Hippie stunned that laws aren't just for other people.

[Coito ergo sum]

Being a founding member of an organization with charity status here in California, both in the creation and and maintanance of it, I would never recommend to her to go the charity status route. It's a fucking nightmare of bureaucracy and paperwork that has to be maintained constantly.

If her choice would be to pay the fees or go the charity status route, she would do better to get a student at UC Davis to help her figure out exactly what her costs and labor are, charge the appropriate prices, and pay the fees.

What's sad about this story is that if anyone is familiar with Oakland, they would know that there are a lot of people that live in poverty there, and that fresh produce is not as readily available as it is in more affluent areas. She may lose her market if she has to raise her prices, and the people who are benefiting from the healthfulness of her fresh produce would once again be relegated to buying crap they can afford. Would that make you happy, CES? They could all go back to eating at McDonalds.

Actually, quite the opposite. I wish she didn't have to pay the onerous fee and I wish California wasn't the nightmare of red tape you describe as being (and your description is consistent with my limited experience with California - it's way worse than most other states). I'll repeat - what struck me about the article was the fact that these folks seemed to honestly think that the laws didn't apply to them. I found that funny. I hope that's clear now.

[Coito ergo sum]

I join the voices that use this situation to get on their fucking soapboxes and shout out their predictable and worn admonitions. Why don't you lot become real politicians, and pester us from afar?

It is the posted in the politics forum, is it not? And the OP did seem to spin the story with a broader agenda, did it not?

Nothing wrong with discussing politics in a forum. Why, I've been known do it myself. It's the shouting from soapboxes I object to, in particular the libertarians tediously screeching their mantras at every opportunity. All we need, to make the cacophony complete, is for Sandinista and Gawd to chime in.

For the record, the OP had nothing to do with libertarianism, or the benefits/drawbacks of any particular regulations. It had to do with the reactions and sentiments of the people involved. Hence the title...

[Coito ergo sum]

[
Besides, single proprietor REAL meat farmers like Seth, aren't being put out of business by government, they being put out of business by corporations like Hormel, Smithfield and Tyson, with their incredibly powerful lobbies that push for these government laws and regulations. They are the ones who benefit from the little guys like Seth going out of business.

Well said - it's because the big guys make sure that the laws like the "Food Safety Modernization Act" just passed are tweeked in just the right ways to hurt their competitors and benefit them.

[Coito ergo sum]

Anyway, after rereading the article I realized there's not much to discuss here...they are going to change the zoning laws in Oakland to accomodate the conditional use permitting so she won't have to deal with this issue for long. And wouldn't 'ya know, it's on the heels of new zoning laws being created in your favorite city, San Francisco, CES.

Sounds great. Are you confusing me with someone else? I've not said anything about San Francisco, have I?

I'm curious CES why do you read the SF Gate? SF news must piss you off to no end...

News doesn't piss me off. I read a lot of news, not just the news sources that please me. That may be the difference between me and some other folks. I read news to be informed from a variety of sources and a variety of angles, not just the one that operate as reaffirmations.

[hadespussercats]

Most food in the supermarket is fine. And, getting stuff straight from a farm doesn't necessarily make it better.

Not true when it comes to food safety - food from small farms is safer. On the most part small farms are more likely to raise produce and meat naturally and/or organically, and if they were ever to have an outbreak, they have much more control over dealing with it, unlike the factory farm - remember the recent outbreaks with the spinach and the eggs? They came from factory farms.

Organic Chicken Has Less Salmonella Than Conventional Chicken, Study Says

I agree, a small farm can't hurt as many people as quickly as a large factory farm if there is salmonella or e coli or whatever (and I'm the last person to defend factory farming)

Very true - my only point, though, is that small farms can also have health issues with their food and growing things "organically" does not mean that there isn't going to be an e-coli issue, for example. They won't spread the outbreak all across the country, but from the standpoint of an individual person buying an individual piece of fruit or a handful of spinach, there is a risk in both instances. Health issues occur from growing vegetables in shit all the time.

That being said - I'm not expressing an opinion that a small farm is as great a risk to the public at large as a 100,000 acre farm - plainly, the latter impacts more people just based on the numbers.

