Urban farm debate raised issues of race, class Posted: 12:00 a.m. Saturday, Nov. 23, 2013 BY EDITORIAL BOARD In the now-closed Austin dialogue about whether slaughterhouses should be allowed to operate in single-family neighborhoods, there was a rush to find refuge in euphemisms. That particular conversation closed with a common-sense City Council vote to ban slaughtering in single-family neighborhoods — among other restrictions. The tenor and tone of the discussion did not comport well with the city’s carefully cultivated and cherished image of itself as one that fiercely protects its neighborhoods and embraces tolerance. There was an unmistakable undercurrent of race and class issues that the city has trouble confronting directly; thus the search for semantic refuge. Saying that animals are “processed” sounds a lot better than saying the city would allow animals to be slaughtered commercially in a residential neighborhood. Growing “sustainable food” sounds downright noble — much better than saying urban farmers engage in commerce. They grow products in order to sell them. Commerce is the lifeblood of any community, but restrictions on where that commerce is conducted usually apply. It should not be lost on anyone that the urban farms seeking city approval to expand their activities were all located east of the interstate and in low-income neighborhoods. An ordinance passed in 2000 allows urban farms. And an interpretation of the ordinance by the city staff technically allowed slaughterhouses in any city neighborhood. Only a fool would believe that residents in Tarrytown, Bouldin Creek or Allandale would allow a commercial slaughterhouse operation and the composting of animal remains anywhere in their neighborhoods. It was a point opponents raised, but advocates countered that the soil was better — and thus more conducive to home-scale agribusiness — to the east. It was a counterpoint that conveniently used geography to tiptoe around demographic reality. People in poorer neighborhoods don’t have the economic and political resources enjoyed by those who reside in more affluent areas. So, watching this debate unfold was Austin political theater at its best. Much sound and fury, righteous indignation and only an occasional concession to the struggle to determine which of two competing factions has the political muscle to influence a council outcome. Had the urban farm interests not tried to push their envelope so aggressively in seeking to operate slaughtering and composting, the peaceful co-existence with their neighbors might have continued. We noted in previous editorials that we get the desire for locally produced fresh food. However, we shared the neighborhood’s objection to allowing commercial slaughterhouse operations in neighborhoods zoned for single-family residences. The council’s vote last week was a vote to protect not only those low-income neighborhoods east of the interstate but a reaffirmation of its stated commitment to protect neighborhood integrity. The process that led to the proposed ordinance recommended by the city’s planning commission was flawed and, despite protestations to the contrary, not inclusive. Frankly, the council’s concurrence with the neighborhoods was something of a surprise. The city offered mediation to the two sides, and they agreed but failed to reach a compromise, raising the stakes for the Thursday vote. The urban farm interests rallied an impressive show of support at the council meeting on Thursday, but in the end the council sided with the neighborhoods. The vote ended this chapter, but there will be other disputes as demands for property for housing and businesses continues to turn east, where the land is not only tillable but cheap. Gentrification disputes have been an ongoing source of friction for longtime residents of Hispanic and African-American neighborhoods for the past 20 years. That tension raises the price of growth. The city is growing, and we should all hope it matures as it grows. Growing up means confronting issues associated with growth squarely and talking about them directly. Next time maybe we will, but don’t put a big bet on it. Austin has found a comfortable refuge in its euphemisms.
Posted on: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 21:52:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015