give me land, lots of land ...
Price of Farmland Soars in Rocky Mountain West
By Jessica Mayrer, 8-08-07
 |
|
 | |
| Even here, in northcentral Montana, away from the state's most urban centers, ag land prices are on the rise. Photo by Matthew Frank. | |
|
Nationally, the price of agricultural land is climbing steadily, and land prices in several Rocky Mountain States are leading the way.
Throughout the region, an acre of farmland costs about 18 percent more than it would have at this time last year, according to a report released Friday by the Agricultural Statistics Board, a division of the United States Department of Agriculture.
In Montana in particular, the going rate for an acre of irrigated farmland jumped $900 last year, by 32 percent to a total of $3,700. The average piece of an acre of farmland under the Big Sky runs about $960, that’s a 20 percent jump over 2006.
And in Wyoming, the price of farm real estate jumped by 24 percent to about $560 an acre. The cost of non-irrigated cropland in Wyoming is up 45 percent over last year, with irrigated lands rising by 13 percent.
In Utah, the average price of an acre of farmland is $2,550, up 23 percent.
Nationally, since 1998, the cost of one acre of farmland went up by just more than $1,000.
Many factors are driving the trend, including an influx of people buying agricultural lands for housing and recreation. But rising commodity prices, especially in corn, could also be a factor, says Peggy Stringer, Director of the Montana Field Office of the USDA.
“It all goes back to corn,” Stringer said.
The theory is, as the demand for ethanol rises, so does the price of corn. So, farmers plant more corn and grow less wheat. Ultimately, supply and demand kicks in, and prices go up all the way around, including the cost of the land the crops are grown on, she said.
Rising prices may be one factor, but Montana’s growing population is another. Agricultural lands are getting sold off for commercial and real-estate development.
In the Missoula area, agricultural land runs from $6,000-$10,000 per acre, the result of a booming population.
“Unless we do something, on a policy level to stop this, we will run out of land,” said Josh Slotnick, head of the Garden City Harvest in Missoula and the director of the University of Montana’s PEAS Farm.
Even with commodity prices high, cash like that is tough to turn away, Slotnick said.
“Yet, everyone believes family farms are a good thing,” he said. “We are making that impossible.”
Lands are also increasingly used for recreation, instead of food production, Stringer said.
“People are purchasing a lot of land across the state as second homes,” Stringer said. “They don’t really need the income from the ranches.”
That, coupled with rapid development around urban centers like Missoula and Billings, is driving up the costs of productive land, Stringer said.
“The people who used to make a living can’t do it,” Stringer said. “You’ve either got to get big or get a job in town.”
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
“Yet, everyone believes family farms are a good thing,” (Slotnick) said. “We are making that impossible.”
“The people who used to make a living can’t do it,” Stringer said. “You’ve either got to get big or get a job in town.”
HELL-OOOO!!!
Where have these people been during AT LEAST the last generation???
"Aging Workforce News" ~ (see http://www.agingworkforcenews.com/labels/agriculture.html for at least a portion of their information regarding agriculture) ~ posted on June 23, 2007:
"Right now, nearly a quarter of farm operators in this country are 65 years of age or older."
At hearings covering a wide range of issues from immigration, to schooling, to estate taxes, reflecting the crisis Derek Godwin, Staff Chair and Watershed Management Extension Specialist, Oregon State University Extension Services, Salem, Oregon, one of the panelists at the hearing, stated:
"In the last two U.S. Census of Agriculture reports the average age of farm owners continues to increase towards 60 years of age. This means that our communities and society in general can anticipate an unprecedented transfer in ownership of land-based business over the next couple of decades. In addition, the value of agriculture property has appreciated significantly over the years which adds complexity to how and if farms will transition to the next generation. We are at a critical stage in planning for the future of agriculture: recruiting and training the next generation of farmers and ensuring farms will continue to be viable, healthy operations. Every family owned business has to deal with transitions, but it seems to be reaching crisis proportions in agriculture."
*FAMILY* farms and ranches have NOT been transitioning to the next generation for a VERY long time. Has no one even just happened to notice the closings of schools and churches in so many of our rural communities? Does no one understand that is because our "young people" have not been able to "stay down on the farm" for a VERY long time now ~ IF they actually want to eat and put clothes on the backs of their babes?
MOST who are still out there trying to keep their farms and ranches in the family have NO LESS THAN ONE family member who works in town full-time and that has been the case for a VERY long time.
Some can continue to farm/ranch after the age of 65 but many can not. It is a physically demanding profession and their LAND is their ONLY "retirement income" in most cases.
Any over the age of 60 or 65 who do NOT sell out before the estate tax rate returns to *50%* (think that triggers in 2010 if politicians do not take *positive* action to prevent it ... which they have NOT done to date) need brain surgery.
The urban community likes to promote conservation easements. But in most, if not ALL, cases those conservation easements only provide a reduction in how much income tax a land owner has to pay and I *think* even that tax break has to be used within something like 2 or 3 years. Just how many FAMILY farmers/ranchers do you know making so much money they need a tax break?
Yep. In some states that "tax benefit" can be sold to some high-income person who needs a tax break. I do not know if the income from such a sale of those "tax benefits" by the farmer/rancher who sells those conservation tax benefits is tax-free or taxable ~ but the last I heard the "going market price" for them is only 70-80% of value. So it is ~ once AGAIN ~ the land owner who suffers that "loss".
Not only are "we" making the continuation of FAMILY farms and ranches impossible, "we" also have configured a scenario where "we" can rob that family of their major asset.
And NOW "we" want to wonder WHY it is ALL so impossible for them to survive?
AMAZING!!!
Perhaps "we" all need to be prepared to eat contaminated food arriving from China and be done with it. If we aren't already there that IS where it could all be headed. Indications are already obvious in the marketplace.
If you don't EAT don't worry about it.
The Good News is that there will be a lot of very beautiful land sold to the highest bidder for housing our fast-growing and ever-increasing population.
That will not be because all those landowners like concrete jungles. Ask me. I know.
The USA may not be perfect but as far as I am concerned it is sure a helluva lot better than any other country ANYWHERE!
Too short memories for too long can sure turn that sock inside out.
Sad stuff me-thinks.
Ag land should not have commercial value. Ownership requirements should include agricultural production of some sort to receive government subsidies and subsidies should be made available to all farmers except those who choose to manipulate the market and grow genetically modified crops.
PS: Food products of any kind should be banned from any foreign country that doesn't at least match US food safety standards.
A Land Link for Western Montana:
Keeping Land in Agriculture from One Generation to the Next
http://www.umt.edu/cfa/LandLinkresearchsummaryReport.pdf