Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Mapping Gloucester, Virginia's Future? The Heart of Gloucester County



The above picture is what we have been able to put together based on over a year of watching the Gloucester Board of Supervisors meetings, watching the actions of the Gloucester School board, and looking into what the golden triangle has been planning and promoting as well as viewing the plans of a few local developers.  We like to call this the new Heart of Gloucester.  It's what it looks like when you draw out the plans of what is both seen and not seen.  It looks like a heart.

  What is within that heart;  The up river crossing.  606 across the river to York County to meet up with route 199.  A gateway to Williamsburg and a much faster route to I64.  Plus on the other side is a new road that would need to be constructed to alleviate the traffic congestion along business route 17 moving onto route 14 in the courthouse area.  A road that may go through some very interesting properties and who holds some of those properties.

  Questions that we will be raising over the coming months, has a newly created landmark been put in place to maintain traffic congestion?  What is the future of that landmark if that is the case?  Is mixed use development in the plans of those who are behind secret plans?  Has inside information been used for insider trading?  Have property deals been made to enrich the few privy to secret information and how did they get to those secrets?

  What place does the golden triangle play in all of this?  Who are those in the golden triangle?  How can you profit from this information?  Beware letting certain property sell cheap.  It may just be worth much more than you think.  Are certain people being considered for judge positions based on their willingness to further certain plans now in place even if it means not following the law?  Some odd questions, we know.  But we have seen some odd facts that brought us to this point and are causing us to ask these questions.

  Is a certain popular teenager's park going to go away on route 14 to make way for a new road?  Did the tear down of remains and a move to a new location of Page Middle school play a place in all of this?  We can not answer a lot of these questions.  But we are going to be showing you the facts and information that has led us to ask all of these questions and many more.  We think that if secret information is being used to enrich the few whom are privy to such, then everyone should have equal access to that same information and have the same privileges to make money on these deals as well wherever possible.  Plus it sheds a light on those who are behind those deals and makes those deals much harder to profit from and lets everyone know the kind of people they are dealing with.

  We will leave you to come to your own conclusions as we go through all of the information we have been collecting as well as information already shared along with all of the new information we will be bringing you.  It's been a very long and tedious process and the culmination and joint efforts of many to bring you what we will be sharing.  So stay tuned.  We promise that it's going to get very interesting.
Enhanced by Zemanta

An Inquiry Into The Nature And Causes of The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith

Profile of Adam Smith
Profile of Adam Smith (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Wealth of Nations - Adam Smith from Chuck Thompson

One of the world's first economists explains his findings on the creation of wealth that has long since been abandoned.  To bad for us all.  In this book, one quickly learns that the joining of forces through men, more is accomplished than if one were to complete a task on their own.  The force of the factory is greater than the sum of it's parts.  To look at it another way, by dividing labor into specialized units, more was accomplished much faster and with superior results than each man could ever hope to accomplish on one's own.

  Adam Smith shows us what capitalism really is and we learn that the term capitalism as used today, does not fit the original model by any means.  Or, the meaning of capitalism has been so corrupted today, to not even come close to what it originally meant.  Capitalism was once a revered term.  Today it is almost despised.  This is what happens when you attempt to change history.  Free downloads are available from our Slideshare site.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Scientists Turn Off Pain Using Nothing But Light

English: this images shows the use of light bo...
English: this images shows the use of light box as a therapy tool (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Story by; ADAM CLARK ESTES

Pain is a hard problem. Sure, we can throw a little morphine at pain in the short term, but researchers continue to struggle with solutions for chronic pain. New research from Stanford's futuristic Bio-X lab looks like a light at the end of the tunnel—literally!

Put simply, a team of scientists has developed a way to turn pain on and off using light. They used a technique known as optogenetics to insert light-sensitive proteins called opsins into the nerves of lab mice. After a couple of weeks, the nerves became light-sensitive. One color of light would increase the sensation of pain; another would decrease it. This bears huge implications in a number of fields, from neuroscience to psychology, and could help millions of people who suffer from chronic pain.

