The cow says moo-ve

I was once walking my dog in San Francisco and noticed something peculiar: a man across the street walking his pet pig. Apparently, having a farm animal as a pet isn’t as uncommon as we might think. For example, Goliath, a baby cow raised in Danville, California went viral in 2015 because thinks he’s a dog. Pretty cute, right? 

As someone who’s favorite animal is a cow, I wish I could adopt one from the SPCA just like I adopted my dog, but I know that it’s impossible unless you have a lot of land. I’ve definitely looked up how to adopt smaller farm animals online, like ducks and chickens, but ultimately decided that it wouldn’t be the best idea while living in an urban area. Although the Internet didn’t have much on where Goliath is today, I would imagine that he eventually outgrew his dog bed and required more space to flourish. 

In San Francisco, you can technically have a cow as a pet as long as you comply with housing and stable laws. However, having farm animals as pets can be challenging if you do not have the knowledge, experience, and land necessary to care for them properly. If you live in a city, this article says that it might be easier to have smaller farm animals as pets like chickens, ducks, pygmy goats, and Dexter cattle.

Social media has seemingly glorified having farm animals as pets. For example, this article highlights many non-traditional house pets, like pigs and cows, that people treat just like dogs and cats. Recently, on a bovine note, highland cows have plagued my feed on TikTok. A 2024 Newsweek article titled “Miniature Cows, Goats, and Donkeys Surge in Popularity” highlighted the increasing popularity of mini goats as pets, stating: 

Mini goats are one of the most popular entry-level mini animals…In the past year, animal breeders have registered roughly 8,330 mini goats with the Miniature Dairy Goat Association, a 73% jump from the 12 months before July 2021, said Angelia Alden, a business operations manager for the North Carolina-based organization. 

However, the article continues by saying how “[m]ini goats are sold after just a few years because it can be challenging and expensive to take care of them.” Additionally, owners struggle with the veterinary and feeding costs that come with owning less traditional animals. 

The increase in mini farm animals is also correlated with the rise in hobby farms, a growing trend where people will purchase a one-acre plot and “keep a miniature cow or a few miniature goats.” This article highlights TikTok creator, Allie Sine’s, experience showcasing her mini cows: 

Sine, 28, launched her own business breeding and selling mini cows in 2020 after reselling a sick mini cow that cost $350 for $5,000. Last year, she sold about 190 calves through her Missouri-based business, Mini Moos LLC. The calves were roughly split between mini and micromini cows that can cost from $2,000 to $30,000.

Based on the increased popularity of mini farm animals, it’s not surprising that prices for miniature animals have increased. However, I can’t help but think about how this must affect the lives of people who rely on farm animals as their source of income. On the one hand, this might be a good way to increase revenue for farms who sell their animals to mini farm animal enthusiasts. On the other hand, the growing demand and interest in hobby farms might increase the costs of farm supplies and veterinary care. We have already seen this with the increasing popularity of the Carhartt brand driving up clothing prices for working class folks. 

Hopefully, hobby farms and city people raising farm animals won't drive up the costs for real farm owners, but the jury's still out. I know one thing for sure: I sadly won’t be adopting a cow anytime soon, as long as I’m living in a big city. 

Marin County declares shelter crisis crisis after farmworkers displaced by historical Point Reyes settlement

Nearly 100 Marin County farmworkers and tenants are set to lose their homes. This comes as a result of a recent settlement to cease ranching operations throughout California's iconic national park -- the Point Reyes National Seashore. The settlement and its effects raise concerns over whether California’s environmental prerogatives are exacerbating the state’s housing crisis.

John Beck has reported extensively on the Point Reyes Settlement in The Press Democrat (Sonoma County). This post relies heavily on his reports which can be found here, here, and here.

In response to the settlement, the Marin County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted in mid-March to pass a shelter crisis declaration. The declaration will allow the County to bypass certain housing regulations, in order to rapidly develop emergency shelters for displaced farmworkers. The declaration will also provide for a number of different temporary shelter types, including buildings without permanent foundations, according to PublicCEO, an outlet for California local government reporting.

The Board's vote was met with broad support from impacted farmworkers and the community at large. "This is a huge win for the community," Jasmine Bravo, a Marin County farmworker advocate, said. However, some community members are concerned that the temporary housing initiative will only delay the inevitable -- the relocation of Marin County's long-established farmworker community.

As of 2024, Marin County ranked third in most expensive housing amongst all California Counties, according to a California Association of Realtors report. In light of this, Marin County housing advocates have expressed a desire to outline a long-term solution to the current crisis. Bravo commented: 

We are hoping that the [temporary housing initiative] is just an interim solution towards a much bigger project. And, hopefully, [the impacted farmworkers] have the opportunity to be homeowners in the future.

The County's declaration will remain in place for three years, but it could be extended afterwards. Funds to support the development of temporary shelters will "come from county housing trust funds," Marin County Supervisor Dennis Rodoni said.

The cause of the crisis -- the Point Reyes settlement -- was itself the product of a years of litigation among environmental conservation groups, the federal government, and Marin County ranchers.

In 2016, three conservation groups sued the National Park Service ("NPS"). The lawsuit challenged the NPS' decision to issue new 20-year commercial farming leases to several Marin County ranching operations, the Resource Renewal Institute ("RRI") explained. The conservation groups argued that the leases were issued without any analysis of potential environmental impacts and without public input, in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act.

The parties eventually settled the 2016 case. That settlement led the NPS to update its Point Reyes land management plans, "which proposed expanded ranching, livestock diversification, and mobile slaughterhouses in the national park," the RRI reported.

However, the conservation groups once again sued the NPS once again in 2022 to halt implementation of the updated plan. This time, the conservation groups argued that the plan violated the NPS's founding mandate to "conserve the scenery, wildlife, and natural and historic objects in national parks, monuments, and reservation . . . for the enjoyment in a way that leaves them unimpaired for future generations.”

An association representing several Marin County ranching operations joined onto the 2022 lawsuit. That same year, all parties involved in the litigation entered into settlement negotiations. Then, in 2023, the Marin County ranchers agreed to cease their operations , in exchange for around $30 million compensation.

The settlement itself has been met with mixed responses. On this point, The Press Democrat’s John Beck observed:

The settlement has proven divisive in the area, as some environmental advocates hail its benefits for the seashore’s watershed and wildlife, including tule elk, while agriculture supporters and others worry about the fallout on local businesses and schools, as well as the region’s farming legacy.

The Point Reyes settlement, and its resulting displacement of the County's farmworkers, is illustrative of the on-going tension between California's pro-environmental policies and its growing housing crisis.

Over the last two decades, California's pro-environmental reforms have come at the expense of pro-housing efforts. Take the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), for instance. CEQA was passed to combat climate change and prevent environmental degradation. And, in many respects, it has achieved this goal. However, CEQA has also infamously become the go to litigation tool for affluent community groups that oppose the construction of new, high-density housing projects. Thus, in a state that desperately needs to increase its housing supply, CEQA has operated to exacerbate California's housing crisis.

