rural representation – Page 3 – Rural Tompkins County

“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – Doctrine Flowchart Poster

Make your own Doctrine Flowcharts of community policies. While the actual government policies are predetermined, and the approval process ticks along unchecked; many meaningless branches are extended into the public arena: the questionnaires, the media enabled promotional articles, and of course, those public hearings where policy-maker-supplied “experts” reinforce the need for these changes and “a vision for the future” that’s as likely to happen as winning the Lottery.

Cornell-supplied experts and County bureaucrats placed a “Berlin Wall” across the rural Town of Lansing: producing a document that claimed the Agricultural Sector would keep taxes low by preventing the “high cost of services” of residential development — and that the development of a “bedroom community” Residential Sector in the south would also lower taxes. The existing 200-year old rural community; had no place in this document. The plan was immediately approved without public oversight or participation.

“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – “Sewers of the Land”

SEWERS OF THE LAND

Every Silence Tells a Story

Like a relative that no one wants to talk about; the County’s Plan tiptoes around the effects of agricultural pollution in a blatant example of skewed environmental reporting.

The presentation of some of the arguments is a bit technical; the facts are unequivocal.

The County Plan: “Fall Creek, Cayuga Inlet, and Sixmile Creek play a significant role in determining the quality of water in the southern basin of Cayuga Lake as they contribute approximately 40 percent of all the surface water entering the southern end of the lake.”

• Salmon Creek is located in Tompkins County and is one of “the three largest watersheds in the Cayuga basin as a whole.”

“The watershed land uses range from the highly urban and forested Cayuga Inlet to the mostly agricultural Salmon Creek.”

Nutrient pollution from runoff and groundwater discharge “are relatively minor in the urbanized watershed but are much more significant in the two more agricultural watersheds, Fall Creek and Salmon Creek. The high contributions from groundwater in those watersheds, 55% and 72%, respectively, pose difficult challenges for management because only long-term changes in land use can reduce these loads.” — Quoted from Nutrient Loads to Cayuga Lake, New York: Watershed Modeling on a Budget, 2012

Why was Salmon Creek or agricultural pollution never mentioned in the County’s Plan?

The County Plan: “Most of the phosphorus that enters the southern end of Cayuga Lake is bound up with the sediment carried by Fall Creek, Cayuga Inlet, and Sixmile Creek. This sediment is largely the result of stormwater runoff and erosion of stream banks.”

• Actually, the percentage of bioavailable particulate phosphorus [available nutrient for algae growth] measured in Salmon Creek was more than twice that of Fall Creek, and more than three times that of both Cayuga Inlet, and Six Mile Creek. [Phosphorus Bioavailabiltiy and Loads, Upstate Freshwater Institute, 10/22/2015]

The County Plan: “Impaired water bodies and their related pollutants, are published by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The most recent list published in 2012 identified the southern end of Cayuga Lake as impaired by three pollutants: phosphorus, silt/sediment, and pathogens.”

Phosphorus

• “Mean annual TP [Total Phosphorus] load to Cayuga Lake is just under 100 Mg∕year, of which 60 Mg∕year is DP [Dissolved Phosphorus.] The largest source of both DP and TP is agricultural runoff, providing 45% of the DP and 47% of the TP. Urban runoff provides 13% of the TP but negligible DP. The largest urban TP source, at 8%, is high-density impervious residential land.” — Quoted from Nutrient Loads to Cayuga Lake, New York: Watershed Modeling on a Budget, 2012

Silt/sediment

• The County’s Plan makes no mention is made of the wide-spread agricultural practice of “tiling” fields [installing subsurface drainage on the entire field]. Tiling will drain a field in minutes, rather than hours; not only causing water to flow into streams more quickly and allowing less water to replenish the groundwater, but increasing the flow of sediment and manure into Cayuga Lake tributaries.

Pathogens

• The County’s Plan makes no mention of pathogens.

• From “The Effects that Liquid and Solid Cattle Manure have on the Water Quality of Drainage Ditches in Putnam County, Ohio”, Bowling Green State University, Janelle Horstman, 2014: “Conclusion” – “My results allow me to conclude that the most nutrient and pathogen pollution occurs after large rainstorm events, especially after manure has been applied to land for months with no precipitation events, and after manure application on frozen ground. These results support the findings from similar studies. I can also generalize that many of the soils from the field sites that I collected from had buildups of phosphorus, which likely contributed to the high concentrations of phosphorus in the runoff samples that I collected. I can also conclude that the manure pathogens that I examined for antibiotic resistance were resistant to high levels of ampicillin. This result further supports the severity of antibiotic resistance and the negative health effects and environmental effects that they can cause.”

