Ingrid Heilke
Draft: Urban Food Production Memo
March 3, 2010
In the U.S., support for urban food production rarely takes the form of a typical city
program, in which the city sets a goal and fulfills that goal through incentives or direct
implementation, operation and management. While there is a long tradition of gardening
within cities, for both leisure and subsistence, city governments historically have not
considered urban agriculture to be the highest and best use of the land, or to be a high priority
for scarce city funding. Though gardens may be thought of as green space, urban farms and
gardens are not like city parks; ultimately it is the denizens of the city, and not city employees,
who tend to vegetables, fruit or flowers on land whose tenure may or may not be secure. Food
grown in cities is grown in private yards, rooftop gardens or converted vacant lots. Farms,
gardens or orchards might be the impetus of an individual homeowner, a group of neighbors, a
group of squatters taking over an abandoned lot, a non-profit organization, or an
entrepreneurial individual or group. Cities do not have absolute control over the land on which
food is grown, the people who choose to cultivate the land, or the market through which the
food passes. The range of policy mechanisms employed by cities that wish to encourage urban
food production typically either remove barriers, or support individual denizens or
organizations.
Colasanti (2009) defines city-scale urban agriculture as:
A network of cultivation spaces and production activities in which food is
produced by and for the local community and around which city government and
administrative departments, the private sector, non-profit coalitions and
neighborhood groups are involved in order to expand, support and integrate
these activities into the life of the city.
Colasanti contends that while there is a wide body of literature that documents the
benefits of agriculture at the community/neighborhood scale, there is a lack of research on the
cumulative capacity of urban agriculture to meet consumption demands of city residents.
Kaufman and Bailkey outline some of the theoretical benefits of urban agriculture,
including:
 reducing the abundant supply of vacant, unproductive urban land under management by
local governments
 improving the public image of troubled neighborhoods
 increasing the amount of neighborhood green space
 supplying low-income residents with healthier and more nutritious food
 developing more pride and self-sufficiency among inner-city residents who grow food
for themselves and others
 revitalizing the poorest neighborhoods by creating food-based employment (particularly
for young people, thus bringing more income to residents
 providing new, non-traditional program activities for community-based non-profit
organizations
 converting the food waste of supermarkets into compost and fertilizer used in food
production
 reducing food transportation through the greater availability of local produce; and
 supporting local and regional food systems in general
But skeptics contend that such scenarios are highly unlikely. They identify the following as
impediments to turning such visions into reality:
1
Ingrid Heilke
Draft: Urban Food Production Memo
March 3, 2010







inner-city vacant land is too contaminated by past uses to grow food safely, and the cost
of cleaning up the land is often prohibitive
few funding sources exist for urban agriculture projects initiated by resource-strapped
non-profit organizations
key federal agencies, such as the Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), are only remotely attuned to
the idea of urban agriculture
most city-based neighborhood or community development organizations lack the
interest and know-how to grow food, let alone possess the knowledge of how to produce
food for the urban market
organizations with an interest in and capacity for urban agriculture would encounter
significant difficulties that would impede their efforts, such as vandalism, a lack of
markets for selling their products, or a shortage of staff with the necessary technical
knowledge to be urban food producers
support for urban agriculture from city officials is sparse—especially noteworthy are the
difficulties experienced by project initiators in accessing city-owned vacant parcels
and finally, a lack of consensus exists among participants and observers over what
constitutes successful urban agriculture projects (Kaufman and Bailkey 2000, 1-2).
[paragraph on importance of city scale urban agriculture to overall sustainability ]
[Mendes discusses city policy support of UA]
TYPES OF URBAN FOOD PRODUCTION
Community Gardens
Community gardens take a range of forms, from relatively private and inaccessible to
the general public, to highly visible, open, and inviting. Much of the literature, as well as
garden advocates, depict community gardens as green oases that provide open space, leisure,
fresh food and safe places in some of the toughest urban neighborhoods (see, for example,
Ferris et al. 2001). The location of many community gardens in neighborhoods with high
levels of crime, vandalism and drug abuse, however, has often necessitated locked gates and
exclusivity (Schmelzkopf 1995).
Lawson describes contemporary community gardens as characteristically self-managed
and locally responsive as a result of the garden movement of the 1970s, which stands in
contrast to the more didactic top-down Victory gardens of the war and post-war eras. During
the 1970s, gardens “stood as an expression of grassroots activism” as residents of declining,
dangerous neighborhoods replaced vacant lots with gardens (Lawson 2005 pp).
Urban Farms
[non-profit or entrepreneunerial]
Private Gardens, Garden Shares, and Harvest Networks
[Food-not-Lawns; Gardenshares (Seattle); Neighborhood fruit & Lettuce Link
Community Fruit Tree Harvest in Seattle(fruit trees); backyard gardening]
Farmers Markets
Demonstration and Educational Gardens
Peri-urban Agriculture
PROGRAMS & POLICIES THAT SUPPORT URBAN FOOD PRODUCTION
Direct Design, Construction, Operation and Management
2
Ingrid Heilke
Draft: Urban Food Production Memo
March 3, 2010
The popularity of community gardens as a solution to urban blight in the 1970s led the
Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) in New York City to take a
proactive top-down approach. HPD spent $3.6 million on designing and constructing gardens
throughout the city. The efforts were abandoned due to vandalism and rejection by the
communities for whom the gardens were intended. (Lawson 2005 and Schmelzkopf 1995).
Garden advocates, in response, affirmed the importance of community participation in the
design and construction of gardens. New York City changed its programmatic strategy,
creating Operation Green Thumb, which left the design, construction, operation, and
maintenance of gardens to local communities and organizations, and instead offered support
through land leases (see below).
