Law Should foreign companies own US farmland?

Teppodama

A Dude, playing a Dude, disquised as another Dude
@Silver
Joined
Dec 19, 2014
Messages
11,752
Reaction score
5,279
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...cle_a0e698e4-ca7e-534d-a532-892a9e04a3a3.html

JEFFERSON CITY — A Democratic state lawmaker from St. Louis County wants to ban foreign companies from buying more farmland in Missouri.

Sen. Doug Beck, D-Affton, who is sponsoring the proposal, told members of a Senate panel Monday it is a national security issue, as well as a food security issue.

Under current law, foreign companies are supposed to report when they purchase land. But the law has few teeth and state regulators acknowledge they don’t have a firm grasp on the amount of acreage owned by foreign entities.

“Nobody knows exactly how many acres have been sold. There is no tracking. There is no enforcement,” Beck said.


The proposed law has the support of environmental groups and agriculture groups.

“China has been very aggressive in buying U.S. farmland. That’s troublesome,” said Brian Smith of the Missouri Rural Crisis Center.


Susan Williams, who operates a cow and calf operation 25 miles west of Jefferson City with her husband, told senators that foreign corporations are making it harder for locally owned family farms to survive.

“This would return Missouri farmland to domestic ownership,” Williams said. “Food raised here by foreign operators may not stay in Missouri or even the United States.”


The proposal, which would go into effect in August, would not affect property that is already owned by foreign companies and individuals.

Among the foreign-owned companies that own Missouri land is Smithfield Foods, which was sold to a Chinese company in 2013 just weeks after the Legislature approved a law allowing no more than 1% of the state’s land to be owned by a foreign firm.

Missouri’s law against foreign agricultural ownership dates to 1978, when increased foreign investment in the U.S. was creating concerns about economic autonomy. The law said no foreign entity could own farmland in Missouri.

In 2015, lawmakers added a provision scrapping a rule requiring foreign farmland buyers to apply through the state director of agriculture. That easing of the rule meant foreign companies could apply through a subsidiary, potentially bypassing state regulators.

Emily LeRoy of the Missouri Department of Agriculture said the 2015 change has made it harder for the agency to keep track of who owns land.

“There’s no way for us to catch what transactions are going through,” LeRoy said.

Land title companies, however, signaled their opposition to the change, saying it will become too burdensome to police by the Department of Agriculture because it will apply to all tracts of agriculture land five acres or larger.

“Think about every one of those transactions having to be submitted to the Department of Agriculture,” said Jim Durham of the Missouri Land Title Association.

That raised concerns from some lawmakers.


“I just don’t know if we can enforce it,” said Sen. Sandy Crawford, R-Buffalo.

The Missouri Pork Association and the Missouri Realtors Association also oppose the proposal.


Jewell Patek, lobbyist for Smithfield Foods, said the Chinese-owned company does help Missouri by providing jobs for residents.

Plus, he said the firm sends a lot of meat overseas because of demand.

“We produce a lot more than we eat, a lot more than we consume,” Patek said.

Smithfield and other farm-related groups have been heavy contributors to Missouri Republicans.

Smithfield made $101,000 in campaign contributions in 2020, including $25,000 to the political action committee that supported Gov. Mike Parson, who runs a cattle operation in Polk County.

Smithfield contributed over $50,000 to candidates in 2018.

The legislation is Senate Bill 243.
While this debate is specific to Missouri, I believe it should be a concern for all of the country. Food independence is a viable concern, especially if China hold the majority of foreign owned farmland. Truthfully I also have a problem with individual mega-landowners such as Bill Gates who at this time is the nations biggest farmland owner, especially given his desire to dictate to everyone what they should or shouldn't be eating.

The billionaire Microsoft co-founder has become the largest owner of farmland in the United States by quietly buying up massive plots across the county, a new report says.

Gates’ portfolio comprises about 242,000 acres of farmland and nearly 27,000 acres of other land across 19 states, according to The Land Report, a magazine for land investors that tracks the nation’s biggest landowners.

The biggest chunks of Gates’ holdings are in Louisiana and Arkansas, where he owns 69,071 acres and 47,927 acres, respectively, the outlet’s research found.

He also reportedly owns about 16,000 acres in his home state of Washington, including a 14,500-acre tract in the Horse Heaven Hills region that was purchased for nearly $171 million.

The land is owned both directly and indirectly by Cascade Investment, the Seattle-area firm that Gates — the world’s third-richest man with a net worth of $132 billion, according to Bloomberg — set up to manage his massive fortune, according to The Land Report.

A hint at Gates’ huge farm holdings emerged in a 2014 Wall Street Journal profile of Michael Larson, the money manager who serves as Cascade’s chief investment officer. The piece noted that the firm owns “at least 100,000 acres of farmland in California, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana and other states — or an area seven times bigger than Manhattan.”
 
