My outspoken perspective on the MSFL issue

Here is an opportunity for me to be politically correct and play nice when talking about UNR and the Main Station Field Laboratory (MSFL)...but I think I'll pass this time and speak out instead.  There are many places to read the "can't we all get along" version of this situation, but stakeholder activists experienced a very different, less warm and fuzzy version of this well known local topic.  It's my blog so I'll tell you about it here. The subject is complex and this post is long...read on. 

 

For the sake of full disclosure, I am a member of the Coalition to Preserve UNR Farmland and Floodplain but write this account outside of that role.  The Coalition is not responsible for this post. Again, it's my blog and I am responsible for its content.

 

Before I get started...UNR obtained from the Reno City Council the zoning proposal they sought and will likely proceed with internal plans to make the property ready for sale, but we have not given up hope that they can be held accountable for their responsibilities as a land-grant university.  On April 1st the Nevada State Legislature will consider SB 255, a bill that will require funds acquired from the sale of agricultural assets be expended on agricultural programs.  Undoubtedly UNR and the Board of Regents have their best minds and biggest guns assigned to Carson City, charged with convincing our representatives that this bill will adversely affect higher education in our state...a political hot button this session.  Contact all the legislators to encourage them to support SB 255.  Democrats especially, may need your encouragement.

 

Last year UNR presented to the Reno City Council a PUD proposal detrimental to our last piece of urban agricultural land, the health of the ag research and education program, and to the residents who live around the property in question.  In response to tremendous public opposition, the Council directed UNR to meet with the public and address their concerns. 

 

UNR went through the motions of holding stakeholder meetings and set their PR department to touting UNR’s responsiveness, their renewed dedication to local food and agricultural research and education, and their appreciation for their public and private stakeholders.

 

As good humans will do, we trusted them when they said they were genuinely receptive to community feedback: we marshaled all our intelligence, passion, and knowledge to help them understand the importance of a 21st century ag education program and the benefits to Nevada, the region, ag students, and the potential long term benefit to UNR's revenue stream.  Local food advocates, CABNR (College of Agriculture, Biotechnology, and Natural Resources), and local agricultural interests spent hundreds of unpaid hours developing a fantastic, workable strategic plan for a cutting edge agricultural research and new-farmer incubator program. 

 

We ignored the bad signs and remained cautiously optimistic because we wanted to believe, but it turns out our hopes was misplaced.  Some of the signs....

 

Stakeholder meetings were held without benefit of notes recorded by UNR staff, and refusal to acknowledge meeting notes as recorded by stakeholders, meant that stakeholders walked away feeling there was an understanding only to find out later that UNR had no recollection of the understanding.

 

Letters and feedback to the Board of Regents were met with either generic thank-you replies or silence. 

 

Every Reno City Council meeting was packed with UNR attorneys, real estate development personnel, planners, soil experts who seemed to  know little to nothing about agricultural soil, and flood mitigation experts. Hardly the activities you’d expect of a “partner”. 

 

We wanted to believe that the Reno City Council was ready to consider a new approach to planning.  That they were willing to stand up to the formidable UNR team and hold steady in the face the veiled references to further legal action should they not approve the proposal.  We wanted to believe the Council would respond in favor of the people who make up the community and have spoken out about this proposal.  Two new members did -- Councilwoman Brekhus and Councilman Delgado considered the alternative options, stayed within the boundaries of the law, and cast their vote in favor of the residents who will live with increased flood damage exacerbated by the impermeable surfaces inherent in development. By casting their vote "To protect life and property in areas subject to floods, landslides and other natural disasters." they supported the community's desire to put the 104 acres on the planning map as open space, and keep it suitable for research and food security initiatives.  Thank you! 

 

The end result? On March 27^th UNR put the exact same PUD proposal before the Council, having made no changes to the language. At the meeting there was some talk of easement and landscaping on the remaining farm property but nothing that addressed shareholder concerns was made legally binding. Over the last year or so, and during the course of the applicant and public comment, UNR spun a lovely picture of cooperation and dedication, and repeated for our benefit the steps already taken to develop a "better" agricultural program and work with stakeholders.  Here it's important to know what UNR didn't say. 

 

UNR made many assertions about commitment and intent but were unwilling to commit their promises to paper in a legally binding way, that is, in the PUD. They declined this suggested option and the Council as a whole did not seem to think it was necessary.  Why would UNR not honor their statements, right?

