Blog: Occupy the Farm—Protesting the People of Albany

First off, I want to make it clear that this statement is my own. I am closely identified with the Albany Chamber of Commerce, but this post is not to be taken as an official or unofficial statement of the Chamber's position.

Occupy the Farm is a wrong-headed effort, though undertaken with what I believe are good intentions. What concerns me most is that in their actions and their words, they have displayed almost as much ignorance as passion. Actually, suggesting it is ignorance is an attempt to be charitable, because the alternative is to suggest they are being dishonest. Others have pointed out the numerous factual errors regarding even the most fundamental issues at stake, but I want to address something I have not yet seen discussed. I can state it with a question:

Where have you been?

The process moving the UC Village development forward has been long and complicated. Early on there were a number of people who stood up to argue for an urban farm on at least some of the land. The University of California never said “no” to this, only that the development of that section could only be undertaken once the other two sections had been completed (or were at least underway).

The reason for this is quite clear. Development and maintenance of the land, either as a park, a farm, ball fields or most likely a combination of all of these would take money, and for reasons obvious to anyone who follows the news, the money needs to be generated by the project itself.

From what I saw, it appeared that the urban farm supporters got that message and were waiting until the time came for them make their voices heard in the process for determining the plans for the Gill Tract land.

They have not been part of this ongoing, active, public conversation for months or years, so their claims of being unheard or of the university being unresponsive are questionable at best.

Occupy Wall Street and some of the other “Occupy” movements found their strength and legitimacy in the fact that they were protesting a system that had been unresponsive to repeated claims for fairness. The university has been responsive in the process of developing these plans, so it’s not clear to me where the Occupy the Farm movement would claim legitimacy. If anything, the most they could claim is that the process hasn’t gone fast enough for them (and many on all sides would agree with them)—but that’s the nature of a process that forges a compromise between so many interests.

Has anyone received everything they asked for in this process? Of course not. This is a public process that is designed to forge a compromise that maximizes utility for everyone in the community (or at least everyone who makes the effort to be heard).

In their effort to stop the compromise plan from going forward, the urban farm supporters are not protesting UC, they are not protesting the City of Albany, they are protesting everyone who has taken part in the long process that developed this compromise over the last several years.

They are protesting the dozen or more seniors who stood up to support the plans for senior housing at a City Council meeting last year.

They are protesting the who worked very, very hard to make the development as bike- and pedestrian-friendly as possible and who came to support the project even though they did not get everything they asked for.

They are protesting who has been in discussion with UC for months and is comfortable with the arrangements made protecting their ball fields.

In short, they are protesting the people of Albany who need this development for many varied reasons, and who helped hammer out a compromise they could support.

I know that camping out with your friends and working the earth into a farm is a lot more fun than sitting through oftentimes boring and very long public meetings—so I think I understand their choice of methods. But that is not how the process works, can only lead to conflict and discord, and is only the easiest way to impose your desires and beliefs on an entire community.

This is an attempt to hold the people of Albany hostage to the demands of a minority who didn’t have the patience to work through the public process, and who feel their cause is more just than those of everyone who worked to forge the compromise.

At this point, it is still not too late for the Occupy the Farm movement to have a positive outcome. They must reenter the dialogue as willing participants who are open to considering the needs of everyone at the table, including UC and the City of Albany, and accept that theirs is only one side of a many-sided debate.

That is the best way they can see to it that the farm they are planting now is not plowed under and their efforts wasted.

If they continue to simply oppose the plans and refuse to accept compromise, they will be removed, the farm will be lost, and the goal of including urban farming in the final Gill Tract development will be much harder to achieve. That would be a shame.

I support the idea of an urban farm on the land, but only as part of a comprehensive plan that shows the input of as many voices from Albany as possible.