Bloomington says no to commercial urban agriculture use in residential areas – The B Square Bulletin

Report on Proposed Urban Agriculture Ordinance and Sustainable Development Goal Implications

1.0 Executive Summary

A proposed ordinance to establish “urban agriculture, commercial” as a new land use in residential areas of Bloomington was rejected by the city council in a 1-7 vote. The ordinance, intended to facilitate small-scale commercial farming and educational activities, sparked a debate centered on its alignment with several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While proponents argued the measure would advance SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 4 (Quality Education), and SDG 13 (Climate Action), the council ultimately determined it was an inappropriate mechanism that could conflict with SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) by disrupting residential harmony.

2.0 Background of the Proposal

The ordinance originated from a property owner’s request to conduct outdoor gardening classes, an activity aimed at promoting skills relevant to SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production). This request was denied by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) under existing “home occupation” regulations, which restrict such activities to indoor spaces. In response to potential litigation, the city’s plan commission forwarded the proposed ordinance to the city council with a recommendation for approval, thereby initiating a formal legislative review.

3.0 Analysis of Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

3.1 Arguments in Favor: Advancing Food Security and Climate Action

Supporters of the ordinance framed it as a critical step toward achieving key SDG targets. Their arguments included:

• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) & SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): Councilmember Isabel Piedmont-Smith advocated for the ordinance as a means to build local food resilience and community self-sufficiency, particularly in light of climate change and reductions in food assistance programs like SNAP.
• SDG 13 (Climate Action) & SDG 15 (Life on Land): Public testimony from Nancy Goswami highlighted urban farming as a sustainable ecological alternative to large-scale conventional agriculture, which contributes to climate change and deforestation.
• SDG 4 (Quality Education): The proposal was seen as a pathway for future generations to acquire practical skills in sustainable food production, which are vital for adapting to future environmental challenges.

3.2 Arguments Against: Concerns for Sustainable Communities and Institutional Governance

Opponents and a majority of the council raised concerns that the ordinance, despite its intentions, was poorly designed and could undermine other sustainable development principles. Key counterarguments were:

• SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): A primary concern was the introduction of commercial activities into residential zones, which could disrupt neighborhood harmony. Councilmember Dave Rollo emphasized the need for a “harmonious expansion of urban agriculture” that is embraced by the community. The potential for large structures, such as a 20-foot hoop house, was cited as being out of scale with residential environments.
• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): Several councilmembers, including Kate Rosenbarger, argued that the ordinance was a “convoluted” solution to a simple problem. They contended that a more effective and targeted institutional approach would be to amend the existing “home occupation” definition to permit outdoor educational activities, rather than creating an entirely new and broad commercial land use category.
• Redundancy with Existing Policies: Councilmembers Isak Asare and Matt Flaherty noted that existing city and state regulations already permit many activities aligned with urban agriculture goals, such as growing food, selling produce, and conducting indoor classes. They concluded the ordinance did not substantively advance the city’s Comprehensive Plan or Climate Action Plan, as the core tenets of urban agriculture are already allowed.

4.0 Legislative Outcome and Conclusion

The ordinance was defeated with only one vote in favor. The council’s decision was not a rejection of urban agriculture but of the specific legislative vehicle proposed.

1. Final Vote: The proposal was rejected by a 1-7 margin.
2. Core Rationale: The majority concluded that while the goals of promoting local food production and education are valuable, the ordinance was an overly broad and potentially disruptive tool. The consensus was that the specific issue of outdoor teaching should be addressed through a targeted amendment to existing regulations on home occupations.
3. Implications for SDG Integration: The debate underscores the challenge of balancing competing SDG priorities in urban planning. While the ordinance aimed to support SDG 2 and SDG 13, its potential negative impact on the social fabric and regulatory clarity of residential areas was seen as a conflict with the principles of SDG 11. The outcome highlights the need for precisely targeted policies to integrate sustainable practices into established community frameworks effectively.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • The article connects to this goal through the discussion of local food production and food security. Councilmember Isabel Piedmont-Smith explicitly states, “We do need to grow more of our own food,” and links this need to the “curtailment of SNAP benefits,” highlighting a local food security issue. The entire concept of “urban agriculture” is aimed at producing food within the city, which supports the goal of ending hunger and ensuring access to food.
2. SDG 4: Quality Education
   • This goal is central to the article’s conflict. The proposed ordinance originated from a property owner’s interest in “teaching outdoor garden classes.” The debate revolves around whether to allow “outdoor educational activities” in residential zones. Proponents like Nancy Goswami argue that urban farming “creates pathways for future generations to gain practical skills and food production, life skills,” which directly aligns with providing quality education and promoting lifelong learning opportunities.
3. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • The article is fundamentally about urban planning and land use, which is a core component of SDG 11. The debate over the ordinance is about how to manage land within a residential neighborhood to allow for activities like “small-scale commercial urban agriculture.” The goal is to create a “harmonious expansion of urban agriculture … one that is accepted and is embraced by the community,” which speaks to creating inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable cities.
4. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Climate change is explicitly mentioned as a key motivator for supporting the ordinance. Councilmember Piedmont-Smith frames her support by stating, “we are in a climate crisis.” Additionally, Nancy Goswami describes urban farming as a “sustainable ecological alternative to these big conventional farms that … negatively contribute to our climate,” and notes that food production skills will be “vital as climate change brings new challenges.” This directly links the local issue of urban agriculture to the broader goal of taking action to combat climate change and its impacts.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • Target 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round. The mention of the “curtailment of SNAP benefits” and the need to rely on neighbors for food (“we’re going to be relying on each other”) points directly to concerns about food access for vulnerable populations.
   • Target 2.4: By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production. The argument that urban farming is a “sustainable ecological alternative to these big conventional farms” aligns with this target of promoting sustainable agriculture.
2. SDG 4: Quality Education
   • Target 4.7: By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development. The proposed “outdoor garden classes” and the goal of teaching “practical skills and food production” are forms of education for sustainable development, as they equip citizens with skills for sustainable living.
3. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • Target 11.3: By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries. The entire article is a case study of this target in action, as it details the city council’s process of considering a change to the “unified development ordinance (UDO)” to manage land use for urban agriculture in a way that is either accepted or rejected by the community.
4. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Target 13.3: Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning. The proposal to “teach classes about urban agriculture” serves as a direct mechanism for improving education and human capacity on climate change mitigation, as urban farming is presented as a practice that can help address the “climate crisis.”

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For SDG 2 (Zero Hunger):
   • An implied indicator is the prevalence of food insecurity, which Councilmember Piedmont-Smith points to by mentioning the “curtailment of SNAP benefits.” The amount of food grown and sold locally through urban agriculture (“sell produce off site, at farmers markets, to restaurants, through CSAs”) could serve as a direct indicator of increased local food production.
2. For SDG 4 (Quality Education):
   • A direct indicator would be the number and type of “outdoor educational activities” or “outdoor garden classes” being offered. The article’s central conflict is whether to allow these classes, so their existence and accessibility would be a primary measure of progress.
3. For SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities):
   • An indicator is the development and adoption of local land use policy. The article focuses on the consideration and rejection of a “proposed ordinance to create a new land use.” The existence and content of such ordinances in the “unified development ordinance (UDO)” would be a key indicator of progress in sustainable urban planning.
4. For SDG 13 (Climate Action):
   • An indicator is the level of public education on climate-friendly practices. The proposal to “teach classes about urban agriculture” as a response to the “climate crisis” implies that the number of people educated on such topics is a measure of progress. Another implied indicator is the adoption of urban agriculture as a “sustainable ecological alternative” to conventional farming.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: bsquarebulletin.com