The Point Reyes settlement was similarly the result of conservation group efforts. The settlement's proponents may have accomplished their goal of mitigating the rancher's ecological impacts on the national park. This could only accomplished, however, at the expense of housing for nearly 100 farmworkers. Now, as a result of soaring housing prices in Marin County, many lower-income families are at risk of being forced out of the community where some of their families have lived for generations.

For a detailed discussion on CEQA’s impact on California’s housing crisis, check out this article by land use attorney Jennifer Hernandez.

The Point Reyes settlement is now another chapter of the growing saga that is California's struggle to reconcile its pro-environmental positions with its unprecedented housing crisis. This struggle shows no sign of relenting, as the state's housing crises continues to worsen, and the effects of climate change continue to surge.

New Hampshire (once again) tries to restrict student voting - Part I (the Twenty-Sixth Amendment and its immediate aftermath)

Let me start this piece off with a very basic question:

If you live somewhere for four years, should you be able to vote and have a say in the affairs of the state and local government?

Most people would say yes. If you live in a community, if you study there, work there, rent an apartment, buy groceries, use public services, you have a stake in what happens there. The laws passed by state and local governments directly affect your daily life. In any functioning democracy, you should have the right to elect the people who make those laws.

What am I asking this question? Because New Hampshire politicians are once again proposing a law that would disenfranchise college students and exclude them from having a say in their local government. In January, Republican State Senator Victoria Sullivan introduced Senate Bill 223, which would amend New Hampshire's existing voter ID law to remove the ability to use college IDs to satisfy the requirement. This is particularly egregious for New Hampshire, which prides itself on having a citizen legislature (with 424 members, its legislature is the third largest in the English-speaking world). 

This bill is disguised as a proverbial trojan horse. After all, State Sen. Sullivan and her co-sponsors are simply asking that students gets a New Hampshire ID in order to vote in New Hampshire elections. However, this ignores the context in which this law exists and the decades long battle against student voting that has been waged by Republicans in the state. It also ignores the fundamental problem of every voter ID law, they exist to disenfranchise voters who cannot (for various reasons) get an ID. It's an additional barrier to exercising a fundamental right. 

But this is not an isolated occurrence, it's the latest in a decades long battle to curtail student voting rights in New Hampshire. Over the next few weeks, we'll explore this history and how it impacts the current battle.  

Twenty-Sixth Amendment and the Student Vote

The fight against student voting in New Hampshire dates back to 1971, when then-Attorney General (and future U.S. Senator) Warren Rudman took a hardline stance against allowing college students to register to vote in the state. The issue came to a head following that year's ratification of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, which lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. In July of that year, Rudman issued a directive requiring college students to register in their hometowns rather than where they attended school. The New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union swiftly pledged to fight Rudman's directive, though they did not file their lawsuit immediately. 

Rudman reasoned that a college student's domicile remained in their parent's households, a rationale that is not applied to any other New Hampshire adult that moves out on their own at the age of 18. He also claimed that college students pay no taxes (presumably property tax since NH doesn't have an income or sales tax), a rationale that is not applied to any other New Hampshire renter. Rudman also said that he opposed letting people who are not in a community "permanently" to vote there, again a standard that is not applied to any other New Hampshire adult. 

There were other bizarre standards at play - opponents of student voting reasoned that college students were more informed about the issues where their parents are living than their college town. Even if this were true, knowledge of local affairs does not determine an individual's right to vote. In fact, I have met many adults who could not even name their state legislator. There were also tall tales (debunked by local officials) of Dartmouth College students flooding Hanover, NH town meetings and voting for absurd items like a subway system. Opponents seized on the idea of "temporary residents" radically changing the political affairs of small college towns. 

In the context of the time, it must have scared New Hampshire Republicans to have thousands of liberal college students added to the voter rolls. The country was in the midst of the Vietnam War and college students were both politically engaged and incredibly motivated to exercise their newly acquired right to vote. These political calculations undoubtedly led Rudman to advocate for disenfranching entire swaths of his state's population. 

Rudman's commitment to disenfranching college students even led him to threaten to criminally prosecute town officials who registered college students to vote and take the issue to the United States Supreme Court. He also accused the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union of having political motives for advocating for student voters. He was seemingly oblivious to the irony in his statement. 

Rudman even opposed compromise measures, such as HB 1029, which would have excluded college students from voting in local and municipal elections. 

By October 1971, Rudman was increasingly finding himself as a man on an island. Courts around the country (including in California, whose Attorney General took a similar stance to Rudman) had rejected the kinds of arguments that Rudman had advanced. According to the October 25th edition of the Concord Monitor, in New England, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut explicitly allowed college students to register to vote while a federal court case was pending and would soon be decided in Maine on the matter. Vermont had no explicit policy, but the state had given tacit approval to move forward with registering students to vote. Despite these setbacks, Rudman said that he did not plan to change his guidance. 

In December, the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union finally filed their lawsuit. 

--

Here's what to expect in future parts:

Part II of this series will cover the outcomes of the legal actions against Rudman and the State of New Hampshire and their impacts on voting rights in New Hampshire. 

Part III will cover more contemporary battles, including the rise of voter ID and its usage as a vehicle to suppress the student vote. 

Part IV will cover the Chris Sununu era and the battle over college student voting in the late 2010s.  

Part V will wrap it all up and talk about the current struggle

Agro-Mafia and the Caporalato: How far-right immigration policy is failing rural Italy

 Le Langhe, a region in Northern Italy, has been heralded as the "New Tuscany" for its scenic landscape, tartufi bianchi, and quality wines. It's one of many parts of Italy that relies on rural agricultural practices for economic output. The agri-food industry in Italy accounts for almost 15 percent of its total GDP. It also represents an economic expansion: from 2006 to 2016, international demand for Italian wine grew by 74 percent. 

The people making the wine? Migrant workers from Romania, India, and Northern Africa. Foreign workers account for 10.3 percent of Italy's total workforce, but in the agricultural sector, around half of workers are migrants — around 400,000 or 500,000 people in total. Some are asylum seekers, fleeing violence from their home country. Some are hoping to pass through Italy to resettle further north, but are stuck due to European Union restrictions that require the first EU state an asylum seeker enters to be the one to adjudicate their claim. 

Trapped without status, many turn to temporary agricultural jobs in rural areas that pay little and require long hours. Their recruiters? Corporali, or intermediaries who offer migrants exploitative, temporary jobs and take a fee for providing them with work. 

Many refer to the Caporalato and their control of the industry as the "Agro-Mafia." In 2020, over 42 percent of Tuscany's 55,000-person workforce were migrants. Some reported working for as little as 3 to 4 euros an hour. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that when migrant workers are employed through corporali, their wages are sometimes 50 percent lower than those working under regulated contracts. Workers face rampant discrimination, racism, and poor working conditions. One worker in a study conducted by Amnesty International shared that after working from 6 AM to 6 PM and taking only a thirty-minute break, he was paid only 20 euros for his time. Rurality, of course, exacerbates all of these problems, leaving workers far from community resources and the employers with little oversight and incentive to stop their labor practices. 

