Friday, December 17, 2021
CapitalPress.com 11
Dirt: Region is crawling with developers and speculators
Continued from Page 1
family sold the surround-
ing 47 acres to a developer
and retained about 300 farm
acres.
In 2014, House Bill
4078, dubbed a land-use
“grand bargain,” expanded
urban growth boundaries
in Washington County, pull-
ing Spiesschaert’s property
into Forst Grove’s UGB. The
developable label raised his
land value about 20 times
higher per acre: unafford-
able for beginning farm-
ers, and a disappointment
to Spiesschaert since he had
hoped to pass on the land.
Locals say the region is
now crawling with develop-
ers and speculators.
Spiesschaert, whose farm
is under intense development
pressure, said he’s search-
ing for a way to preserve as
much land as possible, such
as through a conservation
easement.
“Urban growth isn’t bad.
Change will happen,” said
Spiesschaert. “The ques-
tion is: Where’s the balance?
Oregon has generally good
laws that protect farmland,
but at what point do we say:
‘Stop. We have our carry-
ing capacity of people in an
area and shouldn’t grab more
farmland’?”
Conversion of farm-
land into housing develop-
ments isn’t the only kind of
investment.
Investment ‘comes of
age’
According to Fairbairn,
the UC researcher, farmland
investment has slowly been
building since the 1980s, but
the sector really “came of
age” in 2008.
According to USDA
economists, between 2006 to
2008, crop prices were high,
foreign demand for U.S.
agricultural products was on
the rise and food security was
a growing concern, factors
making farmland attractive.
Then the recession hit.
As stock prices plum-
meted and financial insti-
tutions teetered toward
collapse, Fairbairn said,
“farmland,
along
with
other ‘real assets,’ took on
a new luster in the eyes of
investors.”
The financial sector’s
appetite for farmland took
off and hasn’t slowed since.
Land use experts say other
factors, including concerns
about climate change and
dwindling water supplies,
have intensified the land
rush.
Tracking buyers
Uncovering who’s invest-
ing isn’t easy. That’s because,
according to Andrew Gun-
noe, a professor of rural
sociology at Maryville Col-
lege, in the U.S., “no com-
prehensive database of land-
ownership exists at the
federal level.”
USDA tracks purchases
by foreign investors but not
domestic buyers.
States, too, rarely track
farmland ownership, so tax
parcel data are scattered
across counties.
Jim Johnson, land use
Sierra Dawn McClain/Capital Press
A road in Forest Grove, Ore., that used to be part of the Spiesschaert farm.
Mike
McCarthy
Nellie
McAdams
and water planning coordi-
nator at the Oregon Depart-
ment of Agriculture, said
capturing a true picture of
investment would demand
data from every county in
the West. Experts say no one
has undertaken that mam-
moth project in its entirety,
but individual organizations
and researchers have com-
piled pieces.
Megan Horst, a Port-
land State University pro-
fessor who studies food sys-
tems, is a leader in this field.
Stringing together data from
Oregon’s 36 counties, she
recently analyzed farmland
sales from 2010 to 2015 in
an effort to uncover invest-
ment patterns.
“I think it’s important for
people to know who owns
our land,” she said.
Building on Horst’s work,
the Capital Press requested
data from county asses-
sors’ offices on farmland
sales from 2015 through
2021, focusing on three
major regions: the Columbia
Gorge, Central Oregon and
the Willamette Valley.
Big picture
The datasets reveal that
while the majority of farm-
land sales are still associated
with family farming, more
properties are being sold to
investors and corporations.
Between 2010 and 2015,
there were, on average, 1,656
sales of Oregon farmland
each year.
Seventy-nine percent of
these properties were sold to
individuals or similar enti-
ties, accounting for 54% of
the acreage.
In contrast, 12% of farms
were bought by corporations,
but they accounted for more
than 40% of the acreage pur-
chased. In other words, cor-
porations bought larger
properties.
Of the 1,853 corporate
buyers, less than half had
clear connections to agri-
culture and instead were
involved with real estate
Economy: Food
processing became
bigger contributor
to Idaho’s economy
in past five years
Continued from Page 1
University of Idaho agricultural econo-
mist Garth Taylor said Idaho has one of the
country’s largest ag economies.
Food processing became a bigger contribu-
tor to Idaho’s economy in the
past five years, he said.
Idaho promotes and sup-
ports agriculture, and its grow-
ing dairy industry is increasing
the herd’s productivity — a big
contributor to increased farm
Gross Domestic Product, Tay-
lor said. The dairy herd also
Garth
benefits from increased effi-
Taylor
ciency via economies of scale.
Direct payments from the U.S. government
will be down this year after jumping in 2020 as
part of the COVID-19 relief packages, he said.
In Idaho agriculture next year, Taylor
expects a “drought hangover,” various inflation
impacts, and growth of exports and the state’s
dairy herd.
Shaun
Robertson
Addie
Candib
and property development,
investing,
manufacturing,
renewable energy and other
industries.
Only 10% of the farms
were purchased by out-of-
state buyers, but they bought
26% of the total acreage.