Some cities continue to own and manage gardens on city owned land. In the case of San
Francisco and Boston, these gardens are mostly holdovers from the 1970s gardening
movement, and are treated as demonstration gardens open to the public at set hours. Many
cities, however, choose to leave the management of gardens and farms to the non-profit and
commercial sectors, though they may support these sectors through funding or provision of
resources, as discussed in other sections.
Cities often have anywhere from one to several non-profit organizations that manage
urban farms, orchards, community gardens, and apiaries. When these are directly managed by
organizations (rather than community members), they tend to also serve as demonstration
projects and hosting sites to educational and youth programs (discussed below).
Table 1: Programs Related to Urban Agriculture Design, Construction, Operation and
Management1
Organization Name
Organization
Program Name or Type
Type
Project Grow
Non-profit
Manages community gardens
Ann Arbor
None observed
Austin
Boston Redevelopment
Boston
Authority; School
Department; Department City
City owns and manages garden
of Neighborhood
Government
properties. Gardeners operate.
Development; Parks and
Recreation Department
*Urban Orchards and
Earthworks
Non-profit
Community Tree Project
Community gardens
Boulder
Growing Gardens
Non-profit
The Greenhouse
Community Roots Urban
*Neighborhood vegetable
Commercial
Gardens
gardener and CSA
None observed
Cambridge
Resource Center
Non-profit
Urban Farm
Chicago
Growing Home
Non-profit
Growing Power
Non-profit
1
All tables of this type include all city programs and the most prominent non-profit programs, and well as some
commercial/entrepreneurial efforts that I found in a preliminary internet and literature search. While the tables
are not exhaustive, they do capture the key efforts being made in each city, given the information available on the
internet and case study literature. I expect the charts to expand as research continues.
3
Ingrid Heilke
Draft: Urban Food Production Memo
March 3, 2010
Detroit
Los Angeles
Milwuakee
New York
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Portland
San
Francisco
Seattle
Earthworks Urban Farm
None observed
Growing Power
Non-profit
Apiary
Non-profit
Added Value
Non-profit
East New York Farms!
Non-profit
10 acre plot
Red Hook Community Farm
Farm at Governor’s Island
UCC Youth Farm
Hands and Heart Garden
Philadelphia Green
Works under city
contract
Pennsylvania
Horticultural Society
funded by Philadelphia
Water Dept.
Greensgrow Farm
Grow Pittsburgh
Non-profit/
city
government
Community Based Vacant Lot
Program
Non-profit/
city
government
Mill Creek Farm
Commercial
Non-profit
City of Portland
City
government
Zenger Farm
Recreation and Parks
Department
Commercial
City
government
Seattle Urban Farm Co.
Commercial
Greensgrow Farm
Braddock Farms
Manages community gardens
Better Together Garden at City
Hall
Zenger Farm
Manages community gardens.
Volunteers operate gardens.
*Private yard vegetable
gardening service
Land Provision, Securing Tenure, and Permanent Acquisition
The problem of uncertain or illicit land tenure has been particularly relevant with
regards to urban agriculture. Stated simply, the value placed on community gardens or urban
farms tends to be highest in those cities and neighborhoods with the lowest land values, or in
areas with high numbers of vacant lots. One example of this can be seen in the way urban
decline in New York, and the city’s ensuing attempts to clear blight, resulted in a proliferation
of vacant lots in the 1970s, which then acted as magnets for vandals and drug users. Resident
groups began filling some of those lots with community gardens. In some cases, gardeners
obtained explicit permission from the owner; in other cases gardeners “squatted” on the land
without permission from the owner, often jumping fences to do so (Lawson 2005 and
Schmelzkopf 1995). New York City attempted to support community gardens through
establishment of Operation Green Thumb in 1978, which leased city-owned lots for use as
community gardens. Schmelzkopf (1995 and 2002) discusses the struggles that later ensued as
the city, under the guidance of the Guiliani administration, sought to reclaim the land for
housing development.
A quintessential rust-belt city, Detroit serves as another example of the proliferation of
urban agriculture (UA) in an area struggling with urban decay and negative land value.
Gopakumar & Hess (2005) estimate Detroit to have approximately 40,000 vacant lots (about
1/3 of the area of the city). The Garden Resource Program Collaborative, in an effort to
transform these lots into community assets, provides support and services to over 150
community gardens as well as individual gardeners; it also serves as the hub for a network of
4
Ingrid Heilke
Draft: Urban Food Production Memo
March 3, 2010
organizations, educational institutions, communities, and individuals in the Detroit area
(Colasanti 2009; www.detroitagriculture.org). By contrast, the city of Detroit does not
acknowledge urban agriculture as a legal land use.2
Philadelphia has taken a different attitude – it views urban agriculture as one solution to
the problem of dealing with its tens of thousands of vacant lots. Philadelphia Green cleans up
vacant lots and revitalizes public spaces, which can then be transformed to community gardens
if the neighborhood is interested. The organization receives support from the city in the form
of funding and partnerships. Though urban agriculture in Philadelphia gets more of a nod
from city government than that of Detroit, the situation or urban farms there remains tenuous.
Although Philadelphia has not seen the high levels of real estate appreciation
characteristic of the Bay Area, Seattle, and Boston, redevelopment and
gentrification are occurring in several neighborhoods. The city’s many vacant
lots, including the ones that have been cleaned and greened, eventually could be
resold to developers. As a result, they are in a holding status similar to the land
banks of other cities. This issue raises the question of balancing development
with green space maintenance, that is, a question of urban planning. If the
situation were to develop so that vacant lots were to disappear, community
gardening would need to transition to public land and land held in trust, as has
occurred in cities with high levels of gentrification. (Hess et al. 2005)
Cleveland leased vacant lots directly to gardeners through its land bank program. Yet, though
the arrangement was more formal, the tenure of the land remained insecure. Hess remarks,
“even where city governments officially recognized the informal occupations or otherwise
leased land to gardeners, they retained the right to revoke the leases when land values rose”
(Hess 2009, 142).