In 2016, Italy passed Law No. 199/2016, which included criminal penalties for corporali and codified a new definition of "labor exploitation." However, the law has been heavily criticized for penalizing the intermediary worker, but not the employer itself. And given the high turnover in short-term agricultural work, many leave to a new job or exit the country entirely before prosecution is possible. 

The possibility of reform has become further complicated given dramatic changes in Italy's political landscape. In 2018, then-Interior Minister Matteo Salvini abolished all humanitarian aid in Italy. Tens of thousands of refugees lost their status, forcing many to turn to agricultural jobs and expanding the reach of the corporali. The 2022 national elections fared no better: Giorgia Meloni was sworn in as Italy's first female prime minister. Her party, Fratelli d'Italia ("Brothers of Italy"), now leads what is largely considered to be the most conservative Italian administration since World War II. Meloni recently announced that pursuant to a new agreement between their two countries, Albania will detain up to 36,000 migrants rescued by Italian authorities in the Mediterranean. The deal also included a dedicated €650 million for new detention centers.

Beyond the evident humanitarian crisis, extremist immigration practices will have an undeniable impact on rural economies. Border restrictions and punitive immigration policy will lead to labor shortages in the agricultural industry, which relies entirely on migrant labor. Not to mention that declining population levels in rural areas have often been filled by immigrants working in those communities. Camini, a commune that had a population of 751 in 2007, now hosts over 118 immigrants from Syria, Bangladesh, and Turkey. Camini exemplifies how immigrants are often the difference between a community collapsing entirely or thriving. 

Read more about agricultural crime in Italy here. This article further discusses rural population decline in Italy. 

Hey, Taylor Swift, why don’t you perform somewhere rural?

I attended my first concert at five years old. I remember enthusiastically dancing and singing along to The Wiggle’s “Fruit Salad,” a hit that has honestly withstood the tests of time.

Since The Wiggles, I’ve been lucky enough to attend concerts of popular artists like Harry Styles, Coldplay, and Taylor Swift. These concerts not only allowed me to listen to great music, but also improved my mental health. Lisa Badanes, the chair of the Department of Psychological Sciences at Metropolitan State University of Denver, states that people who attend concerts have increased levels of endorphins and oxytocin. Additionally, dancing with others in a crowd can lead to increased feelings of belonging.

However, it’s not always easy to attend a concert. Most of the artists I’ve seen only stopped in Los Angeles, not my hometown of San Diego. While the two hour drive wasn’t the worst, it did require planning, gas money, and often buying a hotel for the night. And, for many Americans, especially rural Americans, it is even more logistically challenging to get to the city where their favorite artist tours. For example, in Harry Styles’ Love on Tour, he only stopped in four cities in the United States: New York, Austin, Chicago, and Los Angeles.

Aside from distance, the price of tickets have become more of an obstacle for the average concert goer since the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2019, the average ticket price was $96.17, in 2024 the average ticket price was $123.25. Thus, for many rural Americans, traveling to attend a concert with already expensive tickets is not financially feasible.

Take for example, Gunnison County in Colorado, which was recently mentioned in a previous blog post. Gunnison County workers devote 32 percent of their income on average to rent. After factoring in other necessities like food or medical care, they likely do not have the discretionary income to attend a concert out-of-state.

This is not to say I don’t understand why big artists only include major cities on their tour. Musicians like Taylor Swift can fill NFL stadiums, and all 30 NFL stadiums are located in major cities. Additionally, many artists prefer large venues in big cities because of the better security practices in place.

So, how do we make it easier for rural residents to attend concerts and see their favorite artists live? While the Justice Department’s antitrust lawsuit to break up the Live Nation-Ticketmaster monopoly could drive down ticket prices, that doesn’t solve the high costs associated with traveling to another city. Thus, one answer is to promote festivals, as that seems to be one of the major ways to get big artists to visit rural areas. A festival, as opposed to a concert, usually takes place over multiple days with different artists performing.

For example, the music festival “Hinterland” takes place in Saint Charles, Iowa, which had a population of 640 people in 2020. This August, the festival’s lineup includes Tyler, The Creator, Lana Del Rey, and Kacey Musgraves.

Holding festivals in rural areas both allows rural residents to see live music from popular artists and invigorates the local economy. For example, the Bonnaroo Music and Arts Festival happens annually on a 700-acre farm in Manchester, Tennessee (population around 12,200), and generates approximately $50 million for the surrounding region. Tax revenue from the ticket sales and increased local spending funds the county’s schools, public safety, and infrastructure projects, and Bonnaroo has further donated more than $7 million to community programs since 2002.

Plus, music festivals are usually held outdoors, which circumvents the logistical challenge of finding a venue big enough for traditional concerts in rural areas. In fact, when it comes to festivals, rural areas should be the preferred option as they usually have more outdoor space than urban areas.

However, despite the possible incentives for holding festivals in rural areas, of the 26 largest music festivals, only three take place in rural areas. This is because corporations are more likely to sponsor an event held in a city since those festivals often have more attendees.

While I understand why ticket sales may be greater in cities, the success of festivals like Bonnaroo should prove to companies that we can entice people to travel to rural areas, and benefit those rural areas’ economies at the same time. Not to mention, a backdrop of mountains and a sunset while listening to Taylor Swift certainly doesn’t sound like the worst thing in the world.

Filling the rural labor void

A hotly contested issue during the 2024 presidential election was immigration. President Trump’s presidential campaign centered around mass deportations, restricting entry for refugees, and expanding the border wall. According to the New York Times, former Vice President Harris tried to neutralize the immigration topic:

But her message fell flat, as voters across the country doubted her resolve, associated her with the Biden administration’s failures at the border or were simply won over by Mr. Trump’s starkly xenophobic rhetoric.

Most of Trump’s political comments around immigration related to his assertion that immigrants were “stealing” jobs from U.S. citizens. However, labor economists pushed back against his sentiments by explaining how immigrants are beneficial to the U.S. labor market and economy:

Immigrants take jobs but they also create new ones by spending in local economies and by starting businesses, economists said. One 2020 research paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found immigrants are 80% more likely to become entrepreneurs than native workers.

A recent “surge” of immigrants to the U.S. is expected to add $8.9 trillion (or 3.2%) to the nation’s GDP over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan scorekeeper for Congress.

Currently, the manufacturing and agriculture sectors are experiencing labor shortages, and the problem can be especially acute in rural areas, where populations are declining. Immigration can be a solution to this labor shortage. Specifically, the U.S. should increase opportunities for employment-based visas for skilled and unskilled workers.