• From “Antibiotic Resistance, Gene Transfer, and Water Quality Patterns Observed in Waterways near CAFO Farms and Wastewater Treatment Facilities” West; Liggit; Clemans & Francoeur, 2009: “Increased phosphorus levels were also detected after precipitation in the agriculturally impacted areas, and fecal coliform densities were much higher after precipitation. The strong correlation of turbidity, total phosphorus, and fecal coliform densities suggests a common source for these parameters. Elevated total phosphorus, turbidity, and fecal coliform densities are presumed to be the direct result of runoff from nearby tiled fields sprayed with liquid manure as reported by MDNRE in numerous previous waste discharge infractions by the CAFO farms in close proximity to our AI sites (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 2003a, 2004b).”

The “Point Source” Runaround

The County’s Plan claims:

“New York State regulates pollution discharge into waters through its State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit program, including the control of all point source discharges to surface waters. The program is designed to maintain water quality consistent with public health, public enjoyment of water bodies, protection and propagation of fish and wildlife, and industrial development in the state.”

But fails to mention that this program does not adequately regulate pollution from agricultural sources:

• From “Maintaining a Healthy Water Supply While Growing a Healthy Food Supply: Legal Tools for Cleaning Up Agricultural Water Pollution” Mary Jane Angelo, Professor of Law & Director, Environmental and Land Use Law Program University of Florida Levin College of Law: “The Clean Water Act provides a comprehensive regulatory scheme for many discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States. Through the primarily regulatory NPDES permitting program, significant improvements have been made to the quality of the country’s water bodies. However, the NPDES permitting program only applies to point sources discharges, thus most agricultural discharges are not subject to permitting or other federal regulatory control. Nonpoint sources, including those from agriculture, remain the most significant water quality challenge facing the nation. Moreover, the CWA’s exemption from section 404 permitting for normal farming practices continues to allow many wetlands to be degraded by agricultural activities. Because the CWA does not provide direct federal authority for regulating many agricultural sources of water pollution and wetlands degradation, the responsibility for addressing water quality degradation from agricultural activities has fallen largely to the states. To date, most programs designed to address agricultural water pollution have been voluntary or incentive-based programs designed to encourage farmers to implement best management practices. These programs have been only minimally successful, and agricultural pollution continues to be one of the most significant sources of water quality degradation in the United States, meaning that there is a need for a more comprehensive regulatory system to address the water impacts of farming.”

Stormwater Runoff and Flooding

The County Plan: “Increased stormwater runoff has a significant impact on floodplain management. As land area is converted to more urbanized uses, the amount of impervious surface associated with that land use generally increases, causing water to flow into streams more quickly and allowing less water to replenish the groundwater.”

• Once again, the County refuses to acknowledge agricultural sources as a problem. When the increased runoff from “tiled” farm fields: an opaque, strong smelling liquid blend of water, sediment and agricultural contaminants; began to overflow the ditch in front of my house and spread across my lawn — the County merely dug a deeper ditch and put in a larger culvert.

Wetland Protection

The County Plan: “At the state level, NYSDEC regulates wetlands of at least 12.4 acres in size and smaller wetlands of unusual local importance. Taken together, these regulations have the effect of leaving responsibility for regulation of isolated wetlands of less than 12.4 acres to local governments. Identification and protection of these otherwise newly unregulated wetlands is a priority.”

• However New York State Agricultural Law has a different priority for land use that allows “grazing and watering livestock, making reasonable use of water resources, harvesting natural products of the wetlands, selectively cutting timber, draining land or wetlands for growing agricultural products and otherwise engaging in the use of wetlands or other land for growing agricultural products,” thereby completely undercutting the authority of local government to protect these valuable wetlands.

Riparian Corridors

The County Plan: “Riparian corridors are the lands bordering streams and represent a transition zone from aquatic to terrestrial ecosystems. Maintaining lands adjacent to streams in their undeveloped state helps to support the natural functions associated with stream buffers, including protecting water quality, stabilizing stream banks and preventing erosion, trapping sediment and nutrients, improving floodwater retention and groundwater recharge, and shading stream channels in summer.

