One interesting thing happened at the last meeting regarding the zoning ordinancees. One of the plan commission members mentioned at a previous meeting that he has a small CFO, and it is good for him for CAFOs to proliferate. At the last meeting he cast the deciding vote to exempt CFOs from this proposed zoning regulation. Nobody called him on it, but our attorney was in attendance and taking notes.

“What gives the CAFO owner the right to trash his neighbors’ property, and ruin their quality of life? Perhaps it is the ’smell of money’ for the CAFO owner, but until they start sending me a check adequate to compensate for my loss, then it’s the smell of lost money to me and the rest of the neighborhood. People choose to live in the country so they can breath fresh, sweet air, and drink pure water, and get together for a nice cookout on a fine summer day. Here’s an idea — put your CAFO in the ‘burbs and you can smell the money and shop at Wal-Mart at the same time!”

If memory serves, he recently posted an entry about a CLE instructor being dismissive of rural residents’ complaints about CAFO’s. The instructor said something about the manure smell being the “smell of money.” The question is (if ones puts aside the environmental issues for a moment) whose money, or rather who prospers when CAFO’s proliferate? Working at a CAFO may be marginally better than working in fast food or retail, but the wages are hardly likely to lead to a surge in income for the average Hoosier, nor in a significant increase in the tax base for the small to mid-population counties CAFO’s want to do business in. So, maybe Hormel or the CAFO companies prosper, but what about Hoosiers and our communities?

A good question. It reminds me of what Marty Lucas recently posted on his site http://www.bigeastern.com/index.htm:

“One thing that seems missing from the debate is a comparison of the economics or residential development v. CAFO construction. People like having a house in the country and upscale homes and upscale homeowners can contribute much to a community — their owners have money to shop, pay for services, property taxes, income taxes. Owners of upscale homes are often relatively well educated, may possess professional skills and even help spur the spirit of volunteerism as well. To determine the true economic and social impact of a CAFO in an area that has potential for residential development, the ‘opportunity cost’ of foregoing future upscale residential development needs to be considered.

Calling CAFOs ‘agriculture’ doesn’t answer the question: corn fields do not pose a major impediment to residential development of area properties. Vinyards or orchards are agriculture that might even attract upscale development. Giant hog barns at least might reduce opportunities for upscale development. So ‘agriculture’ is just a word; what communities should care about is the future impacts of a particular agricultural operation. Rural areas that opt to limit CAFOs and instead cater to residential development may very well fare better economically in the future.”