The largest immigration raid in U.S. history in Postville, Iowa should educate us about the importance of the immigrant workforce and the impact of I.C.E. raids on host communities. The Postville raid resulted in 389 arrests in a town with just about 2,500 residents. In the wake of the raid, however, another 1,000 immigrants either fled the town or left to follow family members who were detained. As a result, the county lost seven percent of its workforce, and the factory soon went bankrupt. A different company bought the factory and hired immigrants from the Pacific island of Palau to work at the factory.

Thus, the void left by the detained immigrants was filled by another immigrant workforce.

Immigrants not only fill labor shortages in rural America, but they also bring an entrepreneurial spirit. Immigrants are eighty percent more likely to start a business compared to native-born Americans. This law review article by Professor Amarante documented the extent to which Hispanics and Latinos own small businesses even in rural places. He wrote in particular of Morristown, Tennessee:

But before I got to Morristown’s main street, I was shocked to see three tacquerias, a tortilleria, and a panaderia. I hadn’t seen signs in Spanish since I left Nevada and it felt a little surreal to see a traditional Mexican bakery on a main thoroughfare in a small town in East Tennessee.

As the country moves into an uncertain future under a second Trump administration, it is more crucial than ever that conversations around labor shortages help change the current political rhetoric around immigration.

To read more about immigrants in rural America, see These boots were made for immigrants and Addressing the rural lawyer shortage has never been more important.

Food deserts and their disproportionate effects on rural areas

Food deserts are both an urban and rural problem, but rural communities are disproportionately affected by a lack of access to food. Food deserts and their effects have been discussed before on this blog, but food deserts and food insecurity remain a persistent problem. Food insecurity affects millions of people in the United States. As of July 2023, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that a staggering 27 million Americans are affected by food insecurity or a lack of access to food. In many instances, food insecurity comes from persistent poverty, but other times, food insecurity is caused by a lack of access to grocery stores. The latter disproportionately affects rural areas.

Food deserts are a form of food insecurity. Put succinctly, a food desert is an area where people do not have immediate access to a grocery store to purchase food. The United States Department of Agriculture has defined an urban food desert as one where 33% of the population is further than one mile from a supermarket and a rural food desert as one where 33% of people are more than 10 miles from a supermarket.

People in food deserts are faced with a lack of options as well. A local grocery store or supermarket may not have the variety or options that a large grocery store can provide. This limits people's access to fresh produce as well, which is a crucial part of a healthy diet. Instead, the few grocery stores located within a food desert may only have shelf-stable, processed foods. This further compounds the health issues that many communities, particularly rural communities, already face.

Rural areas are disproportionately affected by food deserts. A CoBank Study found that “rural communities comprise 63% of all U.S. counties but 87% of counties with the highest food insecurity rates.” Another study by Verwell Health found that “over one-fifth of people living in urban areas and one-third of people in rural areas are in food deserts.” The numbers show that food deserts disproportionately affect rural communities. Food insecurity in rural areas is due in part to food deserts.

A lack of access to grocery stores or supermarkets plays a major role in the formation and perpetuation of food deserts in rural America. Many rural individuals have to travel long distances to get to grocery stores. This travel can become even more difficult and dangerous during winter months when weather can impact travel. Furthermore, when people in rural communities get to their local grocery stores, they find themselves faced with a lack of options. Many rural grocery stores do not provide people with “access to a wide range of food and beverage options.”

As mentioned above, many local grocery stores or supermarkets in rural areas only have processed foods available to customers. Processed foods are cheaper and easier to transport compared to fresh produce. Typically, processed foods are higher in sodium, fat, and sugar. This leads to an unhealthy diet which has further health consequences outside of food insecurity.

There is a direct correlation between food deserts, unhealthy diets, and health issues related to poor nutrition. Diets that are high in sodium, fat, and sugar lead to an increased risk of obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and other health issues. Furthermore, a diet that lacks proper nutrition can also lead to complications during pregnancy.

Solving the food desert crisis is a complicated issue as well. One suggestion is that food delivery services may be able to fill the void of food deserts. A study from the Brookings Institute found that 90% of people living in food deserts could potentially have access to food delivery services such as Amazon, Instacart, Uber Eats, or Walmart. The study also acknowledges that a lack of internet access could make it difficult for rural areas to access food delivery services. Lack of internet access in rural areas, which has been discussed here, is not only a technological limitation but can also limit rural area's access to food.

Food deserts and food insecurity affect many millions of people in the United States but disproportionately affect rural communities. While there is no readily apparent solution to the food desert problem, hopefully, more people will be aware of how prevalent food insecurity is in the United States, particularly in rural areas.

The ripple effects of a pivot away from clean energy reach Humboldt County

Efforts to develop offshore wind infrastructure off the coast of California have run into a confluence of Trump administration priorities: reducing federal spending, eliminating clean energy projects, and undoing anything related to the Biden administration. In a widely expected move, the Trump administration announced that they were pausing all offshore wind leasing and reviewing existing leases for potential termination. 

Since that announcement, companies planning to build wind turbines off the coast of Humboldt County announced significant layoffs, a sign that those projects may no longer be moving forward. While the Trump administration's announcement did not immediately revoke the permits for the planned offshore wind sites off of Morro Bay and Humboldt County, development of these sites and the onshore infrastructure needed to build the wind turbines and carry the electricity to its destination markets requires a huge investment that offshore wind supporters believe would almost certainly require federal funding. Given the current administration's posture towards wind and other clean energy sources (not to mention towards the entire state of California), that funding will not be coming anytime soon. Thus, it is not surprising that the companies who already paid the U.S. government $757.1 million to lease tracts of the ocean for wind energy appear to be rolling back those plans and cutting jobs that would have been focused on those projects.

In addition to the direct impacts on those losing their jobs with these wind energy developers, the Trump administration's decision to pull support for offshore wind will affect those in Humboldt County who were hoping for the economic benefits that were promised to accompany these projects. As part of the lease bidding process, bidding companies were required to "commit to mak[ing] a qualifying monetary contribution to programs or initiatives that benefit the greater Humboldt County community." The agreement with the federal government provided for about 7.5% of the bid amounts to go to local stakeholders, a not-insignificant amount considering that the total bids amounted to over $750 million for parcels off Morro Bay and Humboldt County. It is unclear how much of that money the County and other local stakeholders have received.

Beyond the direct payments, however, local communities stood to gain from accompanying investments in electric infrastructure and in making significant upgrades to the Humboldt Bay Harbor District, as well as accompanying increases in economic activity in the local area. Now, whether any of those benefits will materialize is an open question.

Even before the Trump administration moved to scuttle clean energy development, many locals in Humboldt County were skeptical about the promised benefits from wind projects. Calmatters' Julie Cart, in her excellent reporting on offshore wind development in California, noted that local communities would bear social costs and face strains on infrastructure, including higher housing costs and utility upgrades. 

