Farmers face off with LDS Church
By Carol Ryan Dumas, Ag Weekly editor
Friday, January 18, 2008 5:29 PM CST
BURLEY, Idaho — What riled up Cassia and Twin Falls county farmers and drew about 250 people to a meeting at the Pella Stake Jan. 9 might have been fueled by nothing more than rumor and conjecture, said an official from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
In question was what local farmers believe was the church’s intention of turning 10,000 to 12,000 acres it owns and leases to area farmers into a direct operation, wherein a church management team would handle production and local farmers would lose their leases.
Farmers here worried the church would mirror what it did in the Pascal, Wash., area, where its huge land holdings went from locally operated to church operated.
Heber Loughmiller, a Twin Falls County farmer and LDS Church member who raises three pivots of potatoes, among other crops, said the church was going to use the land to tie up a large amount of contracts with Lamb-Weston. That would put area farmers at a distinct disadvantage in negotiating contract prices because the church-operated farm could produce spuds cheaper.
“Three-hundred and fifty acres of potatoes is pretty key to us,” he said of his operation. “The LDS Church could come in and raise 40 pivots.”
In addition, farmers who lost leases would be competing with other farmers for ground, and area businesses and vendors would be out of the loop.
“The problem is they (the church) don’t buy anything local. The church doesn’t do that, they buy direct,” he said. “The only money locally would be salaries.”
Loughmiller said he sees quite a few farmers loosing their leases and contracts if the church changes to a direct operation.
“How would this be a gain for the community?” he asked.
“Their reply was they weren’t coming to where they’re not wanted. But they didn’t commit to more than one year. “We held ‘em off for a year,” he added, saying the same thing happened last year.
Loughmiller also contends the church intentionally planned the meeting at a time when many of the active local church leaders were away at conventions and the like.
Clark Hirschi, a manager in public affairs at LDS headquarters in Salt Lake City, said Loughmiller doesn’t have things quite right.
He said the church doesn’t operate that way, that it is upfront and candid.
“And that would imply we had something to be afraid of,” he added.
He said rumors that the church had already made a decision to go to direct management was why the meeting was held, and farmers’ attendance and comments didn’t affect any nonexistent pre-made decision.
“No decision has been made or had been made,” he said. “There is no decision, there was no decision and there is still no decision. Up until now there has been no intention to go to direct operated.”
Hirschi said the Washington operation and the fact that the church only gives one-year leases could have sparked the rumors, but that’s all they were.
Declo farmer Mark Darrington, however, is also concerned the church intended to take over management and does not see that as being in the best interest of his community.
“I am an active member of the Mormon Church, but facts is facts,” he said. “I did not want them to turn this into a big corporate farm because of the impact on the local community.”
For one, he said, “local vendors are bypassed. I think that puts a bad taste not just in non-members’ mouth but also in members’ mouth.”
He said the church’s Farm Management Corporation (renamed Farmland Reserve Inc.) is “well run, well managed, and well capitalized and has to take advantage of all opportunities. But sometimes taking advantage of all opportunities steps on some toes.”
Those toes would be area farmers and businesses.
He said the church setting up a large entity and garnering large potato contracts would have an adverse effect on growers’ ability to negotiate a good price. Growers would be competing with a “thing” not other growers. And the church keeps its negotiations confidential, where growers are more likely to collude on prices.
“The church tends to not cooperate with growers,” he said.
“They (church) have a history of making very large contracts,” he said. “It makes it very difficult on the rest of the folks trying to bargain a contract.”
“You don’t like to compete against your own government, and you don’t like to compete against your own church,” he added.
Darrington said he also worries about access to services if the church doesn’t deal locally and puts those service suppliers out of business.
“We don’t benefit from someone like that. I’d like to keep a healthy economy, local businesses,” he said.
Darrington said the church has huge holdings south of Burley, and the issue could have a huge impact on the local community.
“I don’t mean to be disparaging,” he said. “I just don’t agree that’s the best way to manage that land for a healthy community.”
Hirschi said he couldn’t address the local vendor issue. The church does own its own storage and processing facilities and, logically, the church would run its operation as economically as possible. But, he said, there are two tenets on which the church establishes a direct operation: It must be in the best interest of the community, and it must be welcomed by the community.
Clearly, neither is the case here, judging from local response.
“No decision has been made, and no decision is imminent,” he said. “The meeting speaks to the fact the rumor mill was going, and we wanted to settle it down and put it to rest.” The intent was that “people are panicking and worrying; let’s address it so people can go on.”
Rupert farmer Duane Grant, who is not a member of the church but is a tenant on the Church Farm in Twin Falls County, said he thinks Hirschi’s explanation that rumors of the church taking over management led to the meeting is probably true.
“As a tenant on their property, we’ve asked that question, as a tenant we need to know,” he said.
He said his representative with Farmland Reserve told him that as owners of the property, the church has to ask the question every year of how best to manage their property.
“And they probably will ask that question every year for the next 20 years,” he said the rep told him.
The church has also said, “as a tenant in a good business relationship with Farmland Reserve, they would give us adequate and appropriate notice if their philosophy changes,” Grant added.
As for that relationship, Grant said, “They have been excellent landlords and excellent business partners. And frankly, they’ve invested a lot to improve the property. I have nothing negative at all to say about them.”
Comments »
Comment on this story
Comments will be approved within 48 hours
|
Jack wrote on Jan 31, 2008 7:05 PM: