
Marble Valley Farm in Kent leases land from the Kent Land Trust at below-market rates. The model enabled owner Megan Haney to grow her vegetable operation in an otherwise harsh economic climate for Connecticut farmers.
Sarah Lang
Marble Valley Farm in Kent leases land from the Kent Land Trust at below-market rates. The model enabled owner Megan Haney to grow her vegetable operation in an otherwise harsh economic climate for Connecticut farmers.
In August, the USDA’s 2024 Land Values Summary reported that Connecticut has the third most expensive farm real estate in the country (tied with Massachusetts) at two times the northeast average for dollars per acre.
To Chelsea Gazillo, the senior New England policy manager for American Farmland Trust, these numbers reflect a “farmland access and succession crisis” that has impacted the state for “the last 15 years at least.”
While the value of farm real estate is on the rise across the U.S., up 5% from 2023, the trendline is particularly steep in Connecticut. In Litchfield County alone, the average estimated market value of farm land and buildings rose 28% between 2017 and 2022 according to a study by the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).
“Connecticut is a densely populated state and farmland is in high demand from both farmers and non-farmers,” said Rebecca Eddy, director of communications at the Connecticut Department of Agriculture (DOA), citing the competing pressures of investors and developers.
Farmland values are also reflective of broader trends in the real estate market.
“We’re still seeing ripple effects from the pandemic,” said Gazillo, noting that western Connecticut became an especially desirable region for buyers looking to leave nearby metropolitan areas during lockdowns.
As high demand inflates prices and increases development pressure, Connecticut is losing farmland at a striking rate.
American Farmland Trust ranked Connecticut among the top states in the country for farmland conversion to residential and urban uses; Litchfield County alone experienced a 10.5% loss in total cropland between 2017 and 2022.
Meanwhile, U.S. farmers are getting older. In 2022, there were four times more U.S. farmers over the age of 65 than under 35.
“In the next 20 years or so, we’re going to see a massive amount of land start changing hands,” said Gazillo.
The Working Lands Alliance (WLA), a statewide coalition currently directed by Gazillo, formed in 1999 to preserve Connecticut’s farmland against the threat of transition to development.
In Connecticut, where agriculture contributes a significant $4 billion to the economy each year, maintaining farmland and supporting farmers has been a concern of the state for decades.
DOA’s Farmland Preservation Program was one of the first of its kind when it debuted in 1978. The program places agricultural conservation easements on farmland by purchasing the development rights from farmers, providing a monetary incentive for farmers to preserve their land into perpetuity.
Ella Kennen, coordinator for the New Connecticut Farmer Alliance, noted that while these easements bar development, they don’t necessarily require that “farmland is being actively used as farmland.” Nor do they directly address the challenge of first-time land access for new and BIPOC farmers.
To meet these remaining needs, DOA formed the DEI in Agriculture Working Group in 2021. Based on a report produced by the group last summer, DOA applied for and won $2.5 million through the USDA Land Capital Market Access grant which Eddy says will be employed to “increase land access to historically underserved producers.”
The grant provides hope for future change. But for many small farmers, the state policies currently in place do not go far enough to realize their dreams of farm ownership and tenure.
“It’s been simply out of the question that I could own my own farmland,” said Megan Haney, owner and operator of Marble Valley Farm in Kent. “I know of no farmer who can afford real estate based solely on what they make farming.”
Haney has grown her 14-acre sustainable vegetable operation thanks to a below-market-value lease from the Kent Land Trust. She is one of many Connecticut farmers reliant on land trusts or wealthy sponsors as alternative access models.
For the farmers who could afford to purchase their first plots, recent real estate trends may eclipse their plans to grow.
“I was fortunate to purchase my land before the crazy COVID inflation hit,” said Kelley Babbin, owner and operator of Howling Flats Farm in Canaan. “These prices make it unattainable to purchase additional pasture or hay ground.”
While land access is critical to the future of local farming, the issue does not exist in a vacuum. Gazillo noted that many solutions are compounded by other pressures.
“Litchfield County has a lot of protected land, which is both a good and a bad thing,” she said. “Affordable housing groups are saying that if we continue to put easements on properties, then there’s no land to be developed for affordable housing.”
Meanwhile, for older farmers without easements, selling one’s farmland at full market value may be the only path to retirement. “That [land] is their pension,” said Gazillo.
As the issue of farmland tenure grows more pressing and more complex, new policy initiatives hope to meet multiple needs.
WLA has proposed OPAV (Option to Purchase at Agricultural Value), a policy which would compensate farmland owners for selling only to certain farmers or family members at an “agricultural value” below market value. OPAV policies have already been implemented in Vermont, Massachusetts and New York.
OPAV’s future is yet to be determined in Connecticut. As is the future of Connecticut’s remaining farmland.
To Gazillo, the future that Connecticut can count on is one in which local farmers are vital to the community.
“One thing that we learned from the pandemic is that our national food system is very fragile,” she said. “If there are any disruptions to the supply chain, we are dependent on local producers to survive. And as we see more climate-related disasters and weather-related disasters, it’s just going to become more and more of a necessity.”
Warriors left-fielder James Singleton, no. 4, made it to base on all four at-bats he had Tuesday at Beekman Park.
AMENIA — The Pine Plains boys baseball team travelled to Beekman Park in Amenia to face off against the Webutuck Warriors.
The game ended with a Pine Plains win of 13-7.
The Bombers' Austin Mielich, no. 35, only made one hit in three at-bats, but it was productive. Mielich secured two runners batted in and a run himself in a later play.Photo by Nathan Miller
The Bombers racked up an early lead in the first two innings, scoring four runs in the top of the first and a fifth in the top of the second before the Warriors managed to score two runs in the bottom of the second.
