farmland – Care4Suffolk

Voice of the People

Care4Suffolk — Sat, 20 Jul 2024 17:15:47 +0000

The City of Suffolk is on the verge of adopting the new 2045 Comprehensive Plan. This plan just got approved by a vote of 7-1 by the Planning Commission and it now heads to City Council for a vote on Wednesday, August 21 at 6pm at City Hall.

This plan is NOT in the best interest of the residents.

Please sign our petition opposing this plan and read on for more details.

The City received more than 7,500 responses from citizens telling the City what they want for the future of Suffolk. The responses were documented and then summarized, and you can read those here.

The key themes from the public’s responses are in the chart below along with whether the City has a plan to deliver based on the 2045 Comprehensive Plan:

WHAT THE PEOPLE ASKED FOR:	2045 COMP PLAN TO DELIVER
Small town feel	NO
Downtown Investment	NO
Open Space and Parks	NO
Well planned development	NO
Fix traffic issues	NO
Safe, walkable communities	NO
Invest in public transportation, trails, and rail	MAYBE
Well planned economic development	NO
More amenities	MAYBE
Affordable housing	MAYBE
Limit warehouses	NO
Preserve agriculture	NO
Engage public about their wants and needs	NO

Using all the public feedback, the City could have developed a vision for Suffolk that the people could get behind. However, the 2045 Comp Plan has no vision. With the demand from citizens to invest in downtown, the City could have focused economic development on downtown, but instead, they are carving out new areas for even more warehouses (we already lead Hampton Roads in warehouses!) Instead of limiting warehouse development to existing space and fixing our traffic problems, the 2045 Comprehensive Plan will exacerbate these problems, destroy the open space and farmland people want to preserve, and ruin that small town feel that Suffolk has.

People want to live in communities that are safe and walkable. The push for more warehouses is driving the housing market’s need for higher density housing, and builders want to build where it is cheap and easy (namely on agricultural land), so they can maximize their profits. The City could have focused on community building and infill development close to downtown, but instead we are going to get more of the same suburban sprawl that is NOT walkable, and it will devour more agricultural land. The City keeps allowing these huge suburban neighborhoods and thinks that just because they put sidewalks there, that makes them walkable.

The people of Suffolk value the open spaces and farmland in Suffolk. Farmland is a finite resource that once gone, is gone for good. Getting rid of the land that grows our food is terribly short-sighted. The city pays lip service to preserving agricultural land, but it stipulates that it will preserve it only OUTSIDE the Growth Areas. Yet the City keeps expanding the Growth Areas. They also added language to this new plan that gives them flexibility to build outside the Growth Areas IF the City deems it is a good idea. So basically, no farmland, forestry land, or open space is safe from development, if it can feed the City’s voracious appetite for ‘growth’.

L.5.3 Consider amending the City’s development regulations to add guidelines for the review of exceptional development opportunities outside of the growth boundaries. (p.68 of 2045 Comprehensive Plan)

Before getting public comments, the City met with ‘focus groups’ and staff. We don’t know who attended these meetings, so we submitted a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request, and are waiting for that information, but what is pretty clear is that early on it was staff and certain groups of people that were able to sway this plan to their desires, and it definitely wasn’t the citizens.

Here are some highlights from those meetings (full summary is here):

WHAT ‘FOCUS GROUPS’ ASKED FOR:	2045 COMP PLAN TO DELIVER
Interest in expanding Growth Areas	YES
Vacant, rural land provides areas for transformative development projects	YES
Demand is there for continued growth	YES
Efficient and predictable review process, “speed to build” or will look at other communities.	YES
Infrastructure costs – water, sewer, and roads can become barriers for industrial development.	YES
Growth of industrial areas is what drives many of the housing developments.	YES
There is a shifting need to invest in infrastructure prior to building homes (initial investments for long-term returns) would assist developers.	YES
City should either allow for more industrial development or limit based on current boundaries; there is a demand so this is a choice for the City to make.	YES
Renewable energy is looking within the region, planning for this in rural areas is important.	YES

These focus groups got a lot of things THEY wanted – expanded growth areas along with more land use for industrial and then more land for residential development to support it. They asked for a faster and more predictable review process.

L.1.2 Review and revise current development regulations, including the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and the zoning map, to improve compatibility with the comprehensive plan. (p.64 of 2045 Comprehensive Plan)

This is part of the “efficient and predictable review process”. It doesn’t matter how many times a staff or City Council Members says that this is ‘just a plan’ and ‘not written in stone’, because the City is planning to rewrite the UDO to reflect the 2045 Comprehensive Plan and rezoning applications that come before them that conform to the Future Land Map will get rezoned. This new Land Use Map is the future of Suffolk. If you don’t know what the land around your home will look like in the future, you should check it out now. This could be our last chance to change this.