Who is buying farmland
is only half the story — some
would say the less important
half.
“Who owns the property
is not really relevant,” said
Greg Holmes, food systems
program director and south-
ern Oregon advocate at 1,000
Friends of Oregon, a land use
watchdog nonprofit. “What’s
relevant is: What are they
going to do with it?”
Columbia Gorge
From 2010 to 2015, the
Columbia Gorge region had
the highest percentage of
properties purchased by out-
of-state buyers, at 14%, and
one-quarter of all buyers
were corporations.
The region has contin-
ued to be a popular invest-
ment location. From Janu-
ary 2015 to November 2021,
in Hood River County, 413
farm properties representing
9,760 acres were sold.
The database, cross-ref-
erenced with business fil-
ings, reveals that top areas of
investment were in tourism,
real estate and high-value
perennial crops.
“The biggest threat to
farming in the Hood River
area is mostly tourism-re-
lated,” said Mike McCarthy,
whose family grows pears in
the area.
McCarthy is a board
member of Thrive Hood
River, a land use organiza-
tion. He became interested in
protecting farmland after, in
the 1970s, a resort developer
offered to convert his par-
ents’ land into a golf course.
According to an agri-
cultural lender who spoke
on condition of anonymity,
there’s also “huge institu-
tional interest” in land near
the Columbia River because
Megan
Horst
Barb
Iverson
of the valuable water rights.
In some pockets along
the Gorge, growers have
banded together to hold out
against corporate investment
pressure, leasing properties
to one another or forming
partnerships.
Central Oregon
From 2015 to 2021, the
number of farmland trans-
fers in Deschutes County
was 568, representing 35,196
acres.
In Central Oregon as a
whole, one-quarter of inves-
tors from 2010 to 2015 were
corporations that bought a
whopping 59% of the total
acreage sold.
Horst, of PSU, said the
big trend in Central Oregon
has been conversion of farm-
land into developments, in
part because the city of Bend
is a fast-growing population
center.
“Things are changing rap-
idly in Central Oregon,” said
Horst.
Experts say the population
upswing has put pressure on
land and water supplies.
“We’re seeing inch-by-
inch erosion of farmland,”
said Nellie McAdams, exec-
utive director of the Oregon
Agricultural Trust.
Deschutes County data
from 2015 to 2021 show a
few major themes. Top buy-
ers included real estate and
land development compa-
nies, investment firms and
companies, including water
utilities, buying land for the
water rights.
Farther east, in Grant
County, investments have
taken on a different fla-
vor. Here, said Shaun Rob-
ertson, president of Grant
County Farm Bureau, two
big themes have emerged:
wealthy individuals or fam-
ilies moving to the country
for its amenities, and people
or companies buying land for
hunting purposes.
Willamette Valley
According to Horst, of
PSU,
the
W i l l a -
mette Val-
ley remains
popular for
investments
due to its
Lyle
high-quality
Spiesschaert soils, beau-
tiful vistas,
water rights and proximity to
urban centers and transporta-
tion corridors.
Parcels across the valley
tend to be smaller than those
in other parts of the state.
In Washington County,
near Portland, many farm-
land sales have been to
amenity owners who want to
live in the country.
In the mid-Willamette
Valley, increasing numbers
of investors are buying farm-
land and either leasing it to
locals or managing it in a
semi-absentee manner.
From 2015 to 2021, Polk
County — in the heart of the
Willamette Valley — had
616 farmland sales repre-
senting 34,776 acres. Major
investors included family
farms scaling up, investment
firms, out-of-state grass seed
companies buying cropland,
real estate groups and Cali-
fornia wine companies buy-
ing vineyards.
From January 2015
through October 2021, 2,726
farm properties were sold
in adjacent Marion County,
many to outside investors.
According to USDA, Marion
County is the largest agricul-
tural-producing county in the
state.
Barb Iverson, owner of
Wooden Shoe Tulip Farm in
Woodburn, said it’s unfor-
tunate there are now so
many absentee landowners
in her area with little local
connection.
“It keeps the land in agri-
culture, but then again, it
takes that local aspect out,”
she said.
McAdams, of the Oregon
Agricultural Trust, agreed that
absentee landownership can
be problematic. She said an
outside investor is less likely
to buy from the local feed
store or be an involved com-
munity member.
Searching for solutions
Experts say there isn’t
one easy solution to solv-
ing
investment-related
challenges.
Horst, of PSU, said a good
place to start would be with
better tracking of farmland
sales.
“More transparent report-
ing would be good,” she said.
McAdams, of the Oregon
Agricultural Trust, said farm-
ers who don’t want to see their
land turn into subdivisions or
other types of developments
can consider donating or sell-
ing it for working land ease-
ments — voluntary agree-
ments between a land trust
and landowner that removes
development rights.
Addie Candib, Pacific
Northwest director of the
American Farmland Trust,
said that although Oregon
ranks among the top 12 states
with the best farmland protec-
tion laws, the state could do
better.
Holmes, of 1,000 Friends
of Oregon, agreed.
