In a message dated 1/25/03 9:20:45 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Federal, state and local land regulations often discourage >> the conversion of currently-farmed land for other purposes, like >indstrial or high-density residential use. The number of people engaged >in >full-time farming has continued to decline, and virtually nobody not >already >> engaged in farming or from a farming family enters farming. There's >thus >little additional demand for farming land,< > >But don't the billions of dollars of farm subsidies benefit some farmers, >making their land more valuable? >When farmers are grandfathered into price supports, does this run with >the >land or with the farmer? > >Fred Foldvary
It was my understanding that grain price supports were to be phased out by last year or the year before. Since I stopped following such matters for the most part around 2000, I'm not sure whether Congress allowed the phase out to complete. I do recall both Tom Harkin (Democratic US Senator from Iowa) and Jim Nussle (Republican US Represenative from the next district over in Iowa) rushing to Newt Gingrich a few years back to try to stave off the full phase out, but as I recall they did not succeed. I'm not familiar with any "grandfathering" to avoid the phase out; the subsidies before the phase out went with the crop, not the farmer or the land (although the PIK program paid the farmer not to plant a crop, and I think there the benefits probably went with the land). If the phase out does have some grandfather clause to prevent or slow the phase out, I suppose it might have gonen with either the land or the farmer. I seem to recall that the ag subsidies had a per person limit and that farmers often evaded the limits by putting parcels of land in the name of wives, daughters, sons, cousins, in-laws, outlaws, etc. I'm sure that if the subsidies go with a parcel of land that they tend to raise the value of the land, but maybe only if someone actually grows the crop on the land. DBL
