[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by SCentralNEGuy

You're not really insulting me or any of us. Most of the corn grown goes to feed cattle not for human consumption (a.k.a. sweet corn). We don't control that there are only a few seed companies from which to buy each year. Buying local food from local farmers might work where you have a lot of people that are food conscious and where there is a lot of tourism, but for most people, such a farm would not be very economically viable. Similarly in order for supermarkets to provide food that people demand year round, supply has to be found globally. If you want to change the system, I suggest you take on the companies or the distribution chain not the farmers. And isn't it a profligate waste of natural resources to have hundreds of strip malls and development houses essentially built around a service industry that is fueled on easy credit? Aren't you glad the heartland actually makes something or would you prefer New Hampshire style small farms that struggle to make it and are dependent on city weekend warriors and eco-tourism? A one size model does not fit everywhere. We are proud of our strong ag economy and the benefits that it provides for the state including Omaha. A lot of those companies are based in bigger cities anyways like St. Louis or Minneapolis. Shouldn't you be taking issue with them first?

I wasn't trying to insult at all. I think the biggest issue stems from the fact that our government (USDA) is in cahoots with these big ag conglomerates like Monsanto and Cargill. You can blame the revolving door between the government "regulators" and private industry. I don't have any faith at all in the USDA, and with all of the debate regarding pink slime being brought out of the woodwork I think many agree with me.

"Similarly in order for supermarkets to provide food that people demand year round, supply has to be found globally. If you want to change the system, I suggest you take on the companies or the distribution chain not the farmers."

The main problem with that is obviously that the population of the world is growing far too fast and developing countries need the cheapest and lowest quality food that is affordable. That is unfortunate. Yes, the big companies need to be taken on, and I believe farmers must fight back and be innovative with coop systems and localized seed blends. Of course other input costs like fertilizer (derived from natural gas) are now ridiculously cheap because of the collapse in prices.

"Buying local food from local farmers might work where you have a lot of people that are food conscious and where there is a lot of tourism,"

This is not true. Buying local food and supporting local farmers has NOTHING to do with tourism. Buying local and supporting local farms and orchards is a way of life for many people where I live in NH. It surely has nothing to do with tourism considering most of these farms and orchards are in out of the way places on gravel and dirt roads that only locals know about unless they advertise on their website.

"And isn't it a profligate waste of natural resources to have hundreds of strip malls and development houses essentially built around a service industry that is fueled on easy credit?"

I agree 100%. Conservation used to be conservative principle, aka Teddy Roosevelt. NH is huge in land conservation, a leader in the US. Although we do have some development, much of it is at a more human scaled level. Very few big box stores or strip malls.

"Aren't you glad the heartland actually makes something or would you prefer New Hampshire style small farms that struggle to make it and are dependent on city weekend warriors and eco-tourism?"

This is a strawman argument. Of course the middle part of the country has far larger farms and soils conducive to "mass production." NH, by comparison, was never a very good place for farming due to the short growing season and rocky soils. The best soils for farming were along the river valleys, similar to what you find in many parts of the Appalachians. Farms are smaller in size in NH due to historical land ownership trends and influenced by topography. Once again, consumption of local foods is not dependent on eco-tourism as the market for products can easily be found at the Farmers market, Winter Market, or grocery stores. All products can find a market at a certain price point.

"We are proud of our strong ag economy and the benefits that it provides for the state including Omaha."

That is a good to support ag, but the centralized nature of the ag complex that includes Monsanto and Cargill is surely not a good thing at all.

"Shouldn't you be taking issue with them first?"

I have been contacting my representatives about this issue. Our political system, unforunately, is colluded with way too much insider and lobbyist influences (with the revolving door between government and private industry that I mentioned earlier). This nepotsitic relationship is what has to change.

I buy as much as I can locally and organically. It costs more, but the quality is so much higher that the benefits are far more desirable. I avoid all processed foods as well and don't eat any wheat, dairy, soy, and eggs. I couldn't become a vegetarian or vegan as my diet is already so restrictive due to my multiple food allergies that I have developed over the past several years.

[InTheO!]

How about instead of Secede we just annex the rest of the state so we can become the first and only state that's made up of one entire city. That way we could either keep calling it Nebraska or since it's one huge city it can just be Omaha.

[joelwnelson]

Originally Posted by InTheO!

How about instead of Secede we just annex the rest of the state so we can become the first and only state that's made up of one entire city. That way we could either keep calling it Nebraska or since it's one huge city it can just be Omaha.

Imagine trying to provide infrastructure to the entire state and the tax bill that would be imposed! That said, annex Ralston and Gretna. Arena tax + "we want all the perks of being near a city without being in the city" property tax base.

(I realize the "gentleman's agreement" between Ralston and Omaha, but also feel like the new arena there that's siphoning events from Omaha is in violation of that. And the whole "Omaha can't annex across county lines" regulation just seems like an arbitrary move by the Legislature and should be overturned!)

[jessep28]

Originally Posted by InTheO!

How about instead of Secede we just annex the rest of the state so we can become the first and only state that's made up of one entire city. That way we could either keep calling it Nebraska or since it's one huge city it can just be Omaha.

Originally Posted by joelwnelson

Imagine trying to provide infrastructure to the entire state and the tax bill that would be imposed! That said, annex Ralston and Gretna. Arena tax + "we want all the perks of being near a city without being in the city" property tax base.

(I realize the "gentleman's agreement" between Ralston and Omaha, but also feel like the new arena there that's siphoning events from Omaha is in violation of that. And the whole "Omaha can't annex across county lines" regulation just seems like an arbitrary move by the Legislature and should be overturned!)

Not to mention that as it stands now, no city in Nebraska can annex land outside the county its located in.

[joelwnelson]

Originally Posted by jessep28

Not to mention that as it stands now, no city in Nebraska can annex land outside the county its located in.

No "Class A" city (Omaha, Lincoln). Some other towns do span multiple counties. Seems the law may have been specifically written to limit Omaha...