Dear Editor:
Tom Mulhern’s Feb. 3 column suggests that farmers aren’t free to
sell their property to whomever they want at fair market value the
way a teacher or housepainter living in a subdivision can.
Dear Editor:
Tom Mulhern’s Feb. 3 column suggests that farmers aren’t free to sell their property to whomever they want at fair market value the way a teacher or housepainter living in a subdivision can. This is completely untrue. However, in each instance the owner and potential buyer must adhere to the zoning regulations currently in effect.
Therefore, a developer would not be interested in farmland far from urban boundaries, just like someone hoping to open a McDonalds would not be interested in buying the teacher’s tract home. We are all subject to restrictions on the use of our property, and farmers are not being treated any more unfairly than teachers or housepainters.
In his final paragraph, Mr. Mulhern asserts that he is not advocating turning the entire South Valley over to development. If that is the case, why does he spend the previous 12 paragraphs constructing an argument that proposes that very thing?
Development of agricultural land is an issue that affects a very small minority of farmers who own land on the outskirts of urban areas. A serious discussion of the decline of agriculture would focus on spiraling insurance and labor costs, soil depletion, and competition from imported commodities.
Greg Ryan, Gilroy
Submitted Wednesday, Feb. 4 to ed****@****ic.com