Detroit farmers and gardeners consider the insecure land tenure and the illegal status of
many urban farm and garden activities problematic. Colasanti (2009) describes the procedure
for leasing city land as bureaucratic and lengthy, and adds that the process is complicated by
the fact that there is no precedent or established means for government approval for food
cultivation on remediated land. In fact, “political acceptance of [urban agriculture] presents a
greater challenge than the technical aspects.” Political acceptance, in turn, has a lot to do with
how city officials define development, and whether or not the benefits of urban agriculture can
be seen to fit within a development framework.
Schmelzkopf also addresses this same issue in her analysis of the conflict between
community gardens advocates and the Giuliani administration in New York City. She states,
“…because the benefits of…gardens are difficult to quantify, the spaces would continue to be
treated as ‘expendable, nonessential privileges until persuasive arguments are made for the
right to open space (Schmelzkopf in Schmelzkopf 2002, 326). At the root of this conflict,
Schmelzkopf (2002) argues, is not only an incommensurability of values attached to the space
within the city (e.g. the value of the space as a garden and the benefits that it incurs versus its
economic value as housing); who has a right to the space, or “to the city” more generally has
2
Furthermore, the Garden Resource Program Collaborative uses the city’s cluster map, based on the Detroit
Community Reinvestment Strategy Plan, to organize its resident groups. The city, on the other hand, does not
formally acknowledge the agricultural cluster groups, or any other urban agricultural practices, anywhere on its
website.
5
Ingrid Heilke
Draft: Urban Food Production Memo
March 3, 2010
implications for the government’s ability to maintain hegemonic control over the market
economy through maximization of exchange values through land use designation. It is
probably not mere accident that many cities choose not to formally recognize community
agriculture efforts, or pass zoning policy that would recognize urban agriculture as a legitimate
land use. If Schmelzkopf is correct, many cities may see urban agricultural practices as a threat
to their hegemonic projects of economic development.
The conflict over community gardens in New York is a prime example of the inherent
insecurity of land tenure associated with urban agriculture. If urban farming or gardening is
initially viewed as a solution to problems of vacant lots or blight, the support of the city is
liable to be fickle when land values rise. In New York, The New York Restoration Project was
formed by Bette Midler in direct response to the high-profile conflict between garden advocates
and the city. Its subsidiary, The New York Garden Trust, holds title to many gardens in the
city. Given the often conflicting interests of city government with regards to land use and
development, non-governmental, non-profit land trusts have become a common means of
securing land tenure.
Hess (2005) describes Seattle’s approach as a “model for city governments in terms of
developing a comprehensive plan with a clear goal for community gardening, decentralizing
the planning process by supporting neighborhood-based planning, and supporting
neighborhood plans with funding.” He cites secure land tenure as one of the reasons for the
success of the partnership between city government and garden non-profit organizations. He
states, “Unlike some of the eastern cities, community gardens are not located on abandoned lots
owned by the city. When that happens, increases in land values coupled with decreases in city
budges can set the city on a collision course with gardeners. In Seattle, most of the gardens are
on dedicated public land or land held by the P-Patch Trust. However, there have been some
clashes…” (Hess, 2005).
As a relatively small city surrounded by open space, Boulder takes a very different
strategy with regard to agriculture – the city includes agricultural land use in its urban growth
boundary rather than proactively attempting to integrate it into the core of the city. The
county negotiates lease terms to independent operators and tracks rent on agricultural
properties.
Table 2: Programs Related to Land Provision, Securing Tenure, and Permanent Acquisition
Organization Name
Organization
Program Name or Type
Type
None found
Ann Arbor
None found
Austin
Dept. of Neighborhood
City
Boston
The Grassroots Program
Development
Government
County Parks and Open
Boulder
County
*Agricultural resource
Space Agricultural
Government
management
Resources Division
Cambridge Community Garden
Cambridge
City
City of Cambridge
Program – provision of city
Government
land
*Urban Composting and
Chicago
Resource Center
Non-profit
Community Gardening
6
Ingrid Heilke
Draft: Urban Food Production Memo
March 3, 2010
Detroit
Los Angeles
Milwuakee
New York
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Portland
San
Francisco
Seattle
None found
None observed
Walnut Way
Conservation Corporation
Milwuakee Urban
Gardens
New York Restoration
Project
The Trust for Public
Land
Pennsylvania
Horticultural Society
Neighborhood Gardens
Association
Department of Public
Works
None observed
Non-profit
*Secures perpetual leases from
the city on city owned property
Non-profit
Facilitates land acquisition
Non-profit
*New York Garden Trust
National nonprofit
Nonprofit/City
government
Permanent acquisition
*Philadelphia Green
Non-profit
A Philadelphia Land Trust
CityG
Green-up Pittsburgh
Recreation and Parks
Department
City
government
Sometimes acquires title to
gardens owned by private or
non-profit entities that are in
jeoaporday
Department of
Neighborhoods
City
government
*P-patch Trust
School Gardens, Youth Programs, and Horticultural Training
Horticultural training programs often pair disenfranchised populations or youth with
urban agriculture in order to increase awareness of food systems as well as teach other skills
such as leadership, entrepreneurship, teamwork, and academic concepts. Many of these
programs also shorten distribution distances when produce is being consumed directly by
growers, or when it is sold on site.
Growing Home in Chicago has an internship program for people who face barriers to
employment, such as homelessness, previous incarceration, or substance abuse issues.
Participants work on Growing Home farms through a full growing cycle, and are able to take
free GED preparation courses. The Garden Project in San Francisco is similar in that it trains
at-risk youth and former offenders in horticultural skills in order to reduce crime and
recidivism.