I like buying from the local produce stand. There are a bunch of them around where I live. The problem is, it takes more time to get all your groceries that way. Usually, we just go to the supermarket.

If you hadn't clipped my quote there, you'd have seen I agree with you. Except I patronize small groceries whenever possible. But that's easy to do, where I live.

[hadespussercats]

I spit my tea out laughing when I read that last line about the "stunned" group of "urban farmers." They are stunned? Stunned by what? Stunned that a business that sells food to people needs a permit?

I'm amused by your use of hyperbole in response to ... hyperbole.



Hades, your suggestion sounds very reasonable. Is becoming a charity initially expensive?


Edit: Actually, can a person who mainly benefits themselves (she consumes her own produce) claim charitable status?

Also, maybe there's a principle here that involves a right to grow produce for personal consumption and to sell small scale without being subject to regulations that create financial hardship. Would it be better if the licensing system were more flexible in some way?

Re- the charity idea-- I'm not sure how this would work out-- just thought of it relative to the issues she's gotten into with the produce she sells, not the stuff she eats herself. If she's selling the produce to give to the community but still cover some operating costs (which is the gist I got from the article), it seems that giving the produce away and claiming a charitable deduction would possibly be a way around burdensome fees. Although I'm not sure-- possibly she might still be required to get a license, since people eating her produce are at risk, whether she gives it away or sells it. I'm not enough familiar with the laws of California to say.

If she gave the produce away, she could certainly qualify as a charitable organization. Whether it would make sense for her to go through the time and trouble of filing the requisite paperwork and paying the requisite fees and filing the requisite annual returns, is another matter.

What complicates matters is that whether or not the farm as farm per se is earning her an income, she's definitely earning an income off her book publication, based on the farm work, not to mention exposure she's gotten for her work doing reviews in national magazines, etc. (This is not the first time I've heard of this woman and her work, and given she runs a very small urban farm and I live 3000 miles away, that must say something in terms of the publicity she's used the farm to garner, for the urban farming movement, and foraging, etc.)

She has to pay sales tax on her book sales, and income tax on the revenue earned from selling the books. If she qualifies as a charitable organization and the revenues earned from the book sales are used exclusively for the charitable purposes then that would qualify too. She could also draw a reasonable salary from the charitable organization (but, she'd pay income tax on that).

Question: I am not a charitable organization-- nor do I file as one. But if I make a charitable donation-- giving furniture to Goodwill, or donating to the ASPCA, or whatever-- I can deduct that from my taxes. Why can't she do the same, without having to register as a charity? (which, as you and Mai have pointed out, involves a lot of paperwork, but, based on what you've written, CES, still seems cheaper than registering her business with the municipality.)

[maiforpeace]

Anyway, after rereading the article I realized there's not much to discuss here...they are going to change the zoning laws in Oakland to accomodate the conditional use permitting so she won't have to deal with this issue for long. And wouldn't 'ya know, it's on the heels of new zoning laws being created in your favorite city, San Francisco, CES.

Sounds great. Are you confusing me with someone else? I've not said anything about San Francisco, have I?

I'm curious CES why do you read the SF Gate? SF news must piss you off to no end...

News doesn't piss me off. I read a lot of news, not just the news sources that please me. That may be the difference between me and some other folks. I read news to be informed from a variety of sources and a variety of angles, not just the one that operate as reaffirmations.

Dear dear, where's your sense of humor...I was teasing you about San Francisco because you have posted about San Francisco laws in the past...I remember a comment of yours about our crazy supervisors in regards to a a couple of issues, the Happy Meal being one of them, and something else about smoking, I can't recall exactly what it was.

I appreciate that you read news from all over, which I try to do too, but not very many people read local news from other states usually.

[Coito ergo sum]

Most food in the supermarket is fine. And, getting stuff straight from a farm doesn't necessarily make it better.

Not true when it comes to food safety - food from small farms is safer. On the most part small farms are more likely to raise produce and meat naturally and/or organically, and if they were ever to have an outbreak, they have much more control over dealing with it, unlike the factory farm - remember the recent outbreaks with the spinach and the eggs? They came from factory farms.

