It's just not possible to create a new source for food in a community without having the food produced by that source compete with all the other sources of food for that community. The competition does not have to be in the form of directly commercial sales to commercial sales. The food from the new source could be given away, or eaten by the people in the community who work on producing the food. Even with no head to head sales competition, the people eating the new food have less need to go to the local market(s) to get food. Overall, there is less local demand for commercial food, and, if classical economics describes the real world, prices on commercial food will have to drop to clear the market. Realistically, some commercial food may go unsold because of the new food source. If backyard gardens really catch on in Royal Oak, then commercial food sales in Royal Oak will decline. If every public school turns a part of its grounds into a garden where the labor of cultivation is done by the students, commercial food sales will decline. In this sense, it does not matter who profits from a particular garden, or if the profit is in the form of cash or food. Once the demand for food in a community is saturated, no additional food will be sold because nobody will be inclined to buy it. If we here at Transition Michigan are in favor of backyard home gardens, then any success we have in encouraging them will be to the detriment of local restaurants, supermarkets and any other types of food sales in the community. That's just the way it is. Restaurants and so on will not like us. The local Chambers of Commerce may well be persuaded to denounce us, because some local businesses will be hurt if our ideas gain traction. While we are recommending a course of action that will benefit the community overall, not every member of the community will like it. Art Myatt

Hi Matt, Thank you for the thought provoking response. 1. People growing food by themselves in their backyards will not pose a threat to commercial food production unless and until the point wherein things are so bad people having nothing else to do. Aside from that, I have no worries that home owners will come together and serious produce anything at this point. This opinion comes from 9 years of working with Urban and Suburban landscape clients. Thus, Transitions work to get people to grow food is no threat at all. In the case Transition succeeds, thousands and millions of individuals become more self-sufficient - yes, "commercial" production is hurt but that energy instead becomes more evenly distributed to individuals. So your expanded model of success means more people are able to be self-sufficient. That is a result that would be acceptable in my book. In the ROCF model, no one becomes more self-sufficient and the school boards become a ruling source of our food supply with no accountability to us for the money we directly and indirectly give them. So yes, the idea is to change the existing food production model from being almost 100% consolidated into major corp's hands to being more evenly distributed to actual real individuals living in and around us. Yes, this shift is and will disrupt the existing chains of command - but how it does that now and how that looks 5 years from now depends entirely on the details. Supporting a program like ROCF - as it is now - means you want "Farm Profit" going to a public school board that is controlled dominately by federal dollars and direction vs. "Farm Profit" going to individuals/families dominately "infuenceable" within the community. In my "Farm Contractor(FC)" model the FC is private and locally owned - saves and makes land owners money but is highly competitive to any larger scale - distance traveling farm model - any - be it organic and local farmers an hour out of town or a mega farm. The expanded results of the FC model is a highly concentrated and integrated micro farm system within a metro area - transforming landscape expenses to near zero, eliminating landscape chemical applications, lowering mowing needs and all that comes with mowing and creating many more new jobs. Furthermore, it is more competitive for the FC's - who has the better designs, productions and deals for the land owners. The more small business thrives the more diverse the economic landscape is - the more diverse the economic landscape is the stronger it is - this is true and observable within any system be it economic or biological. In other words, anything that can produce more local business owners, save more individuals money, diversify our local food supply and increase our control over said food supply -locally - is going to produce more self-sufficiency and control within our community. We can have our local food supply controlled by dozens or family farmers or by a school board system managed by a handful of individuals or by distant corporations bent on total monopolization of food - globally with zero concern for food quality or individual well being.