The most common horticultural training programs, however, are youth programs. The
Food Project in Boston is a model youth program with the goal of “engaging young people in
personal and social change through sustainable agriculture” (thefoodproject.org). The
organization’s Summer Youth program educates teenagers through the direct experience of
working on The Food Project’s 37 acre farm, selling produce in farmers markets, and preparing
food for the homeless in shelters and soup kitchens. The academic year program, internships,
and fellowships all provide participants with opportunities to continue their participation and
advance their skills. All of the programs provide participants with a stipend or pay of some
kind. This is an important element to this type of program. Alemany Youth Farm in San
7
Ingrid Heilke
Draft: Urban Food Production Memo
March 3, 2010
Francisco had a similar program that attracted low-income youth, and provided a pathway to a
college education by offering employment on its four acre farm and simultaneous access to
classes at City College of San Francisco. The program was considered a success until job
funding was withdrawn. Without wages to offer, the program was unable to attract lowincome participants and the program collapsed; the farm was abandoned (Hess, 2005). These
types of programs are essentially supporting sustainable urban agriculture, and youth
development. For this reason they tend to require more funding than an all-volunteer
community garden. The programs are more likely to be successful if the funders (whether they
are private or governmental) value both types of outcomes: urban food production and
education as well as youth training and skill development.
Added Value in New York City has a similar program, though smaller scale, than that of
The Food Project. By working on the farms, at the market, and in advocacy projects, Added
Value asserts that “young people gain a strong foundation of agricultural skills and investigate
critical issues affecting our community, such as food access, unemployment and obesity”
(www.added-value.org). Added Value also works with nearby schools to educate younger
children about where their food comes from, and farm life cycles, and community
interdependence. The Farm-to-Classroom program brings first graders from a local school
onto the farm for 26 weeks (three seasons). The children prepare farm beds, sow seeds, harvest
produce, and learn to cook.
More commonly, schools have gardens and garden programs on-site. The Edible
Schoolyard concept initiated by Alice Waters at Martin Luther King Middle School in Berkeley
has inspired many schools to follow suit – planting gardens on campus and tying curricula in
science and humanities classes to garden concepts and experiments. In Pittsburgh, The Edible
Schoolyard program, is a collaboration between the non-profit Grow Pittsburg, the public
school system, and school community members.3 Growing Gardens in Portland has a School
Gardens Coordinator Training Program that provides training for individuals that are
interested in establishing edible schoolyards.
Table 3: Programs Related to School Gardens, Youth Programs, and Horticultural Training
City
Organization Name
Ann Arbor
None found
Austin
Boston
Sustainable Food Center
*The Food Project
Org. Program Name or
Type Type
Program Descriptors
NP
Sprouting Healthy Kids
Farm-to School
Food system education
In class education
After school education
Summer Youth Program
Youth training and employment:
food production, marketing,
teamwork
Academic Year Program
After school employment
Internships
Project focused internships
Fellowships
Full-time apprenticeship
NP
3
While edible schoolyards are intended to grow produce on-site that is consumed by school children, there are
other programs that are specifically concerned with introducing locally sourced produce into school cafeterias.
These programs are discussed in the Distribution section.
8
Ingrid Heilke
Draft: Urban Food Production Memo
March 3, 2010
Boulder
Growing Gardens
Cambridge
None found
Chicago
*Growing Home
Detroit
Los Angeles
None found
Milwaukee
New York
Philadelphia
NP
Youth operated market garden
Job Training Program
Horticultural training for
individuals with barriers to
employment
Growing Power
NP
Youth Corps
Entrepreneurial youth
development apprenticeship
Walnut Way
Conservation Corp.
Youth Programming
Youth programming
NP
Workforce/Job Skill
Development
Workforce/job skill development
None found
*Added Value
NP
Federation of
Neighborhood Centers
NP
Grow Pittsburgh
NP
Penn State Cooperative
Extension
Growing Gardens
Acad.
Youth Empowerment
Farm-to-Classroom
Learning Gardens
Institute
NP
*The Garden Project
NP
Dept. of Neighborhoods
City
G.
Youth training and employment:
food production, marketing,
advocacy
Weekly farm-based lessons
Seed-to-Salad
Farm based lessons tied to class
curriculum
Farm Field Trips
Free field trips visits for
elementary school groups
Teens 4 Good Program
Youth training: horticulture,
teamwork, entrepreneurial skills
*The Edible Schoolyard
School gardens
Summer Youth Intern
Program
Youth internship
4-H and Youth
Horticultural education
Youth Grow
After school garden clubs
Summer garden camps
School gardens
Parent/child workshops
Youth garden education training
School Gardens
Coordinator Training
Program
Training for organizers of edible
garden programs
NP
Portland
Seattle
Children's educational garden
The Cultiva! Youth
Project (ages 11-19)
NP
Pittsburgh
San
Francisco
The Children's Peace
Garden (ages 4-10)
Collaborates with contractors who develop school gardens
and curriculum
Horticultural training program
for former offenders
P-Patch Cultivating
Youth
After school gardening
education
9
Ingrid Heilke
Draft: Urban Food Production Memo
March 3, 2010
Zoning and Land Use Policy
Current, typical zoning and land use policy have myriad engrained barriers to urban
agriculture and food production that are a legacy of over a century of modernization. As
agriculture has been industrialized, moved away from urban centers, and as it has become
increasingly easy to transport foodstuffs and other agricultural products into cities by truck,
rail, or ship, agricultural food production has become almost entirely absent from most urban
landscapes in the U.S.4 At the same time, city planners of the twentieth century have been
largely focused on land as a means of real estate development and economic exchange. As such,
agriculture has been something to be excluded from zoning and land use policy, when it is
considered at all. The barriers to UA range from prohibitions on “outdoor work activities”
(Mendes 2008) to prohibitions on chickens and bees (addressed in the next section), to
prohibitions on agricultural use altogether. In Los Angeles, for example, a 1946 Truck
Gardening Ordinance allows for vegetables to be grown in residential (R1) zones if they are to
be sold offsite, but has resulted in a de facto prohibition of production of fruits, nuts, flowers or
seedlings in residential zones for off-site sale. Contemporary city official are left with an
ambiguous understanding of what “truck farming” actually is and what it really means for
zoning policy. Advocates of urban agriculture have pushed city government to clarify its
zoning code to allow food production in residential zones; the Food and Flowers Freedom Act
reflects these demands, is supported by the Department of City Planning, and is on the agenda
of the City Council for spring of 2010.
