Urban farming = Job growth?

I recently read about plans to change Detroit's zoning to permit urban farming on the Mother Nature Network. I'm all for urban gardening/farming, but I increasingly find that I am questioning the rationale behind it:

...

In Detroit, where zoning laws ban growing crops and raising livestock for profit, city planner Kathryn Lynch Underwood is part of a work group rewriting the regulations and defining what kinds of urban farms might need more oversight.

"The city has not been treating it as an illegal use or a nuisance because it has been a good thing," Underwood said.

She is hopeful that urban agriculture and the city's nearly 1,000 community gardens will create good jobs in a city that desperately needs them and put vacant lots to use in blighted neighborhoods.

...

 (You can read the full article here:
http://www.mnn.com/food/farms-gardens/stories/urban-farmers-fight-to-sow-green-biz)

This leaves me wondering, just how will small inefficient farms/gardens "create good jobs in a city that desperately needs them"? Farming has been notoriously unprofitable and often pays among the lowest wage scale.

According to a study done by Rene P. Rosenbaum, Associate Professor Department of Resource Development, at Michigan State University [pdf], residential seasonal farmworkers in Lenawee County earned $5,057 on average in 1996. I think it is fairly safe to assume that anyone creating an urban farm is likely to employ residential seasonal workers (if anyone) or migrants, which according to the same survey earned $2,228 for the season. These are clearly not "good" jobs, and they're only seasonal at that.

Often it seems that environmentalists are considered blasphemous if they say anything negative about urban farming.  Particularly because there are wonderful programs like Capuchin's Earthworks Urban Farm that provide a terrific service (and food!) on a non-profit basis.  However, for-profit, large-scale, urban farms strike me as a sort of goofy response to the food deserts that are many of our urban centers.  Is farming in the middle of a city really the best use of that land? I know the argument is that the blighted land is not being used now and it’s a wasteland of urban decay, so why not? Farming would certainly fill that land. I don't really have a good response to that, but the point is that farming is not an economic solution.  It is simply a subsidized solution to filling vacant space.

My grandfather's roughly 170-acre farm in rural Iowa was sliced up when a road was needed as Des Moines sprawled, then cut in half again when the gas company decided they needed to run a pipeline through it in the mid 1990's. After several years of court battles, his farmland was cut into three distinct chunks with strips that could not be farmed because they were claimed by eminent domain for the state and gas company. If we as a country can't keep from splitting up farms in Iowa, what kind of convoluted thinking leads to believing that a farm in an urban center is going to remain intact after the next resurgence of Detroit?

I think encouraging urban farming/gardening as supplemental income or a hobby is a terrific contribution to the need for more fresh veggies in urban centers and as an educational tool for kids. Moreover, I completely agree the zoning laws should be fixed such that urban gardens can be planted, produce sold at markets, and the owners not put themselves at risk of being hauled into court battles. However, expecting it to be a source of "good job" growth or that these could be profitable, generational farms strikes me as borderline delusional.

Environmentally Holiday?

Earlier this week I went to a "Greening Your Holiday" workshop put on by the Sierra Club and Berkley's Environmental Advisory Committee.  I got some interesting tidbits from it, some of which wasn't necessarily new information, but I needed reminding of.  Here are the highlights:

- Real trees are much more "green" than fake trees

This item has generated more discussion within my household than anything else.  Most fake trees today are made in China (big carbon footprint just for shipping alone) and are petroleum based plastics (more carbon footprint), many have lead in them or lead dust on them, AND there isn't a good program for recycling them.  While most of your live trees often come from a farm nearby (most tree lots here in the Detroit area get trees from mid to western to northern Michigan farms), which helps reduce transportation carbon.  Tree farms are, well, farms.  So, while you are cutting down a tree, it was grown for that purpose, just as a cornstalk was grown for the purpose of cutting it down eventually.  Additionally, live trees filter CO2 while they grow, and they can be composted.  Here's an interesting article about the issue:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/091210-christmas-tree-green.html
Here's another:
http://www.sierraclubgreenhome.com/featured/oh-christmas-tree-oh-christmas-tree%E2%80%A6/

My wife and I were speculating on how long you have to keep a fake tree to make up for its carbon footprint.  The first link appears to plan on keeping a tree for only 3 years - this seems short to me, but perhaps that's as long as they last these days.  We have a fake tree.  I inherited it from my Great Aunts Marion and Letha, and my dad believes it is from the 1960s (it sure looks like it - there is no mistaking that this is a fake - and a bad fake at that).  So, I suspect that it's made up for its carbon footprint.  But I'm sure this debate will rage on in my household as our poor little tree continues to look worse and worse and we contemplate replacing it.