The other item that was requested by these ‘focus groups’ was about infrastructure. Developers want it in place so they don’t have to pay or wait for it. Let’s take a moment to appreciate that one about infrastructure. As citizens, we get told all the time that development builds the infrastructure, as in literally, if a developer wants to build, he has to pay for the sewer connection, a pump station if necessary, build the roads and sidewalks, etc.. All of a sudden, developers are complaining about how expensive that is and maybe they won’t build unless the infrastructure is already in place – and so the City adds into the 2045 Comprehensive Plan:

L.5.1 Identify priority economic development sites and make strategic investments to advance site readiness. (p.68 of 2045 Comprehensive Plan)

E.1.6 Strategically expand utility service (water, sewer, fiber) to sites that can support new employment generating businesses. Develop financing options to

facilitate the construction of water and sewer projects to support development.

Use City-funded utility capacity improvements as incentives for development. (p. 81 of 2045 Comprehensive Plan)

The site-readiness is all about having everything in place so developers don’t have to do the work or spend the money to get the land ready. The idea is now that the city will bring in the sewers and other utilities and have the site ready to build on, which will make it more attractive to developers.

Keep in mind that the people asked for fewer warehouses, but now we will get to pay to help build what we don’t even want. How is this representing the citizens? If these warehouses are going to be bringing in so much money, the developers should foot the bill to invest in infrastructure – not the taxpayers!

To entice these warehouse developers that the citizens don’t want, the City is prepared to make Suffolk’s current farmland ‘site-ready’ for the developers on our dime. Knowing this, the City still made the decision to skip the fiscal analysis. The experts that had been contracted to do the FIA, recommend doing the FIA first and then evaluating options, only then should the city write the comprehensive plan. The City of Suffolk decided that it wasn’t going to even evaluate different options for development and it wasn’t necessary to look at the long-term financial impact. This is a HUGE increase in growth for the city, including building large scale warehouses and residential developments on farmland that does not currently have infrastructure.

The State of Virginia requires that comprehensive plans be adopted with the purpose of “prosperity and general welfare of the inhabitants”. This plan does NOT meet that standard. This plan is supposed to be about us, our needs and wants, and our vision for the future of Suffolk, not the Port’s needs, developers’ desires, and the will of City staff.

If any of this isn’t sitting right with you, please join us in opposing the 2045 Comprehensive Plan. Please sign our petition, share with all of your neighbors, friends and family in Suffolk. Maybe, just maybe, if enough of us tell City Council we don’t want this, maybe they will listen to the voice of the people.

Please sign our petition to urge City Council to vote ‘NO’ to the new 2045 Comprehensive Plan.

Comprehensive Plan Survey

Care4Suffolk — Mon, 01 Apr 2024 18:11:47 +0000

If you haven’t done it yet, complete the survey for the 2045 Comprehensive Plan draft before the April 8th deadline. It is available online, or if you prefer a paper survey, email care4suffolk@gmail.com and we will get you a copy.

If you aren’t familiar with Comprehensive Plans, they are used by cities to guide development. Virginia requires them and cities have to review theirs every 5 years. This 2045 Comp Plan will go before Suffolk’s City Council sometime this summer and, if approved, take effect immediately. The city has been soliciting feedback from citizens at various points in the process of developing the new plan.

The Comp Plan states where and what type of development will happen in Suffolk by creating “Growth Areas.” There are some huge changes in this plan, including a growth area expansion of almost 25%. The City also wants to increase industrial development (like warehouses and distribution centers) by about four times the area currently zoned for them. If you thought the roads were packed with tractor trailers now, just wait!

This survey provides your last opportunity to suggest changes to the comp plan, before it goes through the process to City Council. The survey is long, consisting of three parts. The first is the interactive map. It provides what will be the Future Land Use and Growth Area map. You can click anywhere on the map and a window will pop up with a list for you to select what type of land use you think it should be. There is also space to write a comment.

The second part has a series of Actions. These are the main objectives and actions that the city wants to implement. You have to select “View Actions” under each one in order to read the details and see where you can write a comment on them and select whether you support the action or are concerned. There is no option to object, but you can write that in the comments.

The third part is demographic information and is pretty straightforward.

There are two major issues that stand out in the Action section. The first is under the Land Use and Growth Management section. There are a lot of statements that are designed to align zoning to the Future Land Use map, which is very different from what we have now. Currently, most of the land they want to add in the expanded Growth Area is zoned for agriculture. Including this agricultural land in the Growth Area, combined with many of these new Actions, will make it easier for the developers to get this land rezoned. That is concerning considering the huge expansion of the growth area and how much of it is designated for the Future Land Uses of ‘Suburban Neighborhood’ and ‘Employment Centers,’ which is the city’s new term for industrial. That’s where warehouses and distribution centers will be built.