Of the 15 cities that I examined, only two – Portland and Boulder – underscore food
production policy as a concern of the city government. The Portland Multnomah Food Policy
Council, established in 2002, grew out an activist initiative to raise awareness of food policy
issues.
Since 2002, the Portland/Multnomah Food Policy Council has worked on such
far-reaching issues as local institutional purchasing, small-scale food system
assessments, support of immigrant and refugee famers in the Pacific Northwest,
developing commercial food composting, bringing electronic benefit transfer
(food stamp) capability to local farmers markets, and researching policies to
protect farmland” (Mendes 2008, 439).
The City of Portland provides a home to the Food Policy Council on its website with access to
the council’s research and reports. Portland further demonstrated its seriousness about urban
food production by hiring a full-time staff member in 2005 to work on food issues (Mendes
2008). Penn State extension, along with a coalition of non-profit organizations in Pittsburgh,
have followed in Portland’s footsteps, creating their own advisory group on food and
agricultural policy – the Pittsburgh Food Policy Council.
The Diggable City Project, proposed and championed by a Portland commissioner, was
carried out by graduate students at Portland State University. The project took an inventory
of city-managed land, analyzed the potential suitability of the land for UA use, and made policy
recommendations that would remove land use policy and zoning barriers to UA and encourage
UA on some of the inventoried land in the future. The city appears to have taken the student
report seriously, assigning two planners to work with a subcommittee of the Food Policy
Council to consider the implications of the student report with regards to existing zoning and
land use policy. An inventory management plan drafted by the Food Policy Council, has
This stands in contrast to cities in developing countries, where urban food production often remains a reliable
way of supplementing household diets (See Mugeout ****).
4
10
Ingrid Heilke
Draft: Urban Food Production Memo
March 3, 2010
resulted in a pilot projects on unused land identified by the Diggable City Project (Mendes
2008). It is still too soon, however, to know whether the inventory and political amicability
surrounding UA in Portland will translate into lasting policy mechanisms.
As a city surrounded by open space, Boulder has a different attitude towards agriculture
than larger, more urban cities. With an Urban Growth Boundary, Boulder proactively
manages the containment of sprawl and the conservation of natural land with the city’s Open
Space and Mountain Parks Department, and the county’s Parks and Open Space Department.
Rather than focusing on promotion of agriculture, Boulder County has an established program
of agricultural management that includes agricultural land conservation, and management of
water and agricultural resources.
Table 4: Programs Related to Zoning and Land Use Policy
City
Organization Name
Ann Arbor
Austin
Boston
None found
Org.
Type
None found
Open Space and
Mountain Parks
City G
Parks and Open Space
Cnty G
Cambridge
Chicago
Detroit
None found
Los Angeles
L.A. Community Garden
Council
Milwaukee
New York
Philadelphia
None found
Open Space and
Mountain Parks
Program
Agricultural
Management
Agricultural land
conservation?
(webpage under
construction)
Agricultural land
conservation
Water rights
Resource Management
None found
None found
Organizing political
mobilization around zoning
issues
NP
None found
None found
Penn State
Extension/Coalition of
several area organizations
Advis.
Counc.
Pittsburgh Food Policy
Council
Advisory group on food and
agricultural policy
City of Portland and
Multnomah County
Advis.
Counc.
Portland Multnomah
Food Policy Council
Citizen -based Advisory
Council. Advises and reports
to city and county
government on food and
agricultural policy issues
Comissioners Office:
research done by urban
planning students at
Portland State University
City
G/
Acad.
Diggable City Project
Agricultural land use
inventory and policy
recommendations
Portland
San
Francisco
Program Descriptors
None found
Boulder
Pittsburgh
Program Name or
Type
None found
11
Ingrid Heilke
Draft: Urban Food Production Memo
March 3, 2010
Seattle
None found
Ordinances and Regulations: Chickens, Bees, Pests, and Pesticides
Honeybees are important pollinator insects, enabling the flowering of plants and the
production of fruit on trees. Furthermore, honey provides a locally available source of food and
natural sweetener. Honeybee populations consist almost entirely of human managed hives, as
mites have decimated wild populations for more than two decades. This predicament makes
bee ordinances a critical element in both honeybee ecology and in food production more
generally. Chickens have come to be the livestock of choice for many city dwellers, as their
eggs provide a regular source of food, and there are many citizen websites, blogs, and
workshops dedicated to the raising of chickens in urban areas.
Chickens, bees, pests, and pesticides, however, can be seen as a nuisance to neighbors, or
even a health threat, when they are not properly managed in dense urban environments. Cities
that wish to encourage urban food production must balance the needs of responsible
practitioners with those of their neighbors. Regulations that are overly restrictive, or that do
not account for the ways that urban agriculture is actually practiced can inhibit urban food
production. Yet, if irresponsible practices are not checked by smart regulations, or the
concerns of neighbors are not adequately addressed, political backlash can undermine potential
benefits of raising chickens and bees in the city. The recent struggle in Pittsburgh over a
proposed zoning ordinance that would affect the ability of urban residents to keep chickens and
bees exemplifies this tension. According to an article in the Post-Gazette, the city claims that it
is merely attempting to clarify confusing language and eliminate room for “abuse of privilege”;
advocates, on the other hand, fear that the proposed changes could impose severe constraints
on chicken raisers and beekeepers (Nelson 2010). The proposed ordinance uses conventional
zoning tools – a 15-foot setback and 2,500 square foot minimum lot size per hive, for example –
to address public concern over beekeeping. Beekeepers counter that policymakers should
consider bee behavior and flight paths rather than hive placement (Green 2010). Instead, on
properties that are too small to accommodate large setbacks or lot sizes, flyaway barriers can
keep curious humans away from bees and force the bees to fly upwards, away from human
activity. Similarly, rooftop beekeeping is a popular option in dense cities such as New York,
where the height of buildings can be used to minimize human contact with bees. Beekeepers
need to be careful not to overstock locations (Tew 2008) – registration of urban bee colonies
can help ensure a reasonable distribution throughout the city. If bees don’t have a dependable
water source near the colony, they will forage for water (such as a neighbor’s pool or fountain);
cities can require beekeepers to maintain a constant water source at the site of the colony.