Riparian stream buffers in headwaters have proportionally greater impact on watershed health than buffers in downstream waters. Clean and healthy headwater streams are critical for protecting the water quality, stream stability, and wildlife habitat of an entire watershed. The downstream effects of even minimal disturbances in small upstream creeks may be compounded as waters join to feed into larger and larger streams.

Providing vegetated buffers of at least 100 feet either side of stream banks, or 50 feet from intermittent streams, is critical in achieving water quality benefits”

• Unfortunately, New York State NRCS agricultural manure spreading standards for CAFOs requires only 35-foot setback, where the entire setback width is a vegetated buffer; and just a 15-foot setback with incorporation within 24 hours of application to be maintained between manure applications and surface waters and surface inlets.

Well Water

The County Plan: “The amount of available drinking water is primarily an issue in rural areas that obtain drinking water from groundwater. As more homes and businesses are built in these areas, they are supported by new wells withdrawing more water from groundwater supplies. In some parts of the county it has been observed that new wells noticeably decrease the supply of water in nearby wells.”

• While slamming rural families; the County’s Plan deliberately ignores the massive negative impact that current “farming practices,” especially that of CAFOs, are having on the county’s groundwater supply. One CAFO owner in Minnesota reported a well water use of 570,200,000 gallons in 2017. [The average unrestricted water use for a family of four is 320 to 400 gallons a day.]

When the County’s Plan recommends that “Land uses and facilities that pose the greatest threats to groundwater should be located away from areas that contribute to drinking water supplies” — they are clearly excluding agriculture.

Climate Change – Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The County Plan: “While global energy and climate problems cannot be solved exclusively at the local level, and leadership is needed from global, federal, and state organizations, locally we can identify, plan for, and take steps to address these issues.”

“PRINCIPLE Tompkins County should be a place where the energy system meets community needs without contributing additional greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.”

The Plan goes on to state:

“Emissions from residential, commercial, and industrial buildings together accounted for the largest proportion of community emissions and transportation accounted for more than a third of all community emissions.”

But finally admits:

“. . . it appears that it would be more accurate to use a much greater GWP for methane to reflect its extreme potency in the shorter duration when reductions will most help in limiting warming that may result in a cascade of uncontrollable negative impacts. Such an analysis of methane will likely be incorporated into future energy plans, and would primarily affect the waste and agriculture sectors, as they are currently the highest emitters of methane.”

This admission that the “agricultural sector” is one of the “highest emitters of methane” is the one and only time that the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the negative impact of any agricultural practice on either the residents or the environment; and even then only states that it “will likely be incorporated into future energy plans.“

• Farm use of distillate fuels increased by nearly 11% between 2010 and 2015, more than 8 times the residential sector increase, while both the commercial and industrial use declined according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Open Burning

• While New York State prohibits the burning of garbage or leaves year round: Agricultural exemptions for open burning allow farmers to burn as much “agricultural waste” as they want, whenever they want. This includes but is not limited to: “Agricultural wastes generated on site, Naturally grown products, Fully organic waste generated on premise, Paper feed bags, wood shavings, baling twine, and other non-plastic materials.” This exemption also extends to “liquid petroleum fueled smudge pots.” This last is a further example of New York State’s ecological foot-dragging, since other states have already implemented incentive programs to move farmers to the much cleaner burning propane.

Conclusion

The City and Town of Ithaca sit like a spider in the center of the county; with redistricting placing 8 of the 14 Legislative Districts at least partly within their borders. The large student population living there [30% of the county’s total population] gives those County legislators a great deal of power; but little accountability, from a constantly shifting youthful population with no history or permanent ties to the area, and no association with the county’s rural communities. This leaves county and local government vulnerable to the influence of corporate and corporately-controlled entities like Cornell, and Cornell Cooperative Extension; who are only too ready to guide the future of the county and to serve their own interests. Tompkins County’s repeated refusal to acknowledge the amount or extent of agricultural pollution in any of their planning and reporting is clear evidence of this influence.

“Tompkins County” is in the process of yet another redistricting: in a program of ridding themselves of the rural population whose traditions and ethnicity they deride — and whose lands they covet.

“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – “Smoke and Mirrors” 2

SMOKE AND MIRRORS

Participation Circumvention

“The participation of citizens in an open, responsible and flexible planning process is essential to the designing of the optimum town comprehensive plan.” — New York Town Law § 272-a

Although Town Law stresses the importance of citizen participation in an open and responsibly designed town comprehensive plan, local officials downplay this mandate; claiming that the comp plan is only a “guide” — and use the minimum legal requirements for public meetings and notifications to limit disclosure and block participation.