As previously discussed on this blog, Humboldt County has experienced a series of boom-and-bust cycles from different industries, including timber, fishing, and cannabis, that have brought prosperity to the region only to collapse and give way to economic despair. Humboldt County's Director of Economic Development, Scott Adair, shared that locals "are cautious about the flimflam, if you will, the over-promisers."

Adair also noted that, even if locals are skeptical, the fate of the project is out of their hands.

“This is a federal project that is happening to us,” Adair said. “We have a limited ability to be involved and to help steer or shape the outcomes of the project.”

County supervisors expressed some cautious optimism that underscores how the region stood to gain and how it has suffered from prior economic hardships: 

The supervisors said they are excited about the possibilities, but they also worry about the pitfalls and are bracing for disappointment. “I go into this with my eyes wide open,” said Supervisor Rex Bohn. “I pray this happens. I hope like hell this happens.

From outside of Humboldt County, offshore wind is considered critical to achieving California's zero-carbon targets for electricity. 

“There is an undeniable urgency,” said David Hochschild, chair of the California Energy Commission. “California has had unprecedented climate challenges. There is a fierce urgency to respond. We have to stop being academic on this. We have to build.”

But this urgency is not enough to justify the project's presence in Humboldt for many locals who have felt burned by prior experiences with extractive industry. Phillip Williams, a member of the Yurok Tribal Council, was extremely skeptical about relying on this project for economic benefits to the local communities:

“Everybody's lining up. It's almost like there's a predator. ‘Okay, these guys are weak. We can come in here and take advantage of this community that’s this desperate for dollars, because they've already depleted all their natural resources. What else can we extract from these communities, and these communities are so desperate, that they're willing to jump off the bridge blind, in hopes that there's gold at the bottom,’” he said.

Like other communities along the North Coast, Williams said the Yuroks need sustainable jobs, but not at any cost. More than a third of tribal members live below the poverty line, 60% of them children.

 Now that it appears likely that the project will be delayed, if not abandoned, skeptics in the local community may be breathing a sigh of relief. Their reactions to the proposed project certainly show the importance of local input and the potential pain that can be caused by major infrastructure development in rural and economically depressed areas. But the climate crisis continues unabated, and the Trump administration has not announced any proposals for economic development in Humboldt County to lessen the impact of the potential loss of offshore wind. 

Ndala and Cyclone Freddy: the harsh reality of climate change

On March 13, 2023, Ndala, a village in northeastern Mozambique, was almost entirely submerged in water. Heavy rains caused the river running through the village to overflow. The torrent of water and rocks cleared everything in its path: houses and people inside them, roads, bridges, livestock, and vehicles. The cause of these tragic events was Cyclone Freddy, the longest tropical cyclone on record. Two years later, Ndala still faces the effects of the storm. The population endures isolation, illness, and deepening poverty. The cyclone injured many, tore families apart, and destroyed livelihoods. 

 

The people most affected by extreme weather, particularly in places like Mozambique and across Africa, are often the least responsible for the climate crisis. Those affected live in communities with the least resources to adapt to climate disasters such as Cyclone Freddy. As a result, these countries and population pay the heaviest price for climate change with their lives. 

 

This vulnerability is not unique to Mozambique. In his blog post “Rural vulnerabilities in a changing climate”, Ryan Chen highlighted how rural areas with weak infrastructure are the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. He cites Texas’ Rio Grande Valley, where drought is worsening due to it. Similarly, Ndala also lacks infrastructure and has trouble dealing with flooding. 

 

The increased frequency of floods and droughts directly impacts agriculture, threatening crop yields and livestock, primary sources of income sustenance for many rural communities in Mozambique. The cost of adapting to these drastic changes strains already limited financial resources of rural communities.

Malawi, a neighboring country of Mozambique, was also impacted by Cyclone Freddy. Recognizing the previous challenges, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the government of Malawi launched a US$53 million agricultural development program in 2023. The initiative aims to commercialize agriculture, enhance small-scale farming resilience, and improve food security and nutrition across the country. As part of this effort, the seven-year Sustainable Agriculture Production program will equip farmers with the skills and resources needed to combat food insecurity, increase income, and improve rural livelihoods. In addition, the program allows funds to be reallocated to address immediate needs such as repairs to infrastructure that was damaged or destroyed by climate disasters. 

Nevertheless, while the IFAD has been actively involved in improving food security and resilient livelihoods for rural transformation in Mozambique, it didn't provide direct assistance to the country following Cyclone Freddy.

 

Climate disasters often lead to migration. Cyclone Freddy left thousands in Mozambique without homes, forcing them to migrate in search of safety and stability. However, under international law, these people do not qualify as refugees because their displacement is climate-related rather than a result of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or social group, as defined by article 1 of the Geneva Convention. 

Climate-displaced individuals are classified as internally displaced persons (IDPs) if they remain in their country or migrants if they cross borders. Under the Geneva Convention, refugees are entitled to the right to seek asylum, non-refoulement (not being sent back to danger), access to healthcare, education, and work in host countries, unlike IDPs and migrants.

 

This legal gap has sparked an ongoing debate about the legal recognition of “climate refugees”. The UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) advocates for the expanded definition of refugees to include those displaced by climate change. However, many countries that ratified the Geneva Convention oppose this change, fearing it would increase migration and legal obligations. Amnesty International argues that concerns over mass migration are overblown. Instead, the organization emphasizes the need for humanitarian assistance, as climate change continues to displace communities worldwide. 

 

The case of Cyclone Freddy and Ndala underscores the growing urgency of this debate. Moving forward, the international community can no longer afford to ignore the impact of climate change on rural communities. Without action, climate migrants will remain trapped in legal limbo, denied the protections they desperately need.

The rise of the "barndominium" and the "shouse"

Since the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, there has been a substantial uptick in migration to rural areas. From 2019 to 2023, large urban areas like New Orleans and Cleveland experienced smaller population growth than average as many city dwellers were no longer required to appear at their jobs in person. 

Theoretically, the pandemic's resolution and subsequent return to in-person work should have ended the rural migration trend. However, many Americans are still trading in city life for country living. For instance, as of late 2024, young families with children have been increasingly leaving big cities, instead opting for rural counties and small metropolitan areas. 

The benefits of living in the country are somewhat obvious. Cities tend to come with a higher cost of living, overwhelmed public school systems, higher rates of crime, and greater environmental pollution. This reality, combined with a rising cultural appreciation for the countryside aesthetic, has set the stage for homeowners to embrace a lesser-known phenomenon: the "barndominium."

Picture this: 14 acres in the middle of nowhere, abundant open space, and the opportunity to design your own home at a far lower cost than purchasing a traditional house. For people like the Barndominium Lady Stacey Lynn Bell, who built her dream barndominium and now helps others do the same, the appeal is irresistible. In a recent New York Times article reporting on the barndo's surge in popularity, Bell explained that: 

More people want bigger homes, more distant neighbors, land to raise chickens and grow vegetables, and an environment 'not as hustle-bustle.'

