Farmers' Market Legislation Fails To Accomplish Purported Goals

by Matthew W. Garbett

Some bills are easy to get excited about, inflaming the passions of supporters and opponents. Farmers' Market Text Amendment Z-10-30 isn’t one of them. It should be.

Ostensibly an innocuous bill designed to "increase access to local, healthy, and affordable foods; encourage community-building; and support local agriculture and economic development," the bill accomplishes none of these. The bill shines, however, in its defense of residential neighborhoods from the threat of "inappropriate […] commercial ventures." That’s why we should care. This legislation is not just about farmers' markets and their definitions, but about a planning attitude towards our city; about what will be allowed, what will be encouraged; and what will be discouraged.

Compare our legislation with the best practices outlined by the non-profit group Public Health Law and Policy. They recommend a zoning law that designates farmers' markets as an allowed use that "eliminates the need for a permit" and "increases the land available for a farmers' market." Our legislation maintains a lengthy SAP permit process (though it does reduce the fee from $250 to $100). True, Z-10-30 does designate markets as an allowed use in most residential areas, but in a way that is so limiting as to be pointless.

Our legislation speaks of accessibility and community-building — only once. The PHLP recommends legislation that "optimize[s] the location of farmers' markets by requiring the community to decide where markets may operate." However, the city should prioritize markets that operate in appropriate sites: schools, community centers, near public transit, or community centers. Our legislation ignores these sites and the community. Permitting may ask for NPU approval, but does not require direct community involvement. Remember the allowed use in residential areas? Only at churches and schools, facilities not present in all communities and certainly not guaranteed to be the optimal place for the community. But churches and schools do have parking. The summary of the bill has sixteen lines of text concerning parking. Walkability and public transit are not mentioned once.

Our legislation speaks of access to affordable produce. Yet does nothing to promote it despite the simplicity of the solution: Require farmers' markets to accept food stamps. Without this inclusion, it is impossible to see how the bill promotes affordability. Yet even affordable produce is of little use if there are no markets in low income communities, a concern this bill does nothing to address.

To see the failure of accessibility compared to the concerns of regulation, look no further than the requirement that the markets operate no more than three days a week, six hours a day. The need for access to affordable produce must be limited to 18 hours a week; the maximum amount, it seems, some residential neighborhoods can tolerate commercial activity selling fruits and vegetables in temporary structures.

In a time when our own city celebrates each mixed use development and cities around the country are embracing mixed use communities, promoting a living, healthy, walkable lifestyle, we are proposing legislation who has as a far greater concern the close regulation of temporary produce stands to prevent commercial ventures in residential neighborhoods.

It is only the bare minimum to say that farmers' markets are good and allowed. Why not ask for more? Walkability. Public access. Affordability. Low income neighborhoods. Community centers and parks. Community involvement. Why are these not acted upon in the legislation? Encouraged? And why would we accept less?

Mr. Garbett is president of Fourth Ward Neighbors, an association representing part of Atlanta's Old Fourth Ward community.