So that's pretty awesome. What's even more impressive is the fact that researchers made the discovery by accident. Optogenetics is a burgeoning field pioneered by Karl Deisseroth who was a co-author of a study about the new technique published this week in Nature Biotechnology. It enables scientists to control nerves using just light. Scott Delp, whose lab made the discovery, was exploring the use of optogenetics to control muscle movement when he found that the opsins were also affecting the nerves that controlled pain. "We thought 'wow, we're getting pain neurons, that could be really important,'" Delp said in a statement.

The excitement offered by optogenetics don't stop at pain relief, of course. Just a few months ago, scientists also figured out how to control hunger using opsins and light therapy. Experts say the field could impact everything from brain disease to alcoholism. And they make it look so easy. [Stanford]



Original story link back.

Our notes:  So what they are saying is that lights and colors have the ability to affect us.  Next thing you know they will be telling us that sound has those same abilities.  Wait, I think we covered that on this site.  Someday, turning on a TV may just be a death sentence.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Federalist Papers No. 39. The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles

For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, January 16, 1788

MADISON
THE last paper having concluded the observations which were meant to introduce a candid survey of the plan of government reported by the convention, we now proceed to the execution of that part of our undertaking.
The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government. If the plan of the convention, therefore, be found to depart from the republican character, its advocates must abandon it as no longer defensible.
What, then, are the distinctive characters of the republican form? Were an answer to this question to be sought, not by recurring to principles, but in the application of the term by political writers, to the constitution of different States, no satisfactory one would ever be found. Holland, in which no particle of the supreme authority is derived from the people, has passed almost universally under the denomination of a republic. The same title has been bestowed on Venice, where absolute power over the great body of the people is exercised, in the most absolute manner, by a small body of hereditary nobles. Poland, which is a mixture of aristocracy and of monarchy in their worst forms, has been dignified with the same appellation. The government of England, which has one republican branch only, combined with an hereditary aristocracy and monarchy, has, with equal impropriety, been frequently placed on the list of republics. These examples, which are nearly as dissimilar to each other as to a genuine republic, show the extreme inaccuracy with which the term has been used in political disquisitions.
If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic. It is SUFFICIENT for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified; otherwise every government in the United States, as well as every other popular government that has been or can be well organized or well executed, would be degraded from the republican character. According to the constitution of every State in the Union, some or other of the officers of government are appointed indirectly only by the people. According to most of them, the chief magistrate himself is so appointed. And according to one, this mode of appointment is extended to one of the co-ordinate branches of the legislature. According to all the constitutions, also, the tenure of the highest offices is extended to a definite period, and in many instances, both within the legislative and executive departments, to a period of years. According to the provisions of most of the constitutions, again, as well as according to the most respectable and received opinions on the subject, the members of the judiciary department are to retain their offices by the firm tenure of good behavior.
On comparing the Constitution planned by the convention with the standard here fixed, we perceive at once that it is, in the most rigid sense, conformable to it. The House of Representatives, like that of one branch at least of all the State legislatures, is elected immediately by the great body of the people. The Senate, like the present Congress, and the Senate of Maryland, derives its appointment indirectly from the people. The President is indirectly derived from the choice of the people, according to the example in most of the States. Even the judges, with all other officers of the Union, will, as in the several States, be the choice, though a remote choice, of the people themselves, the duration of the appointments is equally conformable to the republican standard, and to the model of State constitutions The House of Representatives is periodically elective, as in all the States; and for the period of two years, as in the State of South Carolina. The Senate is elective, for the period of six years; which is but one year more than the period of the Senate of Maryland, and but two more than that of the Senates of New York and Virginia. The President is to continue in office for the period of four years; as in New York and Delaware, the chief magistrate is elected for three years, and in South Carolina for two years. In the other States the election is annual. In several of the States, however, no constitutional provision is made for the impeachment of the chief magistrate. And in Delaware and Virginia he is not impeachable till out of office. The President of the United States is impeachable at any time during his continuance in office. The tenure by which the judges are to hold their places, is, as it unquestionably ought to be, that of good behavior. The tenure of the ministerial offices generally, will be a subject of legal regulation, conformably to the reason of the case and the example of the State constitutions.