Honeybees are non-aggressive insects, though they are naturally defensive. Beekeepers
cite public fear of bees as more of a problem than real danger posed by the bees themselves
(Tew 2008, Bock 2002, Navarro 2010). While people with bee-sting allergies face a legitimate
health threat, the vast majority of the population is unlikely to experience harmful effects, or
regular stings from bees5. Until March of 2010 New York City’s “health code placed honeybees
in the same category as about 100 other creatures deemed too hazardous to be kept in town,
including ferrets and poisonous snakes” (Associated Press 2010). Before the ban was lifted,
beekeepers could be fined up to $2,000 if a neighbor alerted city officials as to the whereabouts
of a hive. Now beekeepers are required to register their hives with the city in order to resolve
complaints. Registration can also give cities the opportunity to make contact with beekeepers,
Tew provides some statistics on bee stings that put the risk of getting stung and dying from a sting in
perspective.
5
12
Ingrid Heilke
Draft: Urban Food Production Memo
March 3, 2010
collect data on hive locations, and educate beekeepers as to the expectations the city has for
hive maintenance with regards to flight barriers, water sources, stocking levels, and swarming.
If beekeepers are required to register, the city can ensure that they have plans in place to
control swarming, should it happen, such as a second backyard (Tew 2008).
There is a wide variety in the range of city ordinances that regulate the keeping of
chickens (or other small livestock) on residential property. Some cities don’t allow chickens at
all. Other cities don’t ban chickens outright, but provide no specific guidance as to how they
are or aren’t allowed to be kept. Ordinances that do exist, vary in their specificity and
stringency, and tend to include elements from one or more of the following categories: number
of chickens allowed; number of roosters allowed (if any); enclosure specifications, including
distance from buildings or neighbors; minimum lot size; consent from neighbors; prohibition on
slaughter; and permit and license fees.
In cities that have bans on chickens, or that have restrictive ordinances, non-profit
organizations sometimes draft model ordinances in order to encourage the city to change its
policy. Where ordinances strike a balance between regulating nuisance and safety and allowing
the keeping of bees, chickens or other small livestock, non-profit organizations are more likely
to focus their efforts on citizen education rather than advocate for policy change.
Regulation of pests and pesticide use is also an issue that touches urban food production,
and it is often done by county or state agricultural departments or commissions. Though most
community or backyard gardens do not use pesticides, regulations must be in place that restrict
usage in order to protect residents from commercial or naïve pesticide usage. Bees are
particularly susceptible to pesticides. The San Francisco County Agriculture Commissioner,
for example, is charged with the Pesticide Use Enforcement Program, which regulates pest
conditions and sets maximum levels of pesticide usage. The program’s concerns within the city
are mainly with regard to commercial nurseries, though if urban food production were to
expand dramatically it’s easy to imagine how the program strategy would have to shift and
expand as well.
Table 5: Ordinances and Regulations: Chickens, Bees, Pests, and Pesticides
6
City
Organization Name
Org. Program Name or
Type Type
Ann Arbor
City Ordinance
City G
Chicken ordinance6
Austin
City Ordinance
City G
Chicken ordinance
Boston
City Ordinance
City G
Boulder
Growing Gardens
NP
Chicken ordinance
Program
Descriptors
Approved June 2008:
Up to 4 Hens allowed.
Permits cost $20.
Up to 10 fowl per
household; some
sources say no limit.
Enclosure must be 50 ft
away from neighbors.
City considering
banning roosters
All residential zones in
Boston forbid "auxiliary
keeping of animals,"
including poultry and
other livestock.
Bee education and
colony maintenance
All information on city chicken ordinances taken from thecitychicken.com.
13
Ingrid Heilke
Draft: Urban Food Production Memo
March 3, 2010
Cambridge
City G
No Chicken ordinance
Chicago
City Ordinance
City G
Chicken ordinance
Denver
City Ordinance
City G
Chicken ordinance
City Ordinance
City G
Chicken ordinance
Earthworks
NP
Houston
City Ordinance
City G
Small livestock
ordinance
Los Angeles
City Ordinance
City G
Chicken ordinance
Milwaukee Urban Agriculture
Network
NP
Draft ordinances
Growing Power
NP
Draft ordinances
Detroit
Milwaukee
Chickens are not
mentioned in city
codes. The city
comments that as long
as chickens are "pets,"
there are no
enforcement concerns.
Unlimited number of
chickens allowed for
pets or eggs. Slaughter
not allowed. Must be
penned.
Chicken permit fee: $50
Application fee: $50
License fee: $100
Annual fee to own: $70
Enclosure must be clean
and pest free.
Must put two signs in
front yard for one
month allowing
neighbors to object.
No "farm animals"
allowed.
Education about
importance of
honeybees
Chickens may be kept
on a lot which measures
at least 65 feet X 125
feet: 30 chickens,
turkeys, geese, ducks,
peafowl, rabbits or
guinea pigs or 40 of any
combination of the
above.
Unlimited number of
chickens allowed.
Chickens may not be
within 20 feet of
owner's residence, and
must be at least 35 feet
from any other
dwelling.