 

President Marc Johnson also "demonstrated" his commitment to stakeholders by holding up The Valley Road Field Station as an alternative to the Main Station Field Lab.  These forty some-odd acres are dedicated to agricultural education so stakeholder needs have been met.  Except...this land is unsuitable for growing crops due to chemical contamination and soil compaction; portions of it have been used for parking and specialty crop plants can't take root.  Weeds, yes.  Food, no. A few years ago students tried to grow food on that property and it was an abysmal mess.   There's a reason hoop houses and greenhouses were considered for this site.  It's because that land will not support healthy food growth for a very long time.

 

President Johnson further demonstrates UNR's commitment to ag research and stakeholders through the contract with the High Desert Farming Institute (HDFI).  Except...the contract has not resulted in a program. Papers were signed but the actions have been less than productive.  Here , Mark Farrell of Hungry Mother Organics and one of the HDFI private partners, describes what is really happening with this initiative and calls UNR on their blatant misrepresentation of their intent, both inside and outside the Reno City Council chamber.  Go to the video and start watching at the 7 hours 33 minutes mark.  Mark says what we all know. 

 

UNR intentionally and continuously sidestepped the real community concerns and kept the dialogue focused on two feel-good topics that were easy to manage on paper and in the media.  Specifically, Wolf Pack Meats and the roughly 800 acres not proposed for zoning. 

 

First, Wolf Pack Meats.  UNR repeated over and over again they have no intension to close WPM, therefore stakeholder needs have been addressed.  This sounds really good, except directly shutting down the program isn't the only way to dispose of it.  It is true the doors are still open, but the meat processing fees were increased by 24 cents per pound when only a 12 cent increase was needed to put the program in the black and make the prices consistent with those of other meat processing businesses. Twelve cents was agreed upon at a stakeholder meeting, but the 24 cent increase was the one implemented. I found out about it while on a public tour of WPM (see the sign below). Local ranchers will be forced to pass this increase on to consumers if they are to stay in business.  And we all know what happens when prices are not competitive...consumers go elsewhere  This move could very well result in the closure of WPM if ranchers can no longer afford to pay the increased fee and are forced to stop using the facility. Unused facilities are shut down. UNR will still be able say they didn't close down Wolf Pack Meats, but it would be closed non-the-less.

 

Next, UNR asserts there will be no significant change to the value of the MSFL property as an agricultural asset because more than 800 acres will remain in play, therefore stakeholder needs have been met. Except…they deliberately disregard the fact that the 104 acre parcel is the best and last piece of human-food-production farmland in the city, and it is the portion of this field best able to absorb flood water.  UNR acquired commercial zoning for this particular piece of land because it runs along McCarran, an attractive attribute to developers looking for maximum visual exposure.  They value the location while we value the land.   

 

President Johnson discounted the MSFL Strategic Plan as unrealistic and unworkable because the university does not have the resources needed to develop the program.  By definition a strategic plan outlines resources needed to attain a lofty goal. - something to be worked towards.  It is not an inventory of available resources. 

 

UNR has been presenting this as a private property zoning issue.  It is not.  UNR is a public entity, responsible to Nevadans as stewards of our educational funding and assets.  They can say all they want that we have no authority, but we beg to differ.

 

The Board of Regents has rules stipulating funding generated from the sale of agricultural assets will be funneled back to agricultural programs.  Sounds good, right?  Except…they are allowed to set aside these rules and they do it routinely, instead deciding to expend the money to pay off debt and buy other things. 

 

And finally, UNR's legal counsel demonstrated what I thought was a most disturbing attitude regarding this issue and the community's opposition. 

 

First, the head of UNR’s legal team told the City Council over and over that the proposal before them was simple...the only consideration was the zoning.  This issue is anything but simple -- it is very complex and involves much more than UNR's need for revenue. 

 

Second, he commented on the audacity of those in opposition who "think they know better than UNR the best use of this land". 

 

Yes we are audacious...we believe it is our responsibility to preserve and cherish our heritage, our legacy, our future.

 

 I like to believe that “Everything will be all right in the end... if it's not all right then it's not yet the end.” (Sonny from Best Exotic Marigold Hotel)  See you out there!