Could any further proof be required of the republican complexion of this system, the most decisive one might be found in its absolute prohibition of titles of nobility, both under the federal and the State governments; and in its express guaranty of the republican form to each of the latter.
"But it was not sufficient," say the adversaries of the proposed Constitution, "for the convention to adhere to the republican form. They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the FEDERAL form, which regards the Union as a CONFEDERACY of sovereign states; instead of which, they have framed a NATIONAL government, which regards the Union as a CONSOLIDATION of the States." And it is asked by what authority this bold and radical innovation was undertaken? The handle which has been made of this objection requires that it should be examined with some precision.
Without inquiring into the accuracy of the distinction on which the objection is founded, it will be necessary to a just estimate of its force, first, to ascertain the real character of the government in question; secondly, to inquire how far the convention were authorized to propose such a government; and thirdly, how far the duty they owed to their country could supply any defect of regular authority.
First. In order to ascertain the real character of the government, it may be considered in relation to the foundation on which it is to be established; to the sources from which its ordinary powers are to be drawn; to the operation of those powers; to the extent of them; and to the authority by which future changes in the government are to be introduced.
On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.
That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.
The next relation is, to the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are to be derived. The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is NATIONAL, not FEDERAL. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is FEDERAL, not NATIONAL. The executive power will be derived from a very compound source. The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic. From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many FEDERAL as NATIONAL features.
The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character; though perhaps not so completely as has been understood. In several cases, and particularly in the trial of controversies to which States may be parties, they must be viewed and proceeded against in their collective and political capacities only. So far the national countenance of the government on this side seems to be disfigured by a few federal features. But this blemish is perhaps unavoidable in any plan; and the operation of the government on the people, in their individual capacities, in its ordinary and most essential proceedings, may, on the whole, designate it, in this relation, a NATIONAL government.
But if the government be national with regard to the OPERATION of its powers, it changes its aspect again when we contemplate it in relation to the EXTENT of its powers. The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality. Some such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact; and that it ought to be established under the general rather than under the local governments, or, to speak more properly, that it could be safely established under the first alone, is a position not likely to be combated.
If we try the Constitution by its last relation to the authority by which amendments are to be made, we find it neither wholly NATIONAL nor wholly FEDERAL. Were it wholly national, the supreme and ultimate authority would reside in the MAJORITY of the people of the Union; and this authority would be competent at all times, like that of a majority of every national society, to alter or abolish its established government. Were it wholly federal, on the other hand, the concurrence of each State in the Union would be essential to every alteration that would be binding on all. The mode provided by the plan of the convention is not founded on either of these principles. In requiring more than a majority, and principles. In requiring more than a majority, and particularly in computing the proportion by STATES, not by CITIZENS, it departs from the NATIONAL and advances towards the FEDERAL character; in rendering the concurrence of less than the whole number of States sufficient, it loses again the FEDERAL and partakes of the NATIONAL character.
The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national.
PUBLIUS

