occupy food

i would like to suggest an inititive,
occupiers all over the world take notice to this,

NaturalNews) When the small British mill town of Todmorden, tucked in between Yorkshire and Lancashire, first began installing fruit and vegetable gardens all around the area as part of the Incredible Edible program, it likely had no idea that the novel, yet simple, concept would make the town a foremost inspirational and self-sustaining model of the future.

Fresh herbs, succulent greens, and tasty fruits can be found growing near civic buildings, college campuses, supermarket parking lots, and various other places. Small garden plots, raised planting beds, and even small soil strips in these areas can be found brimming with fresh produce, all of which are free to anyone who want it, and at any time.

It is all part of a program called Incredible Edible, which was founded by Mary Clear, a local grandmother of ten, and Pam Warhurst, former owner of a local restaurant in town known as Bear Cafe. The duo had a shared goal of making Todmorden the first town in the UK to become completely self-sufficient in food -- and their endeavors have been successful, at least as far as keeping up with demand for produce from locals who want it.

Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...

link to source

the idea is to lobbie local and state govenments for public land to grow freash fruit and vegtables for the comuninity.
this is not about making money, this is about growing food for comunities.

there is a way that works that helps all in a comunity and feeds everyone.

let this be a model for other comunities,

pass laws allowing public lands to be planted,
and give the people the right to harvest what they need for there families and childeren.

this is direct action that WILL help all people.

please consider
please this could feed the homless the citizens and the children,
and would promote co-operation.
be the change you seek

xploder

Quick question.

You did just describe a socialist government, where land ownership is common property did you not?

What is wrong with growing on your own property if you feel there is a need to?

reply to post by thehoneycomb


lol are you calling growing food as part of a comunity initiative,
have you ever heard of the world charity?
or comunity responciability?

how about feed the homless? is that socialist as well?
how does this sound,
feed the starving and childeren as the RIGHT thing to do.
has nothing to do with wealth distrabution

THIS IS HEALTH DISTRABUTION
every men is created equal,
that means all have the right to food
OR WOULD YOU RATHER PEOPLE STARVE?

are you being serious or just trolling?

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


Yes I am serious.

So in all seriousness, what human rights group do you know of that doesn't exploit human rights?

Yes thats a real question.

Second, it costs money to grow food, so therefore it costs money to buy food. Pretty simple economics right there.

What or who would pay for your model?

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
Quick question.

You did just describe a socialist government, where land ownership is common property did you not?

What is wrong with growing on your own property if you feel there is a need to?

is public property paid for with taxes?
is public money going to maintain public land?

would others who wish to help for the sake of the homless and starving childeren allowed to use YOUR LAND?

you define public land as what?
the stuff you walk on?

you do realise that the public lands can grow food?

silly man you are trying to slander a beautiful idea and fear monger about socialism when this is about FOOD.

people need it and dont have it,
public land is paid for by ALL people who pay property taxes,

this is about what is right FOOD FOR ALL

WAKE UP DUDE

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


Ok you said taxes and good answer.

Consider this though. Under a socialist government, tax payers would also pay for abortions and abortions would be readily available for anyone who wanted one, regardless of term or circumstance.

Not to say it's not a good idea, growing food for the community free of charge is a great idea. It's also a very dangerous idea.

Yes, it is a good idea. Will it work in the US? Most likely not. Why? Because government and the USDA and FDA will exert their powers of enforcement and rule it is unsafe and unsanitary for citizens to just pick produce from a plot of land. It would be nice though. I remember as a child we would often go walking through the woods, and pick fruit from trees or buses that grew wild. I see no difference in this.

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by XPLodER

 

Yes I am serious.

hard to tell sometimes with you and your outragous positions in discutions

So in all seriousness, what human rights group do you know of that doesn't exploit human rights?

Yes thats a real question.

off topic..................dont derail please

Second, it costs money to grow food, so therefore it costs money to buy food. Pretty simple economics right there.

What or who would pay for your model?

the people already pay property taxes for the public land i suggest is used.
"ALLREADY BEING PAID FOR" through property and land taxes.

OWS would if adopted accept seeds and donations for materials.
no cost to the tax payer. NO COST TO THE TAX PAYER.
there i said it twice so there is no confusion.

the food grown is used to feed childeren and homless and the elderly

this brings the comunity together and allows a better standard of living for all in the comunity
DID YOU READ THE ARTICLE?

xploder

Some of our taxes could go to something wonderful, like, say....seeding and re-seeding in order to cover the public lands in edible plants.

This, instead of 622b on the war machine would go a lot farther toward keeping us all safe than killing brown people over poppies and oil.