Draft ordinances for
keeping of chickens and
bees - being reviewed
by City Department of
Neighborhood Services
Draft ordinances for
keeping of chickens and
bees
14
Ingrid Heilke
Draft: Urban Food Production Memo
March 3, 2010
Minneapolis City Ordinance
City G
Chicken ordinance
New York
City G
Health code/
Chicken Ordinance
City Ordinance
Unlimited number of
chickens allowed.
Chickens must be
penned.
Applicants need
consent from 80% of
neighbors within 100
feet of the property.
Chickens considered
pets under the health
code.
Unlimited number of
hens allowed.
No roosters or other
types of poultry.
Cleanliness of chicken
area must be kept
clean.
Philadelphia None found.
City Ordinance
City G
Chicken Ordinance
Burgh Bees
NP
Bee Advocacy and
Education
City Ordinance
City G
Chicken ordinance
Growing Gardens
NP
Bee Advocacy and
Education
Voted in 2007: 6
chickens allowed per
household, with
restrictions.
Chicken Education (eg Tour de Coops)
Chicken ordinance
Up to 25 chickens
allowed with permit.
Coop must be at least
50 from nearby houses.
Chicken ordinance
City council presently
debating chicken
ordinance - chickens
currently not allowed.
Pittsburgh
Portland
Salt Lake
City
San Diego
Fowl must be penned.
No more than 5 pets
per household.
Prohibitions on animal
nuisances.
Proposed ordinance has
tighter restrictions.
City Ordinance
City Ordinance
City G
City G
City Ordinance
City G
Chicken ordinance
Up to four small animals
allowed (including
chickens).
Must be penned.
Must be at least 20 ft
from doors or windows.
County Agriculture
Commissioner
CntyG
Pesticide Use
Enforcement
Program
Regulates pest
conditions
San
Francisco
15
Ingrid Heilke
Draft: Urban Food Production Memo
March 3, 2010
Seattle
City Ordinance
City G
Chicken ordinance
Up to three small
animals allowed
(including chickens);
more if the lot is large.
Hens must be 50 ft from
any residence.
Must have written
consent from all
neighbors.
Advocates currently
working to eliminate 50
ft rule and written
consent requirement.
Public Housing Tenant Gardening Programs
Education/Outreach/Promotion/Coalitions/Networks
Technical Assistance, Resource Provision, and Funding
Addressing Pollution & Soil Contamination
Compost Initiatives
Distribution
Data Analysis and Research
Federal Programs
The Urban Garden Program (1976-1993) was structured as an agricultural extension
program that supported city educational programs. When federal funding was discontinued,
some city programs downsized or ended (Lawson 2005, 228).
Reference List
Allen J.O., Alaimo K., Elam D., and Perry E. 2008. "Growing vegetables and values: Benefits of
neighborhood-based community gardens for youth development and nutrition". Journal of
Hunger and Environmental Nutrition. 3 (4): 418-439.
Allen, Patricia; FitzSimmons, Margaret; Goodman, Michael; Warner, Keith D. 2003. Alternative
Food Initiatives in California: Local Efforts Address Systemic Issues.
Armstrong D. 2000. "A survey of community gardens in upstate New York: implications for
health promotion and community development". Health & Place. 6 (4): 319-27.
Associated Press. 16 March 2010. “NYC Abuzz: Sweet Deal Makes Bees Legal,” New York
Times. U.S. Retrieved March 2010 from http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/03/16/us/AP-USUrban-Beekeeping.html?_r=3&scp=2&sq=beekeeping&st=cse.
Associated Press. “Urbanites Enjoy Life ‘Down on the Farm’ in San Francisco,” City Farmer,
Canada’s Office of Urban Agriculture, 1999.
Bakker, Nico. 2000. Growing cities, growing food: urban agriculture on the policy agenda : a reader on
urban agriculture. Feldafing: Deutsche Stiftung für Internationale Entwicklung (DSE),
Zentralstelle für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (ZEL) [u.a .].
16
Ingrid Heilke
Draft: Urban Food Production Memo
March 3, 2010
Bock, Paula. 2002. “Pure Gold: In this story of survival, honey’s only the half of it,” The Seattle
Times.”
Belko, Mark. 17 February 2010 “Planning board hearing all abuzz over birds and bees,”
Pittsburgh Post Gazette in Neighborhoods. Retrieved March 2010 from http://www.postgazette.com/pg/10048/1036414-53.stm.
City of Boston. Open Space Management Plan: 2004-2006, retrieved from
http://www.cityofboston.gov/parks/pdfs/os4b.pdf February 2010.
Colasanti, Kathryn J.A. 2009. Growing food in the city: Two approaches to exploring scaling up urban
agriculture in Detroit. Thesis (M.S.)—Michigan State University.
Dalton, Claire. 2008. “Five Best Cities for urban Gardening,” Retrieved February 2010 from
http://www.causecast.org/news_items/8925-five-best-cities-for-urban-gardening.
Donahue, Brian, “The Promise and Limits of Local Food,” Boston Globe, 26 August 2009.
DuPuis, E. M., D. Goodman, and J. Harrison. 2005. "JUST VALUES OR JUST VALUE?
REMAKING THE LOCAL IN AGRO-FOOD STUDIES". Research in Rural Sociology and
Development. (12): 241-268.
Farmers’ Markets of America. Prepared for City of Portland. 2008. “Portland Farmers
Markets/Direct-Market Economic Analysis: Characteristics of Successful Farmers Markets.”
Ferris, John, Carol Norman, and Joe Sempik. 2001. "People, Land and Sustainability:
Community Gardens and the Social Dimension of Sustainable Development". Social Policy &
Administration. 35 (5): 559-568.
Fitzgerald, Michael. “Can Community Gardens Save a City?” Boston Globe , 9 November 2008.