The town of Lansing, like many rural towns, traditionally uses posters and signs along the roadsides to announce everything from chicken barbecue fundraisers to concerts in the park. The town’s government, although it placed a large display board for notification of a boat slip raffle, never placed one sign to advertise the town’s comprehensive plan meeting. Notifications were placed in the legal minimum two newspapers; and in spite of their low readership, no further efforts were made it inform or involve the residents.

The public meeting for the Lansing Comprehensive Plan draft was reduced to a segment of the monthly Town Board meeting, with a scattering of residents being told it was only as a favor they were permitted to speak, and allowed 2 minutes to do so. No questions were allowed to be asked.

This was an action that directly contradicted the State’s intent and the legal “duty” and “responsibility” of Lansing’s municipal government to “assure full opportunity for citizen participation in the preparation of such proposed plan.”

Why are so many county, town and village officials anxious to prevent residents from having a voice in the future of Tompkins County?

The public and private maneuverings of Tompkins County officials to minimize the importance of these comprehensive plans and exclude meaningful community participation — urging local governments to abdicate their duty and responsibility under Town Law, and give over all local power to the “County” — will be examined next.

New York Town Law § 272-a. Town comprehensive plan

Legislative findings and intent.

“The legislature hereby finds and determines that: Among the most important powers and duties granted by the legislature to a town government is the authority and responsibility to undertake town comprehensive planning and to regulate land use for the purpose of protecting the public health, safety and general welfare of its citizens.”

It is the intent of New York State Town Law § 272-a that both local planning boards and the town boards “assure full opportunity for citizen participation in the preparation of such proposed plan”

To make the preceding as clear as possible; here are legal definitions of those words:

• Assure: to make certain; to inform positively, as to remove doubt; to convince.

• Full: abundant; brimming over; comprehensive; exhaustive; filled to utmost capacity.

• Opportunity: fair chance; proper time; reasonable chance; suitable circumstance; suitable occasion; suitable time.

These words denote a legislative intent that was never even remotely fulfilled by the municipalities granted the authority and charged with the responsibility of these “most important powers and duties.”

“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” ― The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

The powerful interests behind the “County’s” Comprehensive Plan leave little doubt of their intention to take all power into their own hands:

“The County’s plan is based on the understanding that certain issues are regional in nature; cannot be fully addressed solely at the city, town, and village level ; and require proactive cooperation among all levels of government.”

• Since the County considers Housing Choices, Transportation Choices, Jobs and Business, Development in the city, villages and [County] designated nodes, and Rural Resources (the importance of agriculture and the need to protect farmland), all to be regional issues — they want to control everything. [Note that the importance of protecting agricultural interests is the only issue that the County’s plan recognizes for rural communities.]

The County’s plan requires “proactive cooperation among all levels of government.”

• Proactive cooperation is defined as: “two or more individuals cooperating together and acting in advance to deal with an expected difficulty.” In this case, the expected difficulty is the participation of the County’s residents.

The interests that control the County are trying to take direct control of its towns and villages — urging local municipalities to let the “County” decide local planning:

“Often, local municipalities have a full workload simply addressing the important day-to-day issues of local concern. Planning at the county level can help municipal governments address key issues of concern that cross municipal boundaries, such as sprawl, economic development, housing affordability, and environmental protection.”

This attempt to subvert the “duty” and “responsibility” of local officials and planners has been largely successful. Policy decisions flow directly from the County into “local” plans; without public scrutiny or any meaningful public participation in the towns and villages themselves.

“A lie that is half-truth is the darkest of all lies.” ― Alfred Tennyson

The “ten elements already included in the Comprehensive Plan” by County Legislators, before the first community survey was even announced, remained unchanged in the final document.

The Plan’s “kickoff survey” itself was a vague and generalized 19 question survey using loaded terms like “Healthy Communities” to produce results that would support the policies the County had already decided on. [Who wouldn’t vote for a healthy community?]

Two additional topic areas were “identified” from a list of thirteen choices supplied by the County, but this made no meaningful difference to the final Plan.

The County’s reaction to comments critical of their Comp Plan draft was both defensive and dismissive.