In the same piece, Brittany VanHouten shared that she and her husband expect their barndominium in Citrus County, Florida to be 4,500 square feet and include a home theater, library, craft room, and spacious detached garage, once finished. The Florida couple estimated their new home would cost under $300,000, which falls on the lower end of the average price to build a home in their area.

On top of all these advantages, barndominiums are often disaster-resilient, long-lasting, and energy-efficient. This is largely due to their slow-to-rust steel frames and customary metal roofs, which can withstand high winds and hurricanes. Pertinently, climate and disaster-resilient features are "very important" to 86% of homebuyers, according to a recent Zillow survey.

Of course, the barndominium has its disadvantages, too. As with rural living in general, taking up residence on vast open land may mean sacrificing easy access to schools, places of employment, restaurants, and shopping centers. 

A partial remedy to this problem is the shouse, an even more niche category of housing also taking over rural America. While the shouse is extremely barndo-esque, it provides the additional option of allowing owners to combine their living space with their workshop. This feature virtually eliminates commute time, unless you count the time it takes to walk from one room to another.

Further, while a greater emphasis on function over form renders shouses somewhat less cosmetically appealing than their barndo counterparts, these structures share many of the same advantages, including lower costs and energy efficiency. 

If migration trends over the last few years are predictive of those to come, rural areas are likely to continue to experience an influx of new residents from bigger cities. Unfortunately, housing prices have already begun to increase in smaller towns and rural areas due to this shift. However, for those with the resources, patience, and vision, a barndominium or a shouse might allow potential homebuyers to make their rural dreams a rural reality.

Opportunity costs: leaving the rural

My partner grew up in Bedford, the seat of Bedford County in Pennsylvania. The small town boasts a population of only 2,830 per the 2023 census. In 2012, when she was only 11, her family moved to San Jose, California. This allowed her mother to pursue a J.D. at Santa Clara Law school and gave the family access to many more opportunities and resources. 

This isn't uncommon-- patterns of rural depopulation are well documented and a common motivation for leaving rural places is the perceived opportunity offered in more urban areas. (Other aspects of rural population growth and loss discussed here and here.) The story of my partner and her family also provides a prime example of "brain drain," a term used to describe the flight of young individuals bound for professional success from rural places. (More on brain drain and its effects here and here.)

The opportunities that my partner's family chased were real for them. Her mother now practices as an attorney and my partner attends the UC Davis Vet School, an opportunity she says was only possible because of her family's move to California. However, the move also had drawbacks.

My partner described Bedford as a very interconnected community. Her family would attend bible studies at her cousin's home every Wednesday. They would play in the creek (pronounced "crick" and which may or may not be different than a creek) at her cousin's house, catching crayfish and building bridges out of discarded wood planks and branches. If she wasn't at her cousin's house, she was with her grandma catching frogs, playing dodgeball, or sledding in nearby cornfields in the winter. According to my partner, "the people you start kindergarten with are the same people you graduate high school with."

In sociology, the term used to describe community interconnectedness is density of acquaintanceship. The metric is concerned with the portion of people that know each other in a community.  As one might imagine, the density of acquaintanceship in cities is low when you consider the sheer number of people compared to how many might recognize each other. This urban isolation can lead to both physical and mental health problems. (Read the US Surgeon General's advisory on the loneliness epidemic here.)

This loneliness was also a very real experience for my partner. Leaving Bedford also meant leaving family, friends, and a support system she says was impossible to truly replace. This suggests that the cost of leaving her rural community was compounded. In addition to having to navigate life in a completely different place with different cultures and norms, she also simultaneously lost her access to a support system that would otherwise be helping manage the stress of such a drastic change. 

The move has created a rift between her and those she feels most supported by. Often, her family asks her if she will return to Bedford which she does not plan to do. Often, she asks her grandmother to move to California. In her grandmother's words, she was "planted in Bedford" and cannot leave. My partner still reckons with the consequences of the move and the way it pits her career and life goals against time spent with the people she has left behind. 

As I listened to what my partner had to say and as I continue to learn more about the unique problems rural communities face, it has become apparent that the forces which pull young people away from their families and support systems in rural communities stem from the same resource shortage responsible for many of the other challenges rural communities face. (Find information on the legal service shortage here. Find information on the difficulties rural schools face here. For information on law enforcement staffing problems in rural communities here.) 

However, I struggled to find research analyzing the specific struggles those who are leaving their rural communities are facing. (Here is a study analyzing the effects of rural outmigration on parents who are left behind out of China. Here is a study analyzing how parents leaving their kids in rural areas to work in cities affects the children.) This seems like an important aspect of rural outmigration to consider and, like many rural issues, deserves to be focused on with the American rural perspective in mind.

Wolves in Colorado

In the 1940s the Grey Wolf was hunted to local extinction in Colorado by locals who were fearful of the dangers wolves poised to livestock, and for the overhunting of Elk populations by the wolves. 

80 years later, in 2020, Colorado voters in a close election voted to reintroduce wolves. Proposition 114, which aimed to reintroduce wolves was passed by a split of 50.91/49.09. It was not the first attempt to reintroduce the apex predator to the centennial state. Previous measures to bring wolves back to Colorado had failed in the years prior, crucially in 2016 when the Colorado Parks and Wildlife commission had voted against reintroducing wolves (citing the impact it might have on big game hunting and ranching in the state). The election was crucial and historical- it was the first time a state, not the federal government, had taken steps to reintroduce wolves into their natural habitat. 

Wolves had already been in Colorado when Proposition 114 was passed. In 2021, a few months after the measure, but well before the first reintroduction took place, Colorado reported that the first grey wolf pups were born in the state since the 1940s (the pack had migrated from Wyoming). In the winter of 2020/2021, the state also had its first confirmed killing of a livestock by a wolf since the 1940s, due to the pack that migrated from Wyoming.

The 2020 vote on reintroducing the wolves, in a presidential election year, was the closest statewide vote of the night. Other results from the night showed big partisan swings that made it clear Colorado was now a strong blue state-the presidential election went 55.40/41.90% in favor of President Biden and the senate race went 53.5/44.2 in favor of Democrat John Hickenlooper. 

But the wolf measure did not follow the general trends of partisanship. Instead, it followed geography. On the mostly rural Western Slope (population around 590,000), the only counties that had a majority of votes in favor of the wolves reintroduction were Pitkin, Summit, San Miguel, San Juan, and La Plata. This is in stark contrast to the presidential race where 15 counties went for Biden.  Further, across the 5 counties that voted for Biden and the wolves on the Western Slope, the wolves measure on average lost around 10 points of support compared to the President. There were no counties on the rural Eastern Plains (population around 160,000) that voted in favor of the wolves.

This degree of separation between urban and rural carried clear implications in this vote. The rural areas are where the wolves will be reintroduced. 