In 1973, Oregon lawmak-
ers passed Senate Bill 100
to protect “exclusive farm
use” land. But over the past
48 years, Holmes said, leg-
islators have incrementally
refined the law to allow more
than 60 uses on EFU land,
ranging from destination
resorts to renewable energy
facilities.
“People
are
driving
through bigger and bigger
loopholes,” said Holmes.
Experts say the industry
also needs better generational
land transfer tax laws.
Beyond policy, there are
also personal solutions.
Rusty Inglis, president of
Harney County Farm Bureau
and longtime cattle rancher,
paints a picture of what it
means to preserve farmland
for the next generation.
Inglis, 65, has no famil-
ial heirs, but he is determined
to keep his land in farming.
He could sell to developers
or lease to neighbors, but his
dream is to pass the land on to
young farmers.
“With today’s land prices,
a young couple’s never going
to get into the ranching busi-
ness,” he said. “It’s my inten-
tion to help them get some-
thing that’s normally hard to
get.”
The past few years, Ing-
lis has been working with
a young family passionate
about cattle ranching. The
couple couldn’t afford to
buy Inglis’ property or herd
outright, so he is starting by
leasing land to them and sell-
ing off a portion of his breed-
ing stock annually. Work-
ing with an attorney, he has
set up a tentative succession
plan.
“I can’t write into a will
that the family will have to
continue ranching. Maybe
they’ll sell to a developer
someday, and when I’m
dead, I might look down from
the afterlife and say, ‘You
knuckleheads,’” he said, and
laughed. “But I don’t think I’ll
care at that point. The point is
just that I tried to keep this
land in farming, and to give
them a chance to farm it.”
The global land rush con-
tinues, with investors talking
over white tablecloths under
glittering chandeliers.
But for Inglis and the
young family he’s helping,
the land rush stops here.
Loans: ‘Recipients will not be made whole or profitable under this program’
Continued from Page 1
$125,000 under the bill.
The loan money cannot increase their
total income beyond 90% of the three-
year average of what they earned in 2017,
2018 and 2019. Due to volatility associated
with the coronavirus outbreak, 2020 was
excluded from the calculation.
Rep. Jami Cate, R-Lebanon, objected
to the limits of $500,000 on adjusted gross
income and $125,000 in loan amounts, argu-
ing that larger farms are still family-owned
“mom and pop businesses,” she said.
When their expenses are in the millions
of dollars, farmers must also have revenues
in the millions, Cate said before the House
floor vote. “Having bigger farms or high-
er-value crops just means you’re playing
with higher stakes.”
The rules will be different for “histori-
cally disadvantaged” farmers identified
by the Oregon Department of Agriculture,
which will oversee the program.
Historically disadvantaged farmers will
qualify for loans of up to $150,000 if they
had an adjusted gross income less than
$350,000 in 2021. The loans can’t raise
their total income beyond 95% of their
three-year average revenue.
The loans will be disbursed by banks that
are under contract with the ODA, which
will rely on their experience lending to the
farm industry.
“This is a new program unlike anything
we’ve done before,” said Jonathan Sandau,
special assistant to ODA’s director. “This
will not be live next week, and it will take
time to get right.”
Farmers who ultimately receive financial
help from USDA must repay enough of the
loans to bring them below 90-95% of their
average annual income.
“Recipients will not be made whole or
profitable under this program,” Sandau said
during a hearing.
The overall $400 million legislative
package focused on housing rental assis-
tance, drought relief measures and Afghan
refugee resettlement, among other issues.
The forgivable disaster loan program
was the largest component of the $100 mil-
lion allocated for drought relief.
Lawmakers dedicated more than $11.6
million to Oregon Watershed Enhancement
Board grants aimed at drought resilience
and irrigation modernization.
They also allocated $6 million to sev-
eral drought-afflicted irrigation districts,
$5 million for grasshopper and cricket sup-
pression and $8 million for Klamath Basin
drought assistance, among other programs.
The agriculture industry also stands to
benefit from the $25 million approved for
stopping illegal marijuana grows. If suc-
cessful, it would reduce water theft and
other rural problems.
Law enforcement agencies will receive
$20 million in grants to fight unlawful pro-
duction of marijuana, while $5 million with
go to expand water rights enforcement.
“After simmering for a number of years,
this crisis exploded across the Rogue Valley
in 2021,” said Sen. Jeff Golden, D-Ashland,
during a hearing on the proposal.
“Absent strong action, what’s happened
in my district is a preview of coming attrac-
tions for much of rural Oregon,” he said.
Brandon Ross, an organic farmer near
Ashland, said a marijuana grower held a
gun to his head this year while he investi-
gated why his irrigation source dried up.
“They made it clear they’d be using the
water that year,” Ross said during the hear-
ing. He planned to take a break from grow-
ing organic vegetables for at least a year due
to the problem.
“I love farming but it’s not safe or viable
in Oregon anymore,” he said.
There were more illegal marijuana grows
than law enforcement officers in Jackson
County could deal with this year, said Nate
Sickler, the county’s sheriff.