I was a little disappointed that no reporter tracked down the pumpkin farmer and Middleton youth group in question. Surely there's more of a story there.
I bet Wall is engaging in some Esenbergian unintentional revelation with his parenthetical "sometimes near zero" remark. The reality is that the developer has far greater incentive to pay someone to pretend to farm than a farmer would have even with "near zero" rent and the risk and hassle of a crop on two acres.
Why bother bringing your tractor into town to plow and harvest a tiny plot? It would be far more profitable to be paid to maintain the appearance of farming without regard for the success of the crop. Indeed, developers do that all the time. Better still, if Wall found someone who didn't want to pay rent and didn't want to get paid, he probably took that offer. Maybe he even sought that sort of offer. He had much to gain by pretending it was still farm land.
His explanation of how "society benefits" when the developer has already bought the land from the farmer and can't build fast enough was pretty funny, too.
What are you talking about? A farmer could get a Starbucks, have lunch at McDonald's, play a little foosball with his corporate attorney at One Financial Place, take a nice booth for dinner at Denny's, and then tuck in for a restful evening at the Marriott, all within pumpkin-seed-spitting distance.
Also that is farmland with a "Fastastic, Prominent corner location." I don't know about you, but those are exactly the qualities I am always looking for in some farmland.
You betcha. It's those corner fields that the seed companies want for their showcase plots. You know, where they plant one stripe of one variety, one of another, with the little signs out front so all the other farmers passing by can see how the varieties do in an average field in their area. Follow the logic: Society benefits!
3 comments:
I was a little disappointed that no reporter tracked down the pumpkin farmer and Middleton youth group in question. Surely there's more of a story there.
I bet Wall is engaging in some Esenbergian unintentional revelation with his parenthetical "sometimes near zero" remark. The reality is that the developer has far greater incentive to pay someone to pretend to farm than a farmer would have even with "near zero" rent and the risk and hassle of a crop on two acres.
Looks like good pumpkin cropland, doesn't it? Here's a closer look. I see dead vines, culled pumpkins, but not very good control of non-pumpkin vegetation.
Why bother bringing your tractor into town to plow and harvest a tiny plot? It would be far more profitable to be paid to maintain the appearance of farming without regard for the success of the crop. Indeed, developers do that all the time. Better still, if Wall found someone who didn't want to pay rent and didn't want to get paid, he probably took that offer. Maybe he even sought that sort of offer. He had much to gain by pretending it was still farm land.
His explanation of how "society benefits" when the developer has already bought the land from the farmer and can't build fast enough was pretty funny, too.
What are you talking about? A farmer could get a Starbucks, have lunch at McDonald's, play a little foosball with his corporate attorney at One Financial Place, take a nice booth for dinner at Denny's, and then tuck in for a restful evening at the Marriott, all within pumpkin-seed-spitting distance.
Also that is farmland with a "Fastastic, Prominent corner location." I don't know about you, but those are exactly the qualities I am always looking for in some farmland.
You betcha. It's those corner fields that the seed companies want for their showcase plots. You know, where they plant one stripe of one variety, one of another, with the little signs out front so all the other farmers passing by can see how the varieties do in an average field in their area. Follow the logic: Society benefits!
Post a Comment