For someone usually upbeat and positive about city planning, I was hit this week by the story of the Baltimore Free Farm, and how the City of Baltimore is poised to sell part of the Free Farm to a developer, citing ‘highest and best use.’ It was an example of the government responding to, what I can only imagine, is immediate economic gratification at the sacrifice of long-term good. And when I tried to think about this week’s blog entry about social justice and urban planning, it seemed a farce to try to tie the two together. Maybe there isn’t social justice in urban planning — maybe sometimes we just get lucky, and other times money continues to dictate decisions of land use.
According to the Free Farm website, these lots had been cultivated for two years, producing hundreds of pounds of free food for the community. I don’t blame the developer; they’re simply doing their job to build and gain revenue. I do, wholeheartedly blame the city — and while I know our words won’t change things, I do hope that they allow the officials to realize what they’ve done and what they’ve displaced in exchange for a buck. I hope they are a bit ashamed of themselves, and in the back of my mind I have the resounding phrase on repeat, ‘this is why we can’t have nice things.’
I don’t like to think of myself as a pessimist or a cynic. Skeptical, maybe, but cynic rarely — I’m not the type to picket line with a sign (What do we want? Farming! When do we want it? NOW!). That isn’t me. Rather, I feel I’m a realist. I sigh and shake my head and move on, bettering the situation as best I’m able. So as I sat around with a group, talking about the Free Farm and thinking of the practical next step.
I not so eloquently exhaled exhaustedly at the suggestion of a fundraiser. My hunch is if the city is selling, they’re selling for money, and the amount of capital that developers can access doesn’t come close to what a group of passionate people can raise at an evening fundraiser with a beer sponsor. We can raise a hell of a lot more than money — love, advocacy, education, engagement, after school activities, facilitating the growth of youth and healthy living for families — but millions of dollars isn’t how we, as changemakers, constitute highest and best use.
If we are going to continue our attempts to better the community, it is the responsibility of those enacting the laws to balance community benefit over economic benefit, and long-term change over immediate satisfaction. Money is necessary for sustainability — I won’t pretend that we should live in some freewheeling socialist society. I do think though that as a public officer there’s a greater responsibility to respond to those making a difference, like providing free food, in a way that perpetuates goodness.
Isn’t this the city in which we want to live? Wouldn’t it be easier to govern a place with less hunger and more access? This isn’t just about those two parcels, its about that stakeholder identification to find people who really care about a place and who are working to make it better — since we know you, the public official, can’t do it all. We’re trying to help; so let us.
