B-Corporations will no longer make it illegal for companies to do social good as part of their central mission (NY State law), and this new legislation will help legalize growing food in the city. (if you don’t believe that growing food is illegal, read John Robb’s story below). Amongst the general darkness of living in a time of a decomposing system, positive changes are also happening. P2P imaginaries AND realities are slowly taking hold, and disparate patterns of emergence are finding their way to each other.

Via Antonio Roman-Alcalá in Shareable:

“Last month urban agriculture advocates in San Francisco got another piece of legislation to celebrate. City government once again came out to support the growing of food within this dense city, this time by mandating that an “urban agriculture program” be organized. The program will help coordinate existing programs within and between city agencies that touch food production (including the Recreation and Parks Department’s community gardens, the Department of the Environment’s urban orchard work, and the Public Utilities Commission’s water-saving education efforts), as well as look into new ways to expand and improve urban agriculture opportunities (including an audit of city-owned rooftops with potential for gardens or beekeeping; the development of incentives for private landowners to lease undeveloped land to urban ag projects; and–perhaps most importantly–the creation of materials resource centers, where urban agriculturists of all sorts can find the compost, mulch, and materials needed to successfully grow more food).

As a co-coordinator for the SF Urban Agriculture Alliance, a grassroots volunteer group supporting local urban agriculture projects and their respective goals, I am happy that we not only achieved the passage of such legislation, but achieved a more difficult goal: funding for the program. In these days of austerity and endless cuts, our members’ advocacy, and the support of particular city Supervisors (in particular, David Chiu, the legislation’s sponsor, and John Avalos, chair of the Budget committee) were crucial to ensuring that the program would not just exist on paper. The budgeting process is a complex and mystifying beast, but we tamed it, and came out with $120,000 for implementation of the program in the coming fiscal year.

Although the legislation isn’t perfect (there is the possibility that the funding will largely end up going to an urban-ag-ignorant bureaucrat, paid $100,000 a year to be ineffectual), it helps us with what we need to be more successful–as individual backyard growers, as community and communal farmers, and as a city government–in growing local food for local people. And being part of the political process–warts and all–gives us more experience, and thus more efficacy to achieve the changes we hope to see.

Once the strategic plan is completed by the City Administrator’s office (by December 2012), an evaluation will determine whether this program is best housed in a particular city agency, or an NGO. My personal view is that almost every potential city agency has more liabilities than assets to manage such a program, and that an NGO with widespread, true community connections and urban agriculture experience would be better suited for the job. Unfortunately, since the demise of the San Francisco League of Urban Gardeners (SLUG), no such NGO has emerged. So for the urban agriculture movement in San Francisco, our work is far from over. We must remain committed to holding the city accountable in accomplishing their stated goals (such as, among other important issues, supporting urban agriculture), whether from the outside or (should an NGO take on the program eventually) the inside.

Legislative success is certainly a moment to celebrate for any movement (Three Cheers!). But any progressive legislation’s success ultimately relies on a committed, passionate, strategic, and intelligent group of citizens and residents consistently engaged: working with allies in government, holding officials accountable, applying political pressure, and demanding change when it is needed.”

A victory for the freedom to grow, by John Robb:

“This little victory was won by Karl Tricamo of Ferguson Missouri. Here’s what he did.

Armed with a lawyer, he fought the board of Ferguson Missouri (a town of 21,000 in the eastern part of the state) and won temporary approval to keep his front yard garden. Here’s what the home’s garden looked like in July.

This vote put a temporary end to weeks of harassment by Code Enforcement personnel (via driveby stalking and community mailings that singled out Karl’s family as law breakers).

What did Karl do that was so wrong?

He wanted to turn his home into a productive asset. An asset that provides his family with economic resilience. Specifically, he had the audacity to take advantage of the land, water, and sunlight he owns to:

* Feed his family

* Improve his financial position

* Keep his family healthy by eating better and getting more exercise (by working in the garden).

* What does the Town of Ferguson say in opposition to this?

Joe Schroeder, a member of the town board, sums it up with:

“I think that all of us on the board agreed that the garden is an eyesore. It goes against common sense, really, to put a garden in the front yard instead of the back.”

This would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.

Here’s a town where nearly 20% of its small population currently lives below the poverty line. A place that has an average family income of 1/2 of the national average. A place that could benefit, mightily, from local, resilient production of food, energy, water, as weall as artisan products.

Yet, this town is resisting any improvement. It wants to stop Karl from turning the postage stamp of a yard he owns into something that can improve his family’s economic position.

Sure, a small garden like this may seem pretty irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. However, for Karl’s family, it will make a big dent in both the family’s finances and the quality of their lives.”