Webutuck defenders held back the Bombers in the third inning and scored another run, bringing the score to a manageable 5-3 Pine Plains lead going into the fourth inning.
Then the Bombers let it rip. Six more runs in the fourth inning brought the score to 11-4 Pine Plains going into the fifth.
Webutuck managed to score another three runs before the end of the game, but the Bombers nearly matched with two more of their own for a finishing score of 13-7.
Bombers catcher Matthew McGhee, no. 10, put out six batters, including Webutuck's Albert Bailey as he tries to cross home plate on Tuesday, May 13, at Beekman Park in Amenia.Photo by Nathan Miller
The Bombers’ pitchers — Warren Lounsbury, no. 11, and Luke Blackburn, no. 4, only gave up four hits to Warrior batters through the game. Between the two pitchers, the Bombers struck out 13 of Webutuck’s batters. The Warriors’ pitchers — Zach Latrell, no. 1, Gabe Domingez, no. 9, and Pearse Williams — managed to strikeout 11 of the Bombers’ batters.
Mickey Stringer of of North East, left, checks in with Chris Virtuoso, volunteering on Saturday, May 12 at the Old Town Garage on South Center Street as a Climate Smart Task Force member. Stringer’s loaded pickup was part of a long line of vehicles along South Center as residents used the opportunity to dispose of air conditioners, mattresses, lumber, and other bulk items. Town Supervisor Christopher Kennan said he didn’t recall seeing such a long line of vehicles in past years.
Elm Drive Elementary School in Millbrook.
MILLBROOK — Preparing for the village-wide vote on the proposed 2025-26 school budget scheduled for Tuesday, May 20, the Millbrook Central School District held a public hearing on Tuesday, May 6, to review the budget and hear residents’ comments.
The CSD proposed 2025-26 budget to be voted upon as Proposition 1, showed total expenditures of $35,649,651, an increase of $1,074,576 (3.11%) over the current year.
“We’re trying to trim as much as we can,” said Elliott Garcia, Assistant Superintendent for Business, during his budget summary.
Two additional propositions are included on the ballot, both anticipating a bond issue to fund repairs, renovations and improvements to school buildings.
Proposition 2 would bring repair to the Middle and High School buildings, with more work at the middle school estimated to cost $37,381,383. Work would include HVAC, electrical, window replacement, roof and ceiling repair, elevator service and doorway improvements.
The high school work would include HVAC at a total estimated cost of $1,883,099.
The total amount would, however, be reduced by $12 million in currently available funding, so that a bond issue would be needed to cover a total of $27,264,482, to be repaid over a number of years. Taxpayers would need to pay the annual interest on the bonds during the life of the bonds.
Separate funding of energy efficiency improvements at the middle school and high school would carry at total estimated cost of $3 million that would also need to be bond-financed, but that funding would return to the school budget in the form of energy cost savings.
Proposition 3 would bring HVAC, electrical and window replacement at the elementary schools at an estimated cost of $21,779,259, also to be financed by bond issue.
Students from the Middle School Student Council presented a report on a recent survey they conducted and analyzed. Their report was titled, “Repair Our School.”
For their building conditions study, the nine students conducted an in-school survey of students, teachers and staff, receiving 228 responses.
Interpreting the responses as percentages, the students reported that 90% indicated that the middle school does not look as good as it could; more than 80% said they were concerned about the state of the building; 67% had classes interrupted by roof leaks; 75% said it was difficult to learn because of the roof leaks; and 94% said that if the school were their home, they would not stay.
“Our student government never stops working,” said Principal Steven Cabello, adding that the students’ efforts have been invigorating.
School superintendent Caroline Hernandez-Pidala praised the students’ project, the time and care invested in their survey study and their reporting of the results.
“I’m super impressed,” Hernandez-Pidala told the students.
The May 20 polling location is at the Middle School, in the Band room adjacent to the auditorium. Polls will be open between noon and 9 p.m.
The proposed budget, details of the propositions and a copy of the ballot are posted on the CSD website at www.millbrookcsd.org.
Voters in two other school districts will decide on higher spending plans for the coming school year on Tuesday, May 20.
Webutuck Central School District and Pine Plains Central School District propose higher K-12 budgets for the 2025-2026 school year.
The proposed budget for Webutuck, with an enrollment of 637 students from K-12, shows a 5.96% increase from the previous year to $28,665,850. Pine Plains proposes spending $38,712,336, an increase of 2.71%.
Ray Nelson, Earthwise Architecture, requested two variances for 7-9 Main St., one to allow a 9-unit floorplan and another to waive the parking requirements for the building, at a public hearing held by the village Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday, May 6.
MILLERTON — Ray Nelson of Millerton presented two possible updated floorplans for the apartment building at 7-9 Main St. to the Zoning Board of Appeals at a public hearing on Tuesday, May 6.
Nelson, on behalf of the building’s owner, is seeking two variances for the property: one allowing a density increase and another waiving the parking requirements for the property.
Village code requires at least 5,000 square feet of lot space per unit for multi-unit properties and 1.5 parking spaces per unit.
The building was configured with 12 units under previous ownership, a non-conforming use.
Nelson submitted a 9-unit plan and a 6-unit plan. He argues the 9-unit plan, which would house one fewer total bedroom than the 6-unit layout, would not require additional parking because the smaller units attract tenants that use fewer parking spaces — young couples, single people and very small families.
“There’s a need for apartments that are in the village,” Nelson said.
The submitted 9-unit floorplan is a reduction from a previously declined 12-unit plan that sought to maintain the current number of units in the property.
Zoning board members concluded the public hearing after brief discussion with the three Millerton residents that attended the meeting.
Zoning board members could not reach a final decision on the variances that night, citing required further deliberation, but they indicated a positive attitude to Nelson’s new plans.