Organic Chicken Has Less Salmonella Than Conventional Chicken, Study Says

I agree, a small farm can't hurt as many people as quickly as a large factory farm if there is salmonella or e coli or whatever (and I'm the last person to defend factory farming)

Very true - my only point, though, is that small farms can also have health issues with their food and growing things "organically" does not mean that there isn't going to be an e-coli issue, for example. They won't spread the outbreak all across the country, but from the standpoint of an individual person buying an individual piece of fruit or a handful of spinach, there is a risk in both instances. Health issues occur from growing vegetables in shit all the time.

That being said - I'm not expressing an opinion that a small farm is as great a risk to the public at large as a 100,000 acre farm - plainly, the latter impacts more people just based on the numbers.

I like buying from the local produce stand. There are a bunch of them around where I live. The problem is, it takes more time to get all your groceries that way. Usually, we just go to the supermarket.

If you hadn't clipped my quote there, you'd have seen I agree with you. Except I patronize small groceries whenever possible. But that's easy to do, where I live.

I hadn't meant to imply that I was taking issue with you. I was agreeing and amplifying what I was saying.

[Coito ergo sum]

Question: I am not a charitable organization-- nor do I file as one. But if I make a charitable donation-- giving furniture to Goodwill, or donating to the ASPCA, or whatever-- I can deduct that from my taxes. Why can't she do the same, without having to register as a charity? (which, as you and Mai have pointed out, involves a lot of paperwork, but, based on what you've written, CES, still seems cheaper than registering her business with the municipality.)

If she donates to qualified 501(c)(3) organizations, she can. But donating to just any swingin' dick on the street is not tax deductible. But, if she donates the food to a Katrina Relief organization which is approved by the IRS under section 501(c)(3), she could deduct it.

[Seth]

Indeed, Hades.

You honestly don't think you sound bitter Seth?

Who said I wasn't bitter? I have a perfect right to be bitter.

I'll admit I don't know much about what goes on with regular cattle producers any more because I don't eat factory farmed meat and I don't eat fast food, so thank you for informing what goes on with beef producers like you (used to be).

You're welcome.

[Seth]

I join the voices that use this situation to get on their fucking soapboxes and shout out their predictable and worn admonitions. Why don't you lot become real politicians, and pester us from afar?

It is the posted in the politics forum, is it not? And the OP did seem to spin the story with a broader agenda, did it not?

Nothing wrong with discussing politics in a forum. Why, I've been known do it myself. It's the shouting from soapboxes I object to, in particular the libertarians tediously screeching their mantras at every opportunity. All we need, to make the cacophony complete, is for Sandinista and Gawd to chime in.

Then kindly fuck off somewhere else and let the adults have whatever sort of discussion it pleases them to have. Don't be such a fucking control freak.

In so far as you regard yourself as an adult, your conduct is an insult to those who actually are adults. Also, I don't deny you the right to decide what to say and how to say it, and I reserve the right to say exactly what I think about it. That seems rather more generous than your attitude. Go, shoot some communists. Start with that crypto commie, Obama.

You do realize that it's a federal crime to threaten the life of the President of the United States, right?

Anyway, the point is that if you don't like the cacophony, it's up to you to fuck off elsewhere, it's not up to us to censor our free speech to satisfy your Wa.

[Seth]

Fuck the dependent class, I've carried them for too long, so I'm done.

good, something we agree on, fuck the corporate elite.

I agree 100% with Sandinista. End corporate welfare and subsidies, and no more bailouts for Wall Street fraudsters and criminals. Time to stop the talk of "too big to fail." I think anything that is "too big to fail" ought to be broken up via the Sherman and Clayton Acts. And, the smaller bits ought to compete and the ones that fail, fail.

I'm online with that too. But the Sherman and Clayton Acts should be repealed, and NOBODY is "too big to fail." Let them fail, regardless of the consequences.

[Feck]

The thread title should have been 'Hippy stoned that laws aren't just for other people '

[maiforpeace]

The thread title should have been 'Hippy stoned that laws aren't just for other people '

Yea, there's a law that needs to be changed too.

[Feck]

The thread title should have been 'Hippy stoned that laws aren't just for other people '

Yea, there's a law that needs to be changed too.