Comment by Emily M. Shinn
Data from the most recent census report estimated that 80.7% of Americans, or 308 million individuals, now live in urban areas--a number that has grown by more than 12% over the past decade. This influx of urban residents has exposed the many preexisting challenges cities face in terms of food access, availability, and cost. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that over eleven million people in the United States live in urban areas with “low access to a supermarket or large grocery store.” Other urban residents are constrained by a lack of reliable transportation to their local food stores. Moreover, research conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health found that consuming healthy, fresh food options costs an average of $1.50 more per day than a less healthy diet, increasing food costs by approximately $550 per person each year. For the more than 16% of urban residents living in poverty, this added expense is often unfeasible.
To combat these systemic issues, many urban residents are planting gardens and farms within their cities as a means of more sustainable, less costly sources of healthy food. This phenomenon is often referred to as the “urban agriculture” movement. Urban agriculture encompasses a vast array of agricultural enterprises, including “fish farms, farm animals at public housing sites, municipal compost facilities, schoolyard greenhouses, restaurant-supported salad gardens, backyard orchards, rooftop gardens and beehives, window box gardens, and much more.” The number of urban agriculture operations has significantly increased in recent years, contributing to the vibrant food and farm community across the country.
Despite the clear benefits of, and apparent need for, urban agriculture, the property law system in the United States has largely failed to support such endeavors. This Comment explores individual land uses aimed at sustainable urban food systems and the existence of restrictive covenants that dictate these practices. Part II discusses the historical application of restrictive covenants in the United States and the racial premise behind many private restrictions upon agriculture. Part III explains how the current private property law system often blocks farms and gardens from operating in urban cities and highlights two practical examples of urban farming in Detroit and New Orleans. Part IV presents the argument for judicial and legislative reform allowing for greater property rights of urban farmers and improved community resilience during times of crisis and emergency. Part V briefly concludes.
About the Authors
Emily M. Shinn, J.D./M.P.H. candidate 2023, Tulane University Law School and School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine; B.S. 2017, Boston College.
Citation
96 Tul. L. Rev. 503 (2022)