Learn More About US History;  Visit Jamestown, Yorktown and Colonial Williamsburg Living Museums in Virginia.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Why did the Attorney General change the Commonwealth's legal position in Bostic v. Rainey?

Girls kissing
 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
After a thorough and comprehensive legal analysis of precedents and recent court rulings, Attorney General Herring has determined that Virginia's ban on marriage for same-sex couples is unconstitutional because it improperly denies the fundamental right to marry, which is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, to thousands of Virginians on the basis of their sexual orientation. The Supreme Court has consistently said that marriage is a fundamental right that the government cannot limit without a very strong reason. Because there is no sufficiently strong reason to  deny same-sex couples the right to marry, Attorney General Herring has concluded the Supreme Court would strike down Virginia's ban if it were presented with the case. For these reasons, he has notified the federal court deciding Bostic that he is changing Virginia's legal position to reflect his determination that the state's marriage ban is unconstitutional.

What are the legal precedents that led to this decision?

There is considerable Supreme Court precedent stating that marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and rulings stating that the federal government cannot discriminate against same-sex couples. There are also rulings from other federal courts striking down similar same-sex-marriage bans in other states.
  • First, the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor struck down section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.  Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the Court made clear that the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is violated by laws treating same-sex married couples as second-class citizens.  Justice Scalia’s dissent also made clear that the Court’s rationale would justify invalidating State bans on same-sex marriage.  I agree with that assessment.
  • Second, the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas made clear that laws criminalizing homosexual conduct were unconstitutional, regardless of how such activity may traditionally have been viewed.  Justice Scalia predicted then that the decision would justify invalidating laws that ban same-sex marriage.
  • Finally, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to marriage -- not a particular kind of marriage -- is fundamental:  

    • In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court upheld the right to marriage, not the right to interracial marriage.
    • In Turner v. Safley, the Supreme Court upheld the right to marriage, not the right to prisoner inmate marriage.
    • In Zablocki v. Redhail, the Supreme Court upheld the right to marriage, not the right of people owing child support to marry.
As a fundamental right, the right to marriage cannot be denied unless (among other things) limiting that right serves a compelling State interest.  The reasons offered in support of Virginia’s same-sex-marriage ban do not meet even the most deferential legal standard of review, let alone this heightened scrutiny. 

Based on these precedents, among others, the Attorney General has concluded that if the Supreme Court were to be presented with the facts of this case, it follows that it would again uphold the right to marry and find the exercise of that fundamental right may not be denied to these loving couples based solely on their sexual orientation.   The two federal courts that have most recently considered this issue agreed, striking down the bans on same-sex-marriage in Utah and Oklahoma.

Is the Attorney General within his power to change the state's position?

Yes. The Attorney General is the sole person empowered to present the Commonwealth's position in legal matters and it is up to him or her to determine that position through rigorous legal analysis.

Doesn't the Attorney General have to defend the state's laws?

The Attorney General has a duty to support laws that are constitutional, and has just as strong a duty not to defend laws that he has concluded after careful and thorough analysis are unconstitutional. The Attorney General swears an oath to support the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Virginia. When a state law or part of the Virginia Constitution is in conflict with the United States Constitution, as Attorney General Herring has concluded in this case, the United States Constitution prevails because it is the supreme law of the land.

Furthermore, the Attorney General's primary client is the people of Virginia, not just state agencies. When the constitutional rights of the people of Virginia are being violated, he has a duty to protect their interests.

Have other attorneys general done things like this before?

Yes. There is precedent for an attorney general  or executive branch official refusing to defend a law that he or she has determined is unconstitutional.
  • Former Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli declined to defend the Opportunity Educational Institution, often referred to as Virginia's "school takeover bill," last year.
  • Former Attorney General Jerry Kilgore joined with 43 other State attorneys general in 2003 to argue that an attorney general is properly carrying out his constitutional duties when he seeks to invalidate a State law that he believes, in his independent judgment, to be unconstitutional.  In that brief, Kilgore and the other attorneys general  say that when the  Attorney General believes a state law "violates the constitution, he has a paramount obligation to defend the constitution he is sworn to uphold.”
  • Former Attorney General Kilgore also declined to defend a federal constitutional challenge to a provision in Virginia's constitution that prohibited the incorporation of churches and religious denominations.  That provision was struck down in the 2002 case Falwell v. Miller.
  • Justice Antonin Scalia has stated that the President can resist unconstitutional laws, saying an executive has the power “to disregard them when they are unconstitutional.”
  • In 1989, then-acting Solicitor General John Roberts, now Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, filed a friend-of-the-court brief declaring that the United States considered a particular law to be unconstitutional.
  • In a 1976 election-law case, then-Solicitor General Robert Bork filed two contradictory briefs, one which defended the law at issue, and another, on behalf of the Attorney General and the United States, which provided a counterargument to help the Court resolve the First Amendment questions presented.
Does this mean Virginia's same-sex marriage ban is over?
No. Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage will continue to be enforced until and unless a court or the legislature acts to end its enforcement . The State Registrar of Vital Records will continue to enforce the ban, and clerks are not legally permitted to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples.

Does this mean the case is over?

No. Before announcing the Commonwealth's change in legal position, Attorney General Herring took steps to ensure the case could continue and the court could hear both sides of the issue.  The Circuit Court Clerks for the City of Norfolk and Prince William County remain defendants.  Lawyers for both clerks will provide a full and capable defense for the ban in court.

Does this mean Virginia's marriage ban will be undefended in court?