To the comment: “efforts to acquaint citizens with this plan which will, by design, touch each and every resident of Tompkins County are pitiful to non-existent. There were 4 meetings attended by a total of 70 individuals out of a Tompkins County population of 101,570”— the County asserted they had made “considerable efforts to involve the public,” and pointed out the “large number of written surveys” received from Participation in Government Classes at local High Schools, and comments received from “approximately 40 individuals and several groups.”

In response to the comments:

• “Can there be a policy that prioritizes transportation investments for the ‘transportation insecure’ – especially low-income families with children in rural areas.”

• “I think it’s important to pay attention to the needs of rural residents. In addition to fixed-route what is possible as a systematic approach to meeting public transit needs.”

The County made the following “substantive change”:

• “Proposed Policy: Consider the needs of populations that are particularly challenged by transportation when developing systems and alternatives.”

[Note that the County chose not to use the word “rural” in their policy statement.]

To the request for equality:

• “Overarching principle – looking out for rural landowners (Broaden the idea so people are as important as the rest of it.) All residents matter/ every resident matters.”

The County evasively replied:

• “A Foreword was added to explain how the principles, policies and actions of the Comprehensive Plan can contribute to a positive future for both urban and rural residents of the County.”

Like snakes in snake oil, the County’s “Plan” squirms around every issue of human dignity and worth. If you could polygraph the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan, it would “show deception” on every page.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Once again, you can see how the implementation this new society is just another form of colonizing — and for the same purposes:

A source of wealth, raw materials, and cheap labor – a dumping ground for the unwanted and criminal in their own population – and an unconsidered people to squeeze dry of all worth – all for the exclusive benefit of the colonizers [and a useful distraction from problems at home.]

Ithaca always looked down on the rural residents of the surrounding towns and villages — they still do; but now they snap the whip.

“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – “Whose Plan Is This Anyway?”

These are a couple of excerpts from one of the County Comp Plan articles. This Plan is a scary document that outlines how each aspect of our lives will be directed and controlled. It may be even scarier to learn how few people want to read it.

“To make a contented slave it is necessary to make a thoughtless one.” — Frederick Douglass

In a kind of natural selection; Cornithaca attracts those who are only concerned that their place in this new society is secure and defined.

It’s strange to think that it’s a University Town where the residents refuse to look at the corruption and oppression that goes on all around them. Maybe it’s what they’re being taught.

“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – “The Death of Meaningful Public Participation”

THE DEATH OF MEANINGFUL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Today’s rural residents have no place in Tompkins County’s future.

This statement is based on more than two years of research and review, questions and public meetings concerning the most recent Agriculture and Comprehensive Plans of Lansing and Tompkins County, NY.

The amount of evidence that supports this conclusion is so great, that even in outline, it covers many pages. In this, and in following articles, I will present some of the evidence and research that support this viewpoint. A body of evidence that is still awaiting public review and discussion — and has so far been successfully suppressed by the interests that drafted these plans.

The Death of Public Participation in Tompkins County

From its very beginning, the Lansing Ag Plan deliberately excluded any meaningful participation by Lansing’s rural families [who comprise 95% of the proposed “Ag Zone” residents; and are the poorest, least represented and most economically depressed segment of the town’s population.]

The Lansing Ag Plan, although it is funded by the state, shaped by rich agribusinesses and controlled by Cornell through their powerful and federally connected Cooperative Extension, is always described as “local.”

The parties involved were so confident they were “untouchable” that they did not even bother to cover their tracks; in what amounts to a privatization of public policy.

The EPA’s “Public Participation Guide” states: “Public participation affords stakeholders (those that have an interest or stake in an issue, such as individuals, interest groups, communities) the opportunity to influence decisions that affect their lives.”

The county’s rural families have never been included as stakeholders in any planning decision; and are considered an obstruction by those who covet their land.

A Brief History

In response to my email expressing concerns with Lansing’s Proposed Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan and stating “This Summary gives the overall feeling that nobody else lives [or deserves to live] in North Lansing but farmers.” Cornell’s M***** R*** lead writer of the plan; inserted the phrase “You are right.”

I have reported this many times in communications with the people involved in Lansing Ag Plan’s formulation and approval, state and local politicians, boards and planners, and of course Cornell Cooperative Extension, and have never received even one response that repudiated or expressed any fault with this discriminatory policy statement.

