 |
| Liberty Farm, Paris, Virginia Photo: Martha Boneta, March 2014 |
The bills, sponsored by
state Senator Richard Stuart (R-Montross) and state Delegate Bobby Orrock
(R-Thornburg), protect “agricultural operations from local regulation” and
limit the government’s ability to require “special-use permits” for farm
activities. Among many things, “Martha’s bill prevents counties from imposing a
$100 fee to grow tomatoes.”
Martha Boneta, the farmer
at the center of this protracted battle in Virginia said, “No Virginian should
be forced to lose everything when they fight city hall.” Her farm is embroiled
in a costly legal battle with Fauquier County supervisors over the use of her
own farmland.
Boneta explained, “Corn
mazes and pumpkin carvings were considered ‘events’ that required site plans
and a mile-long list of red tape that can be suffocating.”
“There is an illusion that
farmers are allowed to sell all their products because there are farmers
markets and one-day bake sales. ... These are exemptions granted at the whim of
government. I have 33 acres with cows. If I had the ability to sell all my farm
products (including raw milk) directly to the public, I could make $56,000 a
year. But not under existing regulations.” (Bernadette Barber, founder of
Virginia Food Freedom)
Martha Boneta found herself at the center of the
battle for farm freedom and property rights when she held a birthday party for
eight 10-year-old girls at her Liberty Farm. Fauquier County deemed this party
illegal because it lacked a permit. “Why would I need a permit for pumpkin
carving?” Boneta said.
Boneta was issued a special license in 2011 which
allowed her to run a “retail farm shop” in which she sold handspun yarns, fresh
vegetables, eggs, herbs, honey, and craft items such as birdhouses. Fauquier
County Board of Supervisors changed in 2011 the “farm sales classification” to
require a special permit for activities that were previously included in the
permit that Boneta had already been issued. Faced with fines of $5,000 per
violation under charges that she held a birthday party for eight 10-year-old
girls without a permit and a “site plan,” advertised one wine tasting, sold
postcards with pictures of her rescued farm animals, sold wool fiber products
from her sheep and alpacas, and sold organic tea from herbs grown in her
garden, even though she had a business license, Martha paid $500 to appeal
these unjust administrative charges. “The county zoning administrator told her
at the hearing that “Martha was out of line,” for appealing these charges.”
Mark Fitzgibbons wrote
that “Fauquier County also passed a winery ordinance that blatantly violates
property rights and civil liberties. It gives Fauquier zoning
administrator Kimberley Johnson discretion to create penalties and to prohibit
private personal gatherings.”http://washingtonexaminer.com/virginia-vintners-taste-the-police-state/article/2504381
Fitzgibbons said that “A
local but powerful group called the Piedmont Environment Council (http://www.pecva.org/index.php/our-region/fauquier/711-fauquier-farm-winery-ordinance)
wholeheartedly backed that
illegal, anti-liberty winery ordinance. The PEC seems to have an unusual
if not disturbing amount of influence over Fauquier County officials. http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/the_environmentalists_police_and_welfare_states.html
Property
owners and farmers are fined, bullied, threatened based not just on zoning
ordinances, but also via environmental conservation easements with onerous
requirements, and farm inspections.
Martha
Boneta’s farm is the only farm in the state of Virginia that has four required inspections
per year. Inspectors used to come several times a month until Boneta
complained. She gets a seven day notice.
The
inspections are intended to “measure” the size of an apartment that Boneta is
permitted to have. However, nobody lives on the farm; they have not built an
apartment yet. Instead, PEC inspectors (at times as few as 2 and other times as
many as 11) come into the converted barn that holds tools, tables, furniture
with drawers, wool bundles, closets, and rummage through drawers, open closets,
inspect the contents, an obvious violation of the farmer’s privacy.
According
to Martha Boneta, the inspectors came on March 25, were rude, angry,
aggressive, and disrespectful, pushing their way into her cottage although she
told them they were fine outside. They took pictures even though Martha did not
give them permission to do so and it is not stipulated in her conservation
easement. “They are running roughshod over people because there is no oversight
over these people.”
During
this recent visit, an observer commented that seeing the two inspectors
rummaging through Martha’s personal belongings, opening closets, drawers,
touching and going through personal items reminded her of what “must have been
like during Nazi Germany. I feel invaded, I feel violated, and I feel like I
need to go take a shower.” When questions were asked of the inspectors, they
responded, “we don’t have to answer you.”
Martha Boneta had a
conservation easement with Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC), an NGO, when she
bought her farm from the previous owners. Donna Holt explained that “PEC holds
the easement and that makes them a stakeholder in the property although they
don’t own the land or pay taxes on it.
They have the right, under the terms of the contract, to inspect it for
compliance of the terms of the easement. The language is vague, they make rules
as they see fit, and the courts usually uphold them.”
Martha used tires on
her property to “help hollow fields for plowing, train animals to move in a
certain direction, and assist in planting. PEC sued Boneta, saying that the
tires violated her agricultural conservation easement, and she was forced to
store them in an enclosure.” Tires were the least of her numerous and constant
problems with PEC. http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/60623
A “conservation
easement” imposes certain restrictions on the homeowners’ use of their property
in exchange for tax breaks. These easements have a specific length
or can be permanent.
A private citizen described PEC on Facebook, “This group
has even sued about a $25 hose attachment because it interfered with the
"view-shed." They claim to want to protect us but they really want to
take away our property rights.” He explained that the Virginia Outdoors
Foundation (VOF), “the parent organization of PEC only inspects farms maybe
once every three years and are not subjected to inspections of drawers and
personal belongings, don’t have pictures taken of their families or drive-bys
by the PEC or their agents.” They are empowered by the federal government and
the state and act as agents of the local county of Fauquier.”
The Virginia Outdoors
Foundation (VOF) protects more than 725,000 acres of open space in Virginia,
mostly through conservation easements.http://www.virginiaoutdoorsfoundation.org/
Joel Sallatin warns American
farmers and land owners about those “sincere conservation easements” because “Ultimately, these easements reduce farm viability and
gradually turn Virginia’s pastoral landscape into a wilderness area.” This type
of green environmental movement is probably not what the average American
envisions. “Giving over farm decisions to people who neither farm nor adapt
their approaches jeopardizes farmers’ livelihoods. Ultimately, preserving
farmers is the only sustainable way to preserve farms.” http://flavormagazinevirginia.com/conservation-easements/
The tax breaks are a
welcome relief for farmers who struggle to make a living on their land but they
are presented through rose-colored glasses. But, at a time when food is
expensive, we are using more crops for biofuels, and we have to import food
from other nations, the obvious and most important question is - why would a
landowner place good farmland under perpetual conservation easement in order to
preserve it? Preserve working farmland for what? Land owners and farmers should
seek and request opt-out policies before they sign onto conservation easements.
No comments:
Post a Comment