No. The Circuit Court Clerks of Norfolk and Prince William County are both represented by able lawyers who will make their best possible case for the marriage ban's legality. They also have a brief filed by previous Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to assist them in their defense of the ban.

Why didn't the Attorney General appoint special counsel to defend the ban?

Special counsel is not necessary in this case because there are still two other parties  in the case, the Circuit Court Clerks for the City of Norfolk and Prince William County, who are vigorously defending the ban's legality.

Is Attorney General Herring just doing this because he thinks same-sex couples should be able to marry?

Attorney General Herring's decision to oppose Virginia's marriage ban is based on his legal analysis of the facts in this case and relevant court rulings, especially those in recent years that address this specific issue.

Our Notes:  Did these people ever hear of God's Law? Demoralization of the population.  It has nothing to do with rights from what we see.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Governor McAuliffe Announces Safety Improvements for I-77 in Fancy Gap

English: Former DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe spea...
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
New technology to help reduce accidents and save lives
RICHMOND – Governor Terry McAuliffe announced today that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) will soon begin to build a system of electronic signs, cameras and other technology that will improve safety on I-77 in the Fancy Gap area of Carroll County. 
The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) awarded a $7.5 million contract to G4S Technology, Inc. from Springfield, to design and build an Active Traffic and Safety Management System (ATSMS) for a 12-mile segment of I-77, a mountainous section in Fancy Gap.
 “VDOT is using technology to save lives on a section of I-77 that has a higher than average traffic crash rate related to fog or wind,” said Governor McAuliffe.  “This project will help drivers reach their destination safely by keeping them informed of road and weather conditions.  The use of technology in transportation today is improving the safety and efficiency of our transportation network.”
The I-77 Fancy Gap ATSMS includes numerous improvements:
  • Infrastructure to support the establishment of variable speed limits based on weather and traffic conditions
  • A network of electronic message boards to keep drivers informed of changing traffic and weather conditions
  • Additional traffic cameras that will allow complete surveillance of the corridor by VDOT’s traffic operations center, which provides real-time information to drivers through the 511 Virginia system
  • Additional detection stations to enhance weather monitoring capabilities
Work on the project is expected to begin this spring with construction completed in summer 2015.  VDOT has contracted with American Electric Power to complete the electrical infrastructure needed for these improvements.
Keeping drivers informed of road and weather conditions is a key component of the ATSMS project. Dynamic Message Signs will communicate information received by the operations center from the visibility detection sensors, traffic cameras and traffic detection sensors. All of these systems aggregate atmospheric and roadway surface condition information as well as traffic speed and volumes.  VDOT will be responsible for operating and maintaining the system.
Throughout Virginia VDOT is improving corridor operations with similar ATSMS projects. Other projects are in northern Virginia on I-66 and on I-64 along Afton Mountain.
Enhanced by Zemanta

USDA 2012 Census: Market Value of Production on Virginia Farms Up Almost $1 Billion

Logo of the U.S. National Agricultural Statist...
Logo of the U.S. National Agricultural Statistics Service, part of the Department of Agriculture. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
USDA 2012 Agriculture Census Provides a Snapshot of Agriculture in the U.S. and Virginia