Following M***** R***’s disclosure, and in light of the questionable and biased nature of the proposed Ag Plan, I sent a letter to Cornell Cooperative Extension [CCE] in December of 2015, along with a Title VI Environmental Justice form detailing seven major categories of complaint, including deceptive and false plan information, ignoring mandates for meaningful participation, incidents of CCE bias, and negative impacts of the plan on the rural community. This resulted in a meeting with CCE County Director K****** S********. The only outcome of this meeting, however, was his decision that further study of the Lansing Ag Plan was needed — there was no follow up to this meeting, and all subsequent attempts at communication went unacknowledged.

I then took all the previous information and sent it to the office of the state CCE Director C********** W*******, along with quotes from the CCE website declaring that their programs “build the capacity of New York State communities to engage in and direct their own futures.” The letter I received in response admitted no accountability or wrongdoing in their actions, and placed all responsibility solely on the Town of Lansing.

Similarly, Senator N******** responded that he did not have “authority or jurisdiction” and that the Ag Plan “falls under the control of a local municipal government,” and Senator G**********’s office agreed that it fell “under the jurisdiction of your local town government” and returned my correspondence.

In addition to the above, I have not been able to find one lawyer, or Tompkins County or New York State department, not one Cornell or Ithaca College professor, administrator or student activist group willing to help in this matter — even to the extent of writing a letter of protest. And at Ithaca College, the home of rural activist Janet Fitchen’s famous studies on rural poverty, a current professor wrote back excusing himself with “Janet worked in a simpler time.“

Local Lockstep

Local Lansing government and town officials, moving in lockstep with CCE, county and state agencies and politicians, have never once responded to questions about the lack of representation for the rural families living the Ag Plan area, or to the negative impact this plan would have on these families — and not one of the letters or emails sent to them has ever been acknowledged.

The Ag Plan’s “public meeting” was announced with minimum publicity, even though Town Board members knew that few rural families received the newspapers that posted the notices, and most rural residents did not have computers to track meetings, or even know how to use them.

The publicly staged Ag Plan meeting was no more than a small part of an ordinary Town Board meeting. Attendees could ask no questions, and were told that it was only as a favor they would be allowed to speak at all. Those wishing to speak were given two minutes each; after which the Town Board immediately approved the Lansing Ag Plan without comment or discussion.

Total public meeting time: 15 minutes.

Total respect for Lansing’s rural families: 0.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By the time readers of the book have gotten a few pages into Part 2; the posters, games, and “humorous” pieces in Part 1 will be viewed in a different light.

These are no “A 2-page form to register a trailer!” type stories, but “The farm polluted our well, and I can’t afford to fix it or buy bottled water for our family!” situations.

And how do government agencies help them out?

They tell them to mix bottled water and the polluted well water together to be able to afford it. It may be safe to drink [if you’re not too old, or too young, and don’t have medical conditions.]

Or:

Shut down the well for safety; so they have no water at all.

In New York City: this would be outrageous! In rural New York: it’s not even a story.

“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – “Writer’s Choice”

“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are just words to those who live under the boot of industrial farming. Corporate Agribusinesses fund and bully the politicians, control the agricultural colleges and the regulators, and through a combination of advertising dollars, threats, and litigation control the media as well.

As the upcoming Part 2 will show: even the law is no protection against these powerful interests. They have the power to make the law go away.

“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – “Anonymous Victim Survey”

“You know you live in Cornithaca County, when the only rights left are the right to be a victim and the right to be poor.” This statement sums up what it’s like to be a rural resident in Cornithaca County. Rural people are considered so unimportant that they don’t even get a minimal share out of the wealth that its autocratic leaders gather from each new policy decision. Unfortunately; this survey can’t even be classed as satirical.

“Cornithaca County” Book Preview – “The New Food Pyramid”

Today’s Food Pyramid is celebrated as a monument to modern science; and a symbol of the enduring worth of its Pharos of Agriculture.

Turn the monument over and you’ll see the rural communities that have suffered under the hubris and greed of Big Ag and their scurrilous scriveners.

Part 2 – Debunking the Lansing Ag Plan

The three greatest factors in the approval of the Lansing Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan are:

The plan was never critically examined or allowed to be publicly questioned.
Lansing’s rural families were unrepresented by any state, local or county agency or government representative, and prevented from having any meaningful participation in the plan themselves.
The lives and welfare of rural families living in the affected area of Lansing are of no importance whatsoever to the people who created and support this plan.

Part 2 – Debunking the Lansing Ag Plan

Continue reading Part 2 – Debunking the Lansing Ag Plan