take pride in their contribution to a much more apparent "big picture."

As previously noted, this list is far from exhaustive. But it's a start, and it's all I have time for today. Local economies hold tremendous promise for all of us as we begin to discover how fragile and unsustainable our current globalized economy really is.

That's My Farmer!

One of the best reasons to buy your food locally is connection. Who among us feels connected to our neighbors let alone the persons who grow our food and create the fuel we need to sustain us? The truth is, as a society we've become profoundly disconnected from each other and from the source of those things that make it possible to keep going. Is it any wonder that many Americans feel isolated, insecure and depressed? Although the problem I describe extends well beyond the bounds of agriculture, increasing our connection to the orgins of our food is one sure way to re-infuse our lives with the oft-missing human element.

How can you gain access to local food, you ask? Well, if you do most of your grocery shopping at a chain store, chances are good that your food is coming from large distribution centers located hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away. Chances are also good that many of the products on the shelves have their origins in places all over the globe. So, your best bet for trying to access local food is finding the nearest farmers' market. Weekly farmers' markets are springing up all over the place. Not sure where your nearest farmers' market is? Go to www.localharvest.org to search their directory of farmers' markets across the U.S.

At your local farmers' market you'll mill about looking at the wonderful and often unique variety of freshly picked produce. You'll also invariably interact with the people from whom you are buying tomatoes (or salad greens or garlic, you get the idea!). Often times the people selling the produce are the very same people who had a hand in growing the food. Ever wonder how long it takes to grow a tomato from seed to juicy, red fruit? Ask! Are you curious about what, if any, sprays were used on the produce? Ask! And be sure to ask where the food was grown. Why? Because this gives you a tangible connection to a place, for one. Additionally, it may lead to an inclination to visit the farm someday. Especially if it's only a 20-minute drive away. Farmers' markets are great places to strike up conversations and, whether you mean to or not, you can learn a lot in the process. If nothing else you can know the producers of your veggies on sight, and the next time you see them you can proclaim "That's my farmer!"