The other thing that stood out was the contradictions present in the ‘Objectives’ and ‘Actions’. The City states in a variety of ways that it wants to preserve farmland, protect open spaces, increase access to natural spaces, and protect the watershed, waterways, reservoirs, and environmentally sensitive areas. These all sound great, except they want to expand the Growth Area into these exact areas. The best, cheapest, and easiest way to do all of this preserving and protecting is to NOT expand the growth area and NOT label them for future suburban residential and industrial land uses.

Expanding growth area by almost 25% and the need to protect these natural resources are at odds. If the city truly cares about our farmers and wants to protect our water and environment, the city just needs to remove the new additions to the growth area. It is really simple. It won’t cost us anything. Remove the growth areas for the benefit of Suffolk.

The Loss of Farmlands: A Loss for All of Us

Care4Suffolk — Wed, 21 Feb 2024 17:59:04 +0000

We recently wrote about the City of Suffolk’s plan to increase its Growth Area by 24%. Now we want to explain why this is a short-sighted plan on the part of City Planners and why it is critical for our community to stop what will be a massive hit to our agricultural community and have negative impacts on our citizens for generations to come.

The City of Suffolk is 429 square miles, but 72 square miles of that is the Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge (Source: City of Suffolk). While the refuge is an ecological and historical treasure for our state and the nation, none of the 72 square miles can be developed. That leaves 357 square miles of already developed and potentially developable land in the City of Suffolk. The current growth area is 74.5 square miles (about 21% of the non-swamp land in Suffolk). The Planning Department is recommending expanding the growth area by 18 square miles (a 24% increase to its current size) which would bring it to 92.5 square miles. That will create a total growth area that is equal to 26% of all non-swamp land in Suffolk.

Only 17% of all land in America is ideal for farming. (Source: Modern Farmer) As a country we have lost 11 million acres of farmland and ranchland between 2001-2016 due to development. (Source: American Farmland Trust) Further, 62% of all development has happened on agricultural land. (Source: Modern Farmer) As the world population grows, the natural resource of farmable land becomes increasingly valuable. The world’s population is expected to increase by 35% by 2050 and “nearly all new food production in the next 25 years will have to come from existing agricultural land.” (Source: National Geographic Magazine)

Those are just some quick facts to show that this problem is not localized to just Suffolk, which has lost 17% of its farmland in the last 20 years. (Source: Suffolk Agricultural Advisory Committee) This is a problem throughout the country. According to the 2022 Census of Agriculture, the number of farms in Virginia decreased from 43,225 in 2017 to 38,995 farms in 2022, losing about 500,000 acres of farmland. (Source: 2022 Census of Agriculture (Reported by On the Farm Radio)) That’s a 6.4% in just 5 years. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, in response to the 2022 Census of Agriculture stated, “This survey is a wake up call…Are we okay with losing that many farms? Are we okay with losing that much farmland? Or is there a better way.” (Source: AgWire)

“This survey is a wake up call…Are we okay with losing that many farms? Are we okay with losing that much farmland? Or is there a better way.”

Here is why you should care about this loss of farmland:

Farmland keeps property taxes lower. In Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, they broke down the impact of the cost of services for agriculture, residential and commercial properties. For each $1 collected in property taxes for each type of land, the city has an associated cost of services. The results may surprise you. (Source: Lehigh County, Pennsylvania)

$1 of agricultural tax revenue = $0.36 spent in public service

$1 of commercial tax revenue = $0.99 spent in public service

$1 of residential tax revenue = $1.30 spent in public services

Turning farmland into commercial and residential land actually costs the city (or the taxpayers) more money. Cities lose money on residential properties because they require schools, improved roads, and other additional services such as water, sewers, police, fire, and medical. The city actually makes significantly more money on agricultural land than it pays in services. If citizens (and responsible city planners) want to save money, they should stop rezoning agricultural land to build houses and warehouses.

Other benefits of preserving our farmland (Source: Lehigh County, Pennsylvania):

It provides locally grown foods that are more nutritious and less expensive than food that has to be transported over long distances.
It improves water quality by filtering runoff water through topsoil versus going directly from paved surfaces into drainage. This is particularly important in Suffolk, home to many of the reservoirs that provide drinking water for so many people in Hampton Roads.
It benefits the environment by protecting against soil erosion, offsets greenhouse gas emissions, and provides habitat to many wildlife species.
Open farmland is more visually attractive and creates a higher quality of life for citizens.
Additionally, Agriculture is big business. Agriculture generates roughly $462 million of direct and indirect economic impact for Suffolk. (Source: Suffolk Agricultural Advisory Committee)

It is nearsighted planning that will destroy the valuable natural resource of Suffolk’s nutrient-rich farmland to build houses and warehouses. The huge expansion of the Growth Area in the upcoming Comprehensive Plan will facilitate this loss of farmland. Its destruction will be permanent and will be a loss to our city, our community, and future generations.

