07-30-2010, 08:24 AM
quote:How would you deal with defending the use of the Fund under HCC 2-214©(4) (since that's the only possible loophole for what you propose) against some national agricultural interest who would claim protecting agricultural lands does not authorize the assignment of the land to individuals without compensation back to the Fund? They can make a claim that they would be able to use that land with compensation back to the Fund at a rate that could enable the county to open
Originally posted by Irongstone
Why not use the 2% land fund to buy some decent land with soil for the homeless to homestead and grow their own food?
Open that door and you may find Monsanto farming the land with GMO crops and paying the County lease rates above what the homeless could pay. All they would have to do is agree to preferential hiring of homeless.
But you still have the issue that “protection” and “preservation” is not “use of. Will the legal cost to defend this action is court also come out of the Land Fund?
quote:But that's still governement aid. The Land Fund can be used by the County to purchase lands for the preservation of agricultural lands, but the County would own that land. Having homeless farming governmenet lands without competative leasing is a form of
Originally posted by Irongstone
And CFB483, I agree completely, including no need for state help. We can each help, we can act collectively at the county level to help, and most of all the homesteaders (no longer the homeless) can be given access to producing their food and shelter as we're each entitled to do.