Lol no.

And huge corporations shouldn’t own huge tracts of land either. They should be broken up and given to small farmers.

it’s a national security issue
 
According to standard capitalist logic YES. Government always = worst and bad. Foreign companies are even better than government.


GOPers support this
Blanket statement regarding GOP'ers. The majority of commercial farmers likely lean right and I bet if polled most would be against foreign owned US farmland. GOP politicians are another thing however. They are likely up to the highest bidder, whether corporate or foreign. Having said that, I don't think Dem politicians are all that much better.
 
Blanket statement regarding GOP'ers. The majority of commercial farmers likely lean right and I bet if polled most would be against foreign owned US farmland. GOP politicians are another thing however. They are likely up to the highest bidder, whether corporate or foreign. Having said that, I don't think Dem politicians are all that much better.

Yes bothsidesism again

"The same party!!!"
 
I would say yes unless you enjoy communism.

Seems like land ownership is something the market should decide.
 
I don't have an issue with them owning farmland up to a set percentage. I would have an issue with them accessing the subsidies and grants and other taxpayer funded government programs.
 
Lol no.

And huge corporations shouldn’t own huge tracts of land either. They should be broken up and given to small farmers.

it’s a national security issue
Doubt they would be broken up and given to small farmers but I could see those corps only being US based corps and being limited to how much land each could own in a single state.
 
Yes and we have to respect their laws. Like allowing heroin to be grown.
 
Foreign companies should not allowed to own farm land. Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos should not be allowed to purchase all of it.
 
Having said that, I don't think Dem politicians are all that much better.

And yet, despite the insistence to the contrary by Republican voters, Democrats consistently land on the side of defensible policy in just about every area where Republican voters cannot defend their party's position. Climate change, campaign finance, financial regulation, healthcare, etc. But, until the end of time, it will be written off with "I'm sure the Democrats aren't much better." Even in terms of legislative procedure, bothsidesism somehow persists: where Democrats repeatedly conform to norms whether in a majority or minority position and Republicans repeatedly bulldoze them and salt the earth.

Hmmmm I remember when Latin American countries tried this so we overthrew their governments
@Trotsky

I look forward to this being the new issue that Republican internet warriors haplessly dissent from their party on until they can racialize the message enough to lobby the Republican mainstream into changing its position.

It is kind of humorous thinking about an alternate reality where this played out like Cuba: China buys US properties, the US seizes the properties, and China retaliates by trying to overthrow the US government and waging a 70 year terrorism campaign.
 
I would say yes unless you enjoy communism.

Seems like land ownership is something the market should decide.
Wouldn't communism dictate that the government be the one in control of said farmland or the companies utilizing said farmland? Keeping foreign companies or governments from owning US land doesn't exactly smack of communism.
 
Wouldn't communism dictate that the government be the one in control of said farmland or the companies utilizing said farmland? Keeping foreign companies or governments from owning US land doesn't exactly smack of communism.

The government shouldn't be a deciding factor in who owns what land period.

If you can afford it, it should be yours no matter where you're from.
 
Wouldn't communism dictate that the government be the one in control of said farmland or the companies utilizing said farmland? Keeping foreign companies or governments from owning US land doesn't exactly smack of communism.
Get a time machine and tell that to Eisenhower, buddeh
 
And yet, despite the insistence to the contrary by Republican voters, Democrats consistently land on the side of defensible policy in just about every area where Republican voters cannot defend their party's position. Climate change, campaign finance, financial regulation, healthcare, etc. But, until the end of time, it will be written off with "I'm sure the Democrats aren't much better." Even in terms of legislative procedure, bothsidesism somehow persists: where Democrats repeatedly conform to norms whether in a majority or minority position and Republicans repeatedly bulldoze them and salt the earth.
I'm not a fan of either party's politicians. I believe they either fuck you financially or are too invested in controlling your life.


I look forward to this being the new issue that Republican internet warriors haplessly dissent from their party on until they can racialize the message enough to lobby the Republican mainstream into changing its position.
Who knows what the future will bring

It is kind of humorous thinking about an alternate reality where this played out like Cuba: China buys US properties, the US seizes the properties, and China retaliates by trying to overthrow the US government and waging a 70 year terrorism campaign.
Yes, the US has in fact been a metric ton of shit for many nations. What would be interesting is what the international buzzards heavily invested in the US would do if we managed to split up like so many fantasize about today.
 
The government shouldn't be a deciding factor in who owns what land period.

If you can afford it, it should be yours no matter where you're from.
This is just trolling.

like you’re ok with the idea of the Chinese government buying up entire nations arable farmland.

:rolleyes:
 
Back
Top