Colorado immediately set to work on how to devise a plan to reintroduce the wolves. It involved the recommendations of two groups-a stakeholder group (comprised of ranchers, outfitters, and others speaking for communities in Colorado affected) and a technical working group (composed of wildlife experts and professionals). Colorado state officials took rural concerns seriously when it came to reintroducing the wolves, not just relying on experts but also those in communities affected. Adam Gall, a member of the stakeholder group, gave high praise to Colorado’s work, saying that Colorado Parks and Wildlife had done their due diligence in gathering diverse opinions for the stakeholder group and was respectful when it came to hearing how the stakeholders wanted reintroduction to take place. 

On Dec. 18th, 2023, three years after voting for the measure, Colorado Parks and Wildlife released the first five wolves into Colorado on the Western Slope. Colorado then released five more wolves four days later, again on the Western Slope. The state plans to release ten to fifteen wolves each year for the next three to five years, having just released the second set in January 2025.

The wolves in Colorado raise major questions about the role of rural areas, and the burdens placed on them. As one rancher put it, “Colorado livestock producers are now carrying the burden for America’s interest in wolves.” Wolves however provide many benefits to ecosystems in rural areas. Reintroducing wolves, as an apex predator, means that local prey populations are likely to not reach overcapacity, allowing fauna to flourish, and will allow other species to return to areas. 

As we go into this new era of climate change, destruction from wildfires, efforts to conserve nature, and declining wildlife populations-it seems more and more likely that conservation efforts will involve urban areas voting to pass measures that will need to be enforced in rural ones. It seems crucial to follow in Colorado’s footsteps here. State’s must make sure that rural communities' voices are heard, since they are unlikely to hold as much sway at the ballot box; yet are likely to hold up the hard end of the bargain, such as living with wolves at the doorstep. 

Hillbilly cosplay and the privilege coverup

With nearly 120,000 reviews and a 4.4-star rating among Amazon purchasers, Hillbilly Elegy seems to strike a fond chord with readers. The book, a memoir of J.D. Vance's life, tells the story of a young boy with Appalachian roots navigating a new world from Ohio to Yale Law School. Vance tells the story of how he, a self-labeled hillbilly, rose from the dregs of poverty to wealth through his hard work and grit. 

In 2020, Netflix released the film adaptation of Hillbilly Elegy. Not having copious amounts of time as a third-year law student yet wanting to know about the new U.S. Vice President, the movie would be the perfect chance for me to verify the acclaim. Unfortunately, after watching, I am left feeling unmoved, uninspired, and frankly, disappointed in the narrative promoted by Vance. 

Shortly after beginning, Hillbilly Elegy tracks Vance while in law school. The scene occurs at a recruiting event for law students attempting to network with fancy, private firm attorneys, hoping to secure a summer internship at a big firm. Initially, I felt empathy for Vance as he attempted to fit in by ordering a glass of wine. However, Vance was immediately confounded when a server presented him with several wine varietals unfamiliar to Vance, eventually being rescued by a teacher who ordered him a Chardonnay. My empathy extended as Vance became immediately uncomfortable upon sitting for dinner because of the numerous forks at his place setting, not knowing the purpose of each.

Vance's story is similar to mine. Raised by a single mom and surviving thanks to government assistance, I was utterly unprepared for law school. It seemed like all my classmates had parents who were doctors, lawyers, or white-collar professionals. For them, it seemed like law school was second nature. However, law school was a new world for someone like me—raised by a minimum-wage-earning office secretary. Like Vance, I was ultimately and utterly "a fish out of water."

While most viewers might continue watching this networking scene in Hillbilly Elegy, feeling sorry for Vance, I had a different reaction. I felt pity for Vance, but not because of his awkward situation; instead, I felt pity for Vance because I knew how the story ended. I knew who Vance would become. 

For all intents and purposes, Vance defied the odds and became successful through hard work. His rise is objectively admirable. However, I believe Vance is a cosplayer at best and a traitor to his people at worst. Vance grew up in suburban Ohio, two generations removed from living in the Appalachian hills. Although he self-designates himself a hillbilly, that designation is suspect and laughable to some critics.

Even worse than Vance's cosplay as a hillbilly when it benefits him, Vance actively engages in harmful rhetoric against his so-called people. He describes the impoverished as lazy burdens on the system. If Vance were a hillbilly, perhaps he might understand that laziness has nothing to do with the poverty experienced by poor white folk in rural America.

In my opinion, Vance is not a hillbilly. He does not deserve that title. I believe Vance only calls himself a hillbilly for one reason—to preclude accusations of privilege, as if privilege diminishes his accomplishments. 

Vance is privileged. Returning to the movie's dinner scene, Vance, upon seeing the multiple forks, retires to the hallway to ask Usha (his then-girlfriend and now wife) how to approach the dilemma. Returning to a table of classmates and prominent attorneys, Vance tells the table a little about himself. Vance goes on to talk about military service and attending The Ohio State University for his undergraduate degree, leading to one of the attorneys asking Vance if he was a "redneck."

To me, this dinner scene is perfectly illustrative of the privilege Vance has as a white man. When Vance returns to the table, he is seen and treated by the others as one of them, starting on a level playing field. Nevertheless, while Vance's sex and skin color entitle him to a favorable baseline opinion from the others, those belonging to minority groups often start far below in the esteem of the group, only to be deemed an equal by them proving themselves worthy. As Vance's statements and reactions to the group's questions grow more abrasive and subjectively rude, it is by sheer grace, and ultimately privilege, that he is offered an interview from someone at the table.

Hillbilly Elegy tells more than a story about an individual achieving the American Dream. The memoir tells the story of privilege, that despite considerable adversity, sometimes being white does mean that "you'll be all right."

Country music isn’t for everyone, but maybe it can be

I’ve always been hesitant to say I like country music. It’s an unexpected character trait for someone like me who was born and raised in San Francisco, but I grew up listening to artists like Johnny Cash, Brooks & Dunn, and Garth Brooks. Admittedly, I’ve attended about a dozen country concerts, despite the slightly judgmental comments from my country-averse friends. So, when Beyoncé and Post Malone came out with country albums this past year, it surprised me when these albums suddenly peaked my friends’ interests in country music. 

Perhaps I wouldn’t listen to country music if I hadn’t been listening to it my whole life because I can’t always relate to common motifs in country music. After all, although I enjoy singing about dirt roads in the car, I will say that I usually stick to city streets. I also don’t always agree with the political views of some country singers, and often need to separate the music from the singer. Even though I’ve loved country music my whole life, I must admit that I haven’t always felt completely safe when attending country concerts.  

This new era in country music’s popularity made me think about the importance of representation in music. Although country music has evolved over time, as highlighted by this blog post from February 2023, I’ve never seen a country artist who looks like me. In 2021, a study found that only 4% of the commercial country music industry identify as BIPOC. Beyoncé’s new country album, Cowboy Carter, reminded me of how exciting it can be to hear country music that wasn’t made by a straight, white man.