- New LED xmas lights cut energy consumption dramatically

We recently picked up a couple strings of the LED lights, although they are still dramatically more expensive than the traditional minibulb lights.  I spent about $19 (on sale) for two strings totaling 110 lights.  This compares to a string of minibulb lights that I picked up at the same time that cost $2 (on sale) with 100 lights.  Yeah, the LED lights use less energy, but even if you figure the traditional minibulb lights use about 50 watts compared to about 0.5 watt (or less) for the LED, that would require me to keep them lit constantly for years to make up for the additional cost.

Some conversions and math:  (DTE Energy residential costs: 6.49 cents/kWh = 6.49c/3600 Watts) (50 Watts = .01389 kWh) so...  50 Watts costs nine hundredths of a cent/hour (0.01389kWh * 6.49 cents = 0.09 cents), which means I'd have to light them for about 18,888 hours to make up for the $17 additional cost (cost of string 1700 cents/0.09 cents for energy per hour).

Considering we only burn them for about 4 to 5 hours (let's be generous and say 6 hours) per night, that means I'll have to use these for 3,148 nights to make up the cost.  Or energy costs will have to skyrocket.

Ok, so these are an entirely "environmental" choice and not an economic choice at this point. Let's just leave it at that for now.

- Tips for how to eat local - the 100 mile challenge (eat an entire meal of foods from within 100 mile radius)

Basically, my wife was most interested in where to find meat that is locally produced, and purportedly, the local farmer's market has local meat.  We've bought Kowalski Meats, but we are still not sure whether they are actually Michigan meats or just packed in MI.  Boarshead is another meat that could be from Michigan, but that's often a crap shoot, since they have plants all over the US.  There are a few other brand names as well, but we'll be checking out the farmer's market for other meats that we use on a regular basis (chicken, ground beef, ground turkey, pork chops, etc.).

- Tips for how to make your own wrapping materials (some paper, some not)

My family has often talked about dumping wrapping paper in favor of wrapping fabric, fabric bags, or something of that ilk, but inevitably we've failed with the exception of a few pieces of fabric.  Or we give it away on wrapped gifts and don't get it replaced.  One of the thoughts that came out of the workshop though was to buy old curtains and baskets to make a nifty little designed gift package, rather than just traditional wrapping.  We also did colorful paint stamps on newspaper to make your own wrapping paper designs at the workshop.  This was something that... um...  well, it sort of screamed "hippie" to me.  And I'm pretty sure my wife thought my newspaper-stamped-wrapping paper was trash.  Oh well, it was fun to make even if it's not something I'm likely to use.

After all this we had several casual discussions during the workshop about some of the things that others do to "green" their holidays.  This was fun to learn what others are doing:
- No big box stores - only local shopping.  Supports the local economy.  Often much lower carbon footprint.  Often much more unique gifts.  But it also likely means no Playstation3 for Christmas.... ;)
- Only homemade presents - one couple bought themselves a home-remodel this year, so for Christmas they are "shopping" at home in order to create new gifts and not spend more money they don't have.  They are trying to find stuff to give to each other that can be easily made from stuff at home.  Interesting thought.  I think this would be fun for a few gifts, but I love finding fun gifts for loved ones that I likely don't have in my basement.  Plus, I just don't have the crafty talents to make good gifts (again, no Playstation3, either).
- Regifting - because as a culture we have so much stuff that is only used periodically at best (or never), many felt that we need to get over our disdain for regifting.  I have a mixed feeling on this.  I think that regifting is fine in concept (isn't that just basically how "vintage" succeeds anyway??)  But often regifting is thought of as unloading your crap or unwanted stuff on others, rather than thoughtful regifting.  One person at the workshop mentioned that they regift books, which I think is brilliant, and my Mom and I have done this in the past.

So, how green are your holidays?  What other green tips did I miss?