RICHMOND - Virginia’s farms saw a dramatic increase in both the market value of production and the average value of products sold per farm according to the preliminary results of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 2012 Census of Agriculture.  From 2007 to 2012, market value of production sold increased 29 percent to $3.8 billion while the average value of products sold per farm increased 33 percent to $81,540.  
The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) announced today the first look at state and national data from the 2012 Ag Census. The preliminary results were provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 
“It is terrific to see such a dramatic increase in the value of production coming off of Virginia’s farms in the last 5 years,” said Governor McAuliffe. “Agriculture is Virginia’s largest industry, and it is my administration’s priority to continue that growth through sound policies and aggressive economic development efforts. Increasing farm production puts people back to work in our rural communities and provides the commodities that feed our robust agribusinesses throughout the Commonwealth.” 
Virginia also showed a reversal in the loss of farm land in the Commonwealth with a gain of 3%, rising to 8.3 million acres of land held in farms.  While farm land has increased, the number of farms has decreased, meaning that farms are growing larger here in Virginia.  Farmers in Virginia are also continuing to age, now averaging 59.5 years, up from 58.2 years in 2007, and a full year older than the national average of 58.3 years. 
“As Secretary, I am fully committed to helping our farms generate more income through the development of markets both domestically and internationally,” said Secretary of Agriculture and Forestry Todd Haymore.  “The increased value of production being sold by Virginia’s farms is an indication that our efforts are making an impact.  The ability to generate greater value on the farm enables land to be kept in production rather than being converted to other uses.  However, we are not without difficulties here in Virginia.  We continue to lose farms at the same time that the average age of our farmers is increasing.  My secretariat will continue to focus on these challenges through farm retention programs in our Office of Farmland Preservation such as the Purchase of Development Rights, the Farm Link and Certified Farm Seeker programs. 
The preliminary 2012 Census data show the following key trends for Virginia. 
  • In 2012, the number of farms in Virginia totaled 46,036, down 3 percent (1,347 farms) from 47,383 farms in 2007
  • Land in farms, 8.3 million acres, was up 3 percent from 8.1 acres in 2007
  • The average size of farm in Virginia was 181 acres, compared to 171 acres in 2007
  • Market value of production sold was $3.8 billion, up 29 percent from $2.9 billion in 2007
  • The average value of products sold per farm was $81,540 compared to $61,334 in 2007
  • The average age of the principal farm operator was 59.5 years, compared to 58.2 years 2007
  •  There were 38,383 principal male operators and 7,653 principal female operators in 2012, compared to 39,537 male and 7,846 female in 2007 
At the national level, the 2012 Census reported little change in land in farms, a more diverse principal operator population and several historic changes in value of sales for U.S. agriculture producers from 2007 to 2012. 
Between 2007 and 2012, the amount of land in farms in the United States declined by less than one percent, from 922 million acres to 915 million. While continuing a downward trend, this is the third smallest decline between censuses since 1950 and is within the margin of error. 
According to the 2012 Census, principal farm operators are becoming older and more diverse. The average age of a principal farm operator was 58.3 years, up 1.2 years since 2007, and continuing a 30-year trend of steady increase. And, more minority-operated farms were also accounted for in 2012 than in 2007. 
The United States had 2.1 million farms, down 4.3 percent in 2012. In terms of farm size by acres, the decline continued a downward trend in mid-sized farms, while the smallest- and largest-size farms held steady. 
In 2012, the value of agriculture products sold totaled $394.6 billion, up 33 percent ($97.4 billion) from 2007. For only the second time in Census history, crop sales ($212.4 billion) exceeded livestock sales ($182.2 billion). 
“One of the most important takeaways to remember about the Census of Agriculture is that the information is used for decision-making by producers as well as all those who serve farmers, ranchers and rural communities – federal, state and local governments, agribusinesses, trade associations and many others,” said Herman Ellison, State Statistician for USDA. “When we look at the data for our state, we can all use it as a snapshot in time to see how Virginia agriculture is changing over time and how it compared to the rest of the country.” 
The release of the preliminary 2012 Census of Agriculture results is only a first look at the data and NASS will publish the final report this May. The 2012 Census was not conducted in a typical crop year, and drought had a major impact on U.S. agriculture, affecting crop yields, production and prices. NASS is still reviewing all 2012 Census items to the county level and therefore data is preliminary until published in the final report. 
Conducted since 1840, the Census of Agriculture accounts for all U.S. farms and ranches and the people who operate them. When available in May, the final report will provide even more detailed information for Virginia, providing data on all farm operators and data down to the county level. The publication will also provide new insights into the agriculture industry reporting new or expanded data on internet access, regional food systems, biomass production, agro-forestry and equine. 
For more information about the Census, including access to the 2012 Census of Agriculture preliminary report and the full report when it is released in May, visitwww.agcensus.usda.gov
According to a 2013 economic impact study conducted by the University of Virginia’s Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, agriculture and forestry are two of Virginia's largest industries, with a combined economic impact of $70 billion annually.  Agriculture generates more than $52 billion per annum, while forestry induces over $17 billion. The industries also provide more than 400,000 jobs in the Commonwealth.
Enhanced by Zemanta