Modern country music, or what some might consider “pop country,” has made country music accessible, or more digestible, for people who historically despised country music. Pop country has also opened the door for more people to be represented through country music. As someone who appreciates both classic and pop country music, I am happy that more people are embracing and feel included by this new take on country music. For example, a 2024 article by Ebony Wiggins from The Tennessean highlighted how Beyoncé’s album had an emotional impact on her, stating: 

She’s made people like me, a Black woman, come full circle by including me in something I once felt excluded from. She’s not only opened the door, but she completely knocked it down for Black people to enter unabashed.

Wiggins recounts how Beyoncé’s album “turned [her], a non-country music supporter, into not only a fan of country music, but a fan of Beyoncé’s form of country music.” 

Unfortunately, Beyoncé’s album has not been without its critics. Candice Norwood noted in her article entitled, “With ‘Cowboy Carter,’ Black country music fans are front row and center, at last,” that an online commenter stated, “[Beyoncé] is on a mission to take country music away from us, hardworking white people!” Norwood recounted: 

This moment in music history, while high profile, is not surprising—particularly for Black fans who have been navigating this dynamic for years. Though country music is an art form developed from the sounds of Black musicians, the commercial country music industry was explicitly created to court rural, White listeners in the 1920s. 

Norwood’s article also highlights the struggle that Black country artists have experienced due to criticisms that their music does not “represent ‘authentic’ country music” because they “mix country elements with blues, soul, or hip-hop.” 

The changing demographics of country music and its fans were also highlighted in an article by Alexander Gelfand of the Berklee School of Music, who wrote: 

Much of the current demand is coming from Millennial and Gen Z listeners; and there are signs that the country music industry, which has historically sidelined women, people of color, and the LGBTQ+ community, is becoming more inclusive. 

Gelfland noted Beyoncé’s becoming the first Black female artist to top Billboard’s country album chart as well as Nigerian American artist Shaboozey making history by topping the country, pop, and rhythmic radio charts. Country artists like Luke Combs have also used country music to make a statement about the racial divides in the United States by covering Tracy Chapman’s song, “Fast Car.” 

The rise in inclusivity within the country music genre may represent a shift in how we think about country music. By holding space for artists who have unfortunately been kept out of the country music spotlight, the country music community has the opportunity to expand and diversify its audience. And, perhaps if we all listen to the same music, maybe that will make it easier to have difficult conversations with one another when it comes to politics. On a different note, I am definitely excited to have more friends who would be willing to attend country concerts with me. 

Land annexation by Solano County cities may jeopardize the future of local farmers

The fate of the controversial California Forever project has rested in the hands of Solano County's rural electorate, until recently. Now, it appears that this may no longer be true.

Last January, the Suisun City Council voted to allow its city manager "to consider annexation of more territory into the city -- land that is largely owned by . . . California Forever[,]" reports indicate. The annexation, if approved, would shift control of a significant portion of California Forever owned land from Solano County to Suisun City (one of the County’s smallest municipalities).

As a result, California Forever could “circumvent [Solano County's] Orderly Growth Initiative, which requires major developments on unincorporated county land to be approved by county voters[,]” Jack Rogers, of GlobeSt.com, reports. In other words, annexation by Suisun City may remove one of California Forever’s most challenging obstacles – rural opposition.

Moreover, the move by Suisun City is showing signs of having a snowball effect, as other Solano County municipalities seek to reap the potential benefits of the California Forever project. Last week, the Rio Vista City Council met to “consider exploring annexation in relation to lands currently owned by . . . California Forever[,]” Robin Miller, of The Reporter, said.

This news of annexation may be indicative of a strategic shift on behalf of California Forever and its billionaire backers. 

For the last two years, California Forever has maintained a community oriented position that has placed Solano County's rural voices at (or near) the center of its decision making. But, in light of a recent political setback, California Forever may be changing course. 

Last July, California Forever decided to withdraw its land rezoning measure. The Measure, had it been approved, would have rezoned nearly 18,000 acres of unincorporated Solano County land, thereby permitting new commercial and residential developments. The decision to withdraw was made just one day before the Solano County Board of Supervisors was set to decide on whether to adopt the Measure or place it before the county’s voters for approval, the Board's meeting minutes show.

Jan Sramek, CEO of California Forever, said that the decision was the result of recent polling data. Specifically, Sramek, in a joint statement with Solano County, cited polling data indicating that most of the County's voters would like to see an environmental impact report completed, before deciding on the Measure. According to Sramek, pulling the Measure would provide California Forever with ample time to create an environmental impact report.

However, other reports have cited opposition from “residents, ranchers, and farmers” as being a primary factor behind the California Forever's decision to pull the Measure. On this point, Solano Together, a community organization formed to oppose the California Forever, stated the following:

Faced with the anticipation of overwhelming rejection by Solano County voters on the ballot, California Forever has pulled the plug on the East Solano Plan Initiative. The people have spoken and California Forever has been forced to withdraw their hastily drawn, poorly designed initiative, given a surefire loss in November.

All of this begs the question: has the California Forever Coalition sought to influence the Suisun City Council's decision to annex new territory in a concerted effort to sidestep opposition from Solano County's rural electorate?

“California Forever would neither confirm nor deny that it plans to use Suisun as a backdoor for the project[,]” Brittany Maldonado, of California City News reports. However, according to ABC10, a California Forever representative had this to say about the issue: “If we receive an invitation to explore annexation by Suisun City, we would be open to a conversation.”

Annexation by Suisun, Rio Vista, or any other Solano County city, may jeopardize the future of the County's rural farmers.

To date, a number of Solano County farmers have resisted California Forever's efforts to compel sale of their farms. If a city (supportive of California Forever) were to annex formerly unincorporated land owned by County farmers, then said city could forcibly dispossess any holdout farmers of their land, through an eminent domain proceeding. At that point, the city could rezone the land to facilitate private development and deed the land to California Forever. If that were to happen, any development proposed by California Forever would only have to be approved by the city and this planning commission. 

This is in contrast to the current state of affairs. As noted above, so long as the land that California Forever seeks to develop remains under Country control, then any proposed project remains subject to voter approval, under Solano County's Orderly Growth Initiative. So, even if the County's Board of Supervisors were to suddenly become sympathetic to California Forever's vision, the voter approval requirement would still operate to deter an eminent domain forced land transfer. In other words, there would be no (or, at least significantly less of an) incentive to force a land transfer, if any new development could still be shot down by the voters.

In sum, recent moves by two Solano County cities may pave the way for California Forever to achieve its goals, with, or without, the support of the County's rural electorate. Annexation would allow California Forever to sidestep County regulations that subject new developments to voter approval. This, in turn, creates the possibility that local farmers will be forcibly dispossessed of their land, so as to facilitate California Forever's proposed developments. 

For more on the arguments for and against the California Forever project, check out this article, by Diana Lind. For other insights into California Forever and its battle with local farmers, see this blog post by UC Davis Law Professor Lisa Pruitt.