Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Right To Grow Food topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Participants weigh tying a fix to a Supreme Court issue to a statewide 'right to grow food' bill
Summary
A working group discussed town-level mapping for agricultural tiers and whether to attach a proposed statewide "right to grow food" to legislation addressing an issue raised by the Supreme Court; no formal motion or vote was recorded. Members agreed to draft language and reconvene at 09:30 to continue work.
Participants in an Agriculture, Food Resiliency, & Forestry working session debated how to handle town mapping of agricultural tiers and whether to bundle a legislative "fix" for an issue raised by the Supreme Court with a broader proposal to create a statewide "right to grow food." Speaker 3, a participant, framed the central trade-off: attaching the right to a bill that might not pass could jeopardize passage, while attaching it to a broadly supported fix could increase the chance it moves forward.
The discussion focused first on tier mapping. Speaker 3 said tier 1b is larger than tier 1a and that "several towns ... aren't even going to apply for tier 1b," raising concerns that the size or requirements of higher tiers could discourage participation and unintentionally leave agricultural lands less protected. The group discussed whether jurisdictions that do not adopt tier 1 would instead default to tier 2; participants indicated that defaulting to tier 2 is the likely outcome unless a jurisdiction maintains the status quo.
On the legislative question, Speaker 3 outlined a proposal to combine a solution for the Supreme Court-raised issue with a separate bill to "expand[] the right across the state of anyone in any town to grow their own food," acknowledging that the group had not yet defined the scope or precise language of that right. "What we are calling the right to grow food, and we haven't defined that yet exactly what that is," Speaker 3 said, and urged the group to consider drafting language based on recent stakeholder input.
Speaker 4, a participant, voiced support for the idea: "I am all in favor of people having the right to to grow their own food," adding that they were unconcerned about what tier someone is in. Participants weighed the political strategy of attaching the right to a bill that addresses the court-raised issue versus advancing it alone, and agreed to draft possible language and review it at a subsequent meeting.
No formal motions, votes, or final decisions were recorded in the transcript. The group scheduled follow-up drafting and reconvening at 09:30 the next day to review language and continue negotiations.
