City Considers ‘Urban Agri’ Adjustments

What if Eddie Albert and Eva Gabor moved from New York to a college town in Northwest Arkansas in search of greener acres? If someone dreamed up, say, a sitcom about their transplantation, its theme song might go

something like this:

Eddie:

Faaay-etteville is the

place to be.

Urrr-ban agri is the

rage, you see.

More critters is the

way, for sure,

To get more food to

those who are insecure.

Eva:

I can’t wait to get back to New York

Not growing what’s put on my fork

Why would a city try so hard

to push farm life in my next-door neighbor’s yard?

OK. Perhaps that pitch for a television show wouldn’t be convincing to Hollywood. They already think everyone in Arkansas has chickens and goats, and probably a phone at the top of a utility pole. Certainly that’s not true in Fayetteville, once self-described as the “Athens of the Ozarks.”

But could it be? Well, except for that whole telephone thing, maybe.

City staff and advocates for natural foods want the Planning Commission and City Council to change restrictions on so-called urban agriculture. In 2008, the city passed an animals and fowl ordinance allowing homeowners to raise up to four hens in a side or backyard.

Roosters, horses, cows, pigs, sheep and other animals aren’t permitted in non-agricultural zones.

The new proposal would permit homeowners to have as many as 20 chickens or ducks, four beehives and three goats. The number allowed would depend on the designated “carrying capacity” of a property’s acreage. The ordinance changes would also loosen the city’s rules about farmers and gardeners selling their produce from their homes.

Feed Fayetteville, a charitable effort to fi ght hunger, and Mayor Lioneld Jordan’s Fayetteville Forward Local Foods Group identifi ed expanding limits on the keeping of animals and fowl as a priority. Advocates say expansion could help more residents grow their own food - honey from bees, milk from goats, eggs from chickens.

That’s no doubt true. But we’re skeptical this is really going to move the needle, so to speak, in what’s now referred to as food insecurity. If you’re able to afford enough land to meet these carrying capacity limits, you’re probably not one of the folks threatened by food insecurity.

Are there commercial ventures out there that would be able to take advantage of looser rules near residential areas?

If Fayetteville wants to debate this, it should be a robust discussion about the traditional protections municipalities offer for city dwellers who want to avoid living next to agricultural operations. This proposal appears to set up more potential for conflict between urban life and farm activities. Perhaps it’s not a question of whether some changes might be accommodated, but just how far the city is willing to go in the name of urban agriculture.

How much “Athens” are residents willing to give up? In 2014, is Fayetteville ready for a new moniker? What would it be, “Farmville ?”