A recent report from the Private Property Rights Institute (PPRI) shines a light on the challenges faced by farmers in Michigan and Pennsylvania due to restrictive zoning boards. These local bureaucracies are hampering the ability of farmers to manage their land effectively, especially in an era marked by inflation pressures and challenges from larger agricultural entities.
Bob Wackernagel, a third-generation farmer in Michigan, has observed a troubling decline in community farming. At 60, he stands as the youngest farmer in his area. To keep his operation viable, Wackernagel has turned to leasing some of his land for solar development, specifically on portions that yield less return due to poor soil quality. “I use the ground that returns me the least investment back on my crops,” he stated. His innovative approach has, however, led to conflicts with township officials who seem to treat his land as if it were their own. “They act like it’s their land … They don’t have to pay the property taxes; they don’t have to farm it,” he explained, highlighting the disconnect between local governance and farmers’ rights.
In Pennsylvania, Dwight Ely, a seventh-generation farmer, also feels the weight of local regulations. With roots on his family’s land tracing back to the 1800s, Ely operates a livestock business and has incorporated solar panels to manage rising energy costs. Investing in solar energy was a strategic move for him. “Sure, it helped this generation for sure … big savings,” Ely noted. However, even with his proactive measures, his plans to expand his solar capacity were thwarted by the local zoning board. Ely criticized the bureaucratic hurdles posed by officials who, as he put it, could make development “hard.” His frustrations echo a sentiment shared by many farmers who feel overtaken by red tape.
Local officials have sought to address the confusion surrounding solar projects and property rights. Howard Linnabary, the supervisor of Leoni Township, has passed an ordinance that aims to balance community concerns and the push for solar development. He affirmed his support for the projects as long as they are executed transparently and thoughtfully: “I’m all for it, if it’s presented the right way.” In contrast, Bradford County Commissioner Doug McLinko, while personally skeptical of solar energy, actively supports property rights. He articulated the struggles families face, saying, “There are so many families that are struggling right now … if they got an opportunity to make money on their property, God bless them.”
Kolean, the Executive Director of PPRI, emphasizes the growing need for landowners to reclaim their rights. He asserted, “Landowners should be free to decide how best to use their property without unnecessary interference.” Kolean exposes the bureaucratic overreach in these states, asserting that landowners are fighting against regulatory complexities that stifle investment and neighborly relations.
This report serves as a reminder of the ongoing conflict between local regulations and the rights of individual landowners. It sheds light on real hardships faced by those committed to maintaining their family farms amid governmental hurdles. The resilience of farmers like Wackernagel and Ely highlights the determination to persevere against challenges, advocating for their rights to develop and manage their land as they see fit. As these narratives unfold, they reflect broader tensions in our society over property rights and local governance, urging a closer examination of how zoning laws impact the very backbone of rural America.
"*" indicates required fields