Imagine how many heirloom seeds, simple hand tools (hand scythes, trowels, etc) etc 622b would buy. Most of the plants would re-seed themselves, too after they're established. No need for pesticides or herbicides when there are plenty of (weeds) plants and insects that attract/deter/eat anything that might hurt or benefit our edibles.

reply to post by haarvik


the same worries where bought up in this comunity,
but as people worked together they found out that it did work,
it would be much much more labour intensive near large cities,

but this is one thing that all people can do to increase their standard of living for the people in their comunity,
and it works in three different places around the world.

in each place a non profit is set up to increase the size of the plantings if any shortages of food groups are shown.

the FDA and other agencies must follow local county and state rules.

make it legal to grow crops for the homeless and starving, and arragnge with the sherif of police to protect the food resources from out side interference.

all it takes is for people to see how this can effect the lives of ordinary people for the better,

and im sure this will help in the event of an economic collapse.

people are more caring than you would believe, they just require something to give their attension to that will allow them to better their own lives.

xploder

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by XPLodER

 

Ok you said taxes and good answer.

you already have to pay these taxes, so no change there

Consider this though. Under a socialist government, tax payers would also pay for abortions and abortions would be readily available for anyone who wanted one, regardless of term or circumstance.

off topic........................................do not derail

Not to say it's not a good idea, growing food for the community free of charge is a great idea. It's also a very dangerous idea.

is it worse for the homless and starving that they get food?
or starve to death?

what is dangerous, have you read the article?

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


I am not trying to derail your discussion, just trying to add to it. Because I don't agree doesn't necessarily qualify as trolling.

Back on topic, if you think there is a need to help feed the poor, elderly and children, thats a noble cause. However there is nothing stopping you.

You could be like Jesus, you could grow the food on private property and distribute it to the needy. What is stopping you from doing that?

Originally posted by MzMorbid
Some of our taxes could go to something wonderful, like, say....seeding and re-seeding in order to cover the public lands in edible plants.

i second that motion but the idea is to be completely self funding from donations of seeds materials labour ect, collected and initiated from each OWS chapter, so no taxes are increased

[quotre]This, instead of 622b on the war machine would go a lot farther toward keeping us all safe than killing brown people over poppies and oil.

and with any excess food not required in the county, state or federal comunities, send food as retrabution to the countries that have been harmed free

Imagine how many heirloom seeds, simple hand tools (hand scythes, trowels, etc) etc 622b would buy. Most of the plants would re-seed themselves, too after they're established. No need for pesticides or herbicides when there are plenty of (weeds) plants and insects that attract/deter/eat anything that might hurt our edibles.

yes the native american indians were very specialised at what plants to plant together for pest reduction and improved harvests.

good answer

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

Consider this though. Under a socialist government, tax payers would also pay for abortions and abortions would be readily available for anyone who wanted one, regardless of term or circumstance.

off topic........................................do not derail

Correction, on topic. Once you determine that property is public, that would open the door to other things, such as abortions.

Not to say it's not a good idea, growing food for the community free of charge is a great idea. It's also a very dangerous idea.

is it worse for the homless and starving that they get food?
or starve to death?

what is dangerous, have you read the article?

xploder

Like I said, it's a good idea, but also a dangerous one. As it would open the door to other things.

reply to post by XPLodER


The one problem I see with this is: what about small local producers relying on selling their produce locally in markets? They'll lose out....

But fundamentally, it's an interesting idea. Almost, dare I say, communist (in the true meaning)

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by XPLodER

 

I am not trying to derail your discussion, just trying to add to it. Because I don't agree doesn't necessarily qualify as trolling.

you are free to disagree but you must not insert new topics into the thread..............

Back on topic, if you think there is a need to help feed the poor, elderly and children, thats a noble cause. However there is nothing stopping you.

indeed there is no reason then why occupy could not do the same with donated money,
we are the hungry 99% and this will make a tangable difference

You could be like Jesus, you could grow the food on private property and distribute it to the needy. What is stopping you from doing that?

off topic again.... this is about need not religion,
this is not about PRIVATE propertiy, this is about land property taxes are already paid to maintain
FOR THE PUBLIC BENIFIT
what could benifit nthe public more than this?

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


As Essan pointed out, you may be helping some, but you would also be hurting others.

reply to post by Essan


the local producers are not effected,
there is no exchange of money for the fruit and vegtables.
they are given away and or cooked and eaten by the homless and childeren,
this group would not be buying from local producers an the first instence,
the homless couldnt afford to but these food items normally,
the childeren living in poverty are alot healther due to the increase in fruit and vegtables in their diet,

the idea is to deliver food to the elderly and in doing so increase their contact with the comunity

in short the food is not sold it is eaten by the needy
when your govenment conciders a pizza a vegtable,
we acually need to grow vegtables.

for every hungry child the risk of long term damage from lack of food and nutrition increases their chances of live long problems.

we could feed the hungryist childeren first, the most effected, then all childeren, and then homless and then elders.

any food not required by the local comunity can be sent to any where in state where there are hungry childern.
for free for the childeren and the homless and the elderly.

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


Free food?

I'm there, even though I am not starving, I am kinda hungry though.

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by XPLodER

 

As Essan pointed out, you may be helping some, but you would also be hurting others.

have you read the article?
have you?
really?

the local food producers are still in business,
the hungry are now able to harvest and feed themselves,

THE STANDARD OF LIVING INCREASES for the comunity.

it makes life better it does not replace local producers who can only produce for profit, jobs taxes ect,
it allows the most vonerable in our societies to eat well people who dont have the money to buy these foods anywhay,

so there is no lost business becuase the homless families and childeren and comunity act together for no profit for people who would not be able to buy these foods in th efirst instence.

as foreclosures increase and jobs are lost to china, more need will be required as people can no longer afford to feed themselves. ie no jobs no money to buy food,

if we start NOW and test the idea we will know the problems facing the idea and see the benifits in the comunity.

"a society can be juged on how they treat the least in that society"

too feed the starving does not take money from producers.

xploder

xploder