Flanigan, S., and R. Varma. 2006. "PROMOTING COMMUNITY GARDENING TO LOWINCOME URBAN PARTICIPANTS IN THE WOMEN, INFANTS AND CHILDREN
PROGRAMME (WIC) IN NEW MEXICO". COMMUNITY WORK AND FAMILY. 9 (1): 6974.
Goodman, David, and Micahel Goodman. 2007. "Localism, Livelihoods, and the 'Post-Organic':
Changing Perspectives on Alternative Food Networks in the United States." in...
Gopakumer, Govind, and David Hess. 2005 “Case Study of Community Gardens: Detroit,
Michigan,” retrieved from: www.davidjhess.org/sustlocCasesTOC.html 2/10/2010.
Green, Caralyn “Proposed Zoning Ordinance Could Create Changes For Urban Agriculture,”
Pop City. 17 Februrary 2010. Retrieved February 2010 from
http://www.popcitymedia.com/devnews/urbanag021710.aspx.
17
Ingrid Heilke
Draft: Urban Food Production Memo
March 3, 2010
Greenstein, Rosalind, and Yesim Sungu-Eryilmaz. 2004.Recycling the city: the use and reuse of
urban land. Cambridge, Mass: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Hanna, Autumn K., and Pikai Oh. 2000. "Rethinking Urban Poverty: A Look at Community
Gardens". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 20 (3): 207-216.
Hassell, Malve von. 2002. The struggle for Eden: community gardens in New York City. Westport,
Conn: Bergin & Garvey.
Hess, David J. 2009. Localist movements in a global economy: sustainability, justice, and urban
development in the United States. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Hess, David, Colin Beech, Rachel Dowty, Govind Gopakumar, Richard Arias Hernandez, and
Langdon Winner. 2007. Case Studies of Sustainability, and the Politics of Design, and
Localism. http://www.davidjhess.org/sustlocCasesTOC.html
Jones, Diana Nelson. 08 February 2010. “Ordinance changes bother keepers of bees, chickens,”
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Neighborhood. Retrieved February 2010 from http://www.postgazette.com/pg/10048/1036414-53.stm.
Kanter, James “Firm Brings Farming to the Masses,” New York Times, 24 August 2009.
Kaufman, Jerome L., and Martin Bailkey. 2000. Farming inside cities: entrepreneurial urban
agriculture in the United States. [Cambridge, Mass.]: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Lachance, Jonathan D. 2004. Supporting urban agriculture: a proposed supplement to the City of
Detroit plan of policies. Ann Arbor, Mich: Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning,
University of Michigan.
Lawson, Laura. 2000. Urban-Garden programs in the United States: values, resources and role in
community development. Thesis (Ph. D. in Environmental Planning)--University of California,
Berkeley, Spring 2000.
Lord, Rich. 2008. “City’s new ‘Green Team’ to spruce up vacant lots,’ Washington Post Gazette,
21 April, 2008. Retrieved March 2010 from http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08112/87515653.stm.
Maye, Damian, Lewis Holloway, and Moya Kneafsey. 2007. Alternative food geographies:
representation and practice. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
McMillan, Tracie. “Urban Farmers’ Crops go From Vacant Lot to Market,” New York Times, 7
May 2008.
Mendes, Wendy, Kevin Balmer, Terra Kaethler, and Amanda Rhoads. 2008. "Using Land
Inventories to Plan for Urban Agriculture: Experiences From Portland and Vancouver".
Journal of the American Planning Association. 74 (4): 435.
18
Ingrid Heilke
Draft: Urban Food Production Memo
March 3, 2010
Mougeot, Luc J. A. 2005. Agropolis: the social, political, and environmental dimensions of urban
agriculture. Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre.
Navarro, Mireya . 13 March 2010 “Bees in the City? New York May Let the Hives Come Out
of Hiding,” New York Times. Environment. Retrieved March 201o from
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/science/earth/15bees.html.
Potter, Chris. “Going to Seed: Can Urban Farming Save Pittsburg – and the World?,”
Pittsburg City Paper, 26 April 2007. Retrieved Februrary 2010 from
http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid:27492.
Roy, Parama. 2008. Urban environmental inequality and the rise of civil society: the case of Walnut
Way neighborhood in Milwaukee. Thesis (Ph. D. in Geography)--University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Schmelzkopf, Karen. 1995. "Urban Community Gardens as Contested Space". Geographical
Review. 85 (3): 364-381.
Schmelzkopf, Karen. 2002. "Incommensurability, Land Use, and the Right to Space:
Community Gardens in New York City". Urban Geography. 23 (4): 323.
Skinner, Katy. Chicken Laws. In The City Chicken Retrieved February 2010, from
http://home.centurytel.net/thecitychicken/chickenlaws.html.
Smith, Christopher M, and Hilda E Kurtz. 2003. "COMMUNITY GARDENS AND
POLITICS OF SCALE IN NEW YORK CITY". Geographical Review. 93 (2): 193.
Staeheli, Lynn, Don Mitchell, and Kristina Gibson. 2002. "Conflicting rights to the city in New
York's comunity gardens". GeoJournal. 58 (2-3): 2-3.
Steele, Dave. “Beyond the Backyard Garden: Urban Agriculture in Milwuakee,” Next American
City, 10 June 2008.
Stohr, Kate. “In the Capital of the Car, Nature Stakes a Claim,” New York Times, 4 December
2003.
Tew, James E. Summer, 2008. “Bees in the City: A good thing or a Dangerous thing?,” Beeline:
A Newsletter on Beekeeping in the Southeast, Retrieved February 2010 from
http://www.aces.edu/pubs/docs/B/beeline/BeelineSummer08.pdf
Trobe, Helen La, and Helen La Trobe. 2001. "Farmers' markets: consuming local rural
produce". Journal of Cardiac Surgery. 25 (3): 181-192.
http://www.cityofboston.gov/dnd/PDFs/D_Boston_Grassroots_CDBG.pdf
19
Ingrid Heilke
Draft: Urban Food Production Memo
March 3, 2010
20