Let City Council know what you think about this new growth area: council@suffolkva.us

Michael D. Duman, Mayor

mayor@suffolkva.us

Phone: 757-514-4009

Lue R. Ward, Jr., Vice Mayor

(Nansemond Borough)

nansemond@suffolkva.us

Phone: 757-377-6929

Shelley Butler Barlow,

Council Member

(Chuckatuck Borough)

chuckatuck@suffolkva.us

Phone: 757-346-8355

Leroy Bennett, Council Member
(Cypress Borough)
cypress@suffolkva.us
Phone: 757-407-3750

Timothy J. Johnson, Council Member
(Holy Neck Borough)
holyneck@suffolkva.us
Phone: 757-407-0556

Roger W. Fawcett, Council Member
(Sleepy Hole Borough)
sleepyhole@suffolkva.us
Phone: 757-377-8641

John Rector, Council Member
(Suffolk Borough)
suffolk@suffolkva.us
Phone: 757-407-1953

LeOtis Williams, Council Member

(Whaleyville Borough)

whaleyville@suffolkva.us

Phone: 757-402-7100

The State of Agriculture in Suffolk

Care4Suffolk — Fri, 26 Jan 2024 20:57:30 +0000

The Agricultural Advisory Committee Chair, David Bosselman, spoke before the City Council at the Work Session on December 20, 2023 [Link to video], presenting the State of Agriculture in Suffolk. The Agricultural Advisory Committee consists of nine members from the agricultural community in Suffolk who are nominated by City Council members. The committee is all volunteers who give their time to provide feedback and input to the city regarding agricultural issues.

The City of Suffolk does not track its own statistics related to agriculture, but the Agricultural Advisory Committee was able to obtain data from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS). Even Governor Younkin has recently made note of the following facts:

Virginia Agriculture creates more than $100 billion of annual economic impact
Virginia Agriculture employs about 500,000 people
97% Virginia farms are family-owned
Agriculture is Virginia’s #1 private industry
There are 7.7 million acres of cropland in Virginia
An acre of agricultural land in Virginia generates an average of $11,000 of economic impact annually

There are nearly 47,000 acres of Suffolk cropland. Based on the figures from the state, that generates roughly $462 million of direct and indirect economic impact for the City of Suffolk. It is clear that agriculture plays a major role in Suffolk’s economy.

According to Mr. Bosselman, the City of Suffolk does not have an Agricultural Department, despite it being specifically mentioned in the 1974 City Charter. It is unclear why this department was never created considering agriculture is such a huge part of Suffolk’s industry. Chesapeake and Virginia Beach both have Agricultural Departments, despite having less farmland. How can the city make informed decisions regarding agriculture and agricultural land if it doesn’t even have a department to track information and collect data?

As part of the State of Agriculture presentation to the City Council, the Agricultural Advisory Committee recommended that the City of Suffolk establish an Agricultural Department. Mr. Bosselman stated the need and benefits of having this department:

It could bridge the gap between “growing” Suffolk and agricultural Suffolk
It could serve in conjunction with the Virginia Cooperative Extension in Suffolk
It could oversee the implementation of the many public and private preservation and conservation programs available to farmers.
It could contribute to the formation of the agricultural aspects of the Comprehensive Plan
It could manage the Suffolk Farmers Market with the goal of funding itself via this revenue (as is done in Virginia Beach)

Mr. Bossleman also discussed the loss of cropland in Suffolk. He stated there has been a loss of about 17% over the last 20 years. As Mr. Bosselman said in his parting words to City Council, “I find it quite ironic that we are here today, and I am trying to convince not only the city council, but all people, that are here to listen to me today, to preserve land that is growing food for us to eat, fiber for all of us to have clothes, and plants that clean carbon dioxide and impurities out of our air and provide oxygen for us to breathe.”

Mr. Bosselman should NOT have to plead the case for protecting agriculture in Suffolk. It is a major industry in the city and a way of life for many of its citizens. We all benefit from its continued existence in our city and everything our farmers produce. It is well past time for the City of Suffolk to create an Agricultural Department that can advocate for this essential industry and protect agriculture here for generations to come.

Relevant Links:

Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

The Economic Impact of the Agriculture and Forest Industries in Virginia

Governor announces that agriculture and forestry are still Virginia’s most robust industries, despite pandemic setbacksVirginia Farm Bureau publication:

Virginia Farm Bureau publication: New report shows number of Virginia farms, farm acreage remained steady last year