smac97 Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 The New York Post: The Mormon Church, a massive landholder, just expanded its $2B US farmland portfolio across 8 states Quote The Mormon Church is expanding its real estate empire with a massive $289 million deal for 46 farms across eight states, further solidifying its place as a major player in the US agricultural industry. The real estate arm of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Utah-based Farmland Reserve Inc., is acquiring the farmland from Denver-based Farmland Partners Inc., a publicly traded real estate investment trust. The transaction, set to close on Oct. 16, involves 41,554 acres of farmland spread across states including Arkansas, Florida, Nebraska, Mississippi and the Carolinas, according to DTN. Wow. I am increasingly curious about the future of agriculture in the United States. Family farms seem to be difficult to keep going. Farming is becoming consolidated and industrialized. Quote At nearly $7,000 per acre, the sale will hand Farmland Partners a significant windfall. The company expects to pocket a total gain of about $50 million from the sale, or roughly 21% above the book value of the properties. ... Farmland Reserve, the Church’s real estate investment company, is already a powerhouse in US agriculture, with more than 1 million acres of farmland under its belt, including 370,000 acres in Nebraska alone. Though the company remains somewhat mysterious—it does not list how much land it owns or have a contact on its website—it is widely recognized in the agricultural community as a responsible landowner. “We are pleased to transition our long-standing tenant relationships to a high-quality institutional investor that values relationships as we do,” Fabbri said of Farmland Reserve. He praised the Church-owned company for its ethical management of tenant farmers, noting that its reputation as a “best-in-class” owner made it the right buyer for the portfolio. "{Farmland Reserve} is widely recognized in the agricultural community as a responsible landowner," is "a high-quality institutional investor," and "{has} a 'best-in-class' owner {of farms}." Good to hear. Quote Farmland Reserve, with its long-term investment philosophy, plans to lease the newly acquired farms to local farmers for years to come, maintaining the agricultural productivity of the land, they said in the statement. I hope this is a mutually advantageous arrangement between the Farmland Reserve and the farmers actually working the land. Quote {Farmland Reserve}, which owns 145,000 acres and manages another 45,000 acres across 15 states, has acquired more than 300 farms since its IPO in 2014. The reference here to Farmland Reserve's "IPO in 2014" appears to be an error, since it is owned by the Church, whereas Farmland Partners (the seller) did have an IPO in 2014. Quote Roughly 90% of its acres grow row crops like corn and soybeans, with orchards in California adding to its diverse portfolio. The company also manages over 100 tenant farmers who help maintain its vast holdings across the country. For Farmland Partners, the sale to the Church’s real estate arm is just another step in a long-term strategy to unlock the hidden value in its portfolio. For Farmland Reserve, it’s a chance to further cement its position as a dominant force in American agriculture. As the dust settles on this landmark deal, one thing is clear: the Mormon Church’s land holdings—and its influence in the farming sector—are growing at a rapid pace. According to The Flatwater Free Press, earlier this year the Mormon Church faced backlash after purchasing around 370,000 acres of prime ranch land in Nebraska, now owning at least $2 billion worth of agricultural terrain across the nation. I can appreciate and respect the "backlash." This sort of thing is going to happen. Quote The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has become the largest land buyer in Nebraska over the past five years, holding $134 million in land there and potentially overtaking Ted Turner, founder of CNN, as the state’s top landowner. The Utah-based church is already Florida’s largest private landowner, with agricultural holdings in the Sunshine State alone valued at $884 million. Amid growing scrutiny of its finances, including a federal investigation and lawsuits from its own members, a recent analysis reveals the church’s vast real estate empire spans around 859,000 acres across the US, outpacing land holdings by Bill Gates and China combined. However, some estimates suggest the church’s actual agricultural assets could be as high as $12 billion. I think I prefer the Church to own American farmland over both Gates and China. Agriculture Drive: Mormon Church pays $289M for dozens of US farms Quote Dive Brief: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ real estate arm is paying $289 million to acquire tens of thousands of acres of farmland across eight states. Farmland Reserve, a nonprofit arm of the Mormon Church, is buying 46 farms from real estate investor Farmland Partners. The farms encompass 41,500 acres of land and include sites in Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma and the Carolinas. Doug Rose, CEO of Farmland Reserve, said the company plans to lease “these productive farms to local farmers.” Dive Insight: The Mormon Church has for decades gobbled up farmland across the United States, quickly becoming a major landowner in areas like Florida and Nebraska. The LDS Church owns approximately 1.7 million acres of land primarily used for agriculture, according to Landgate, a commercial real estate advisory service, making it one of the largest institutional landholders in the U.S. 1.7 million acres of mostly-agricultural land. This is a great place for the Church to invest its money. Quote It’s estimated the church owns $16 billion worth of property across the country, with around $2 billion for agriculture land, according to Landgate. $2 billion (this article) to $12 billion (the previous article). I wonder which one is more accurate. Quote A definitive accounting of the church’s farmland holdings is difficult to determine, however. Religious organizations are not obligated to publicly report income or assets, which include real estate. The Mormon Church recently embarked on a farm buying spree across Nebraska in 2018, and over the next five years, the church became the state’s top single buyer of land, according to Successful Farming. The church’s pace of purchases puts it on track to become the state’s largest landowner, surpassing CNN founder and philanthropist Ted Turner. Farmland Reserve leases land to local farmers, primarily in the United States, according to its website. The nonprofit also leases land for solar and wind renewable energy. I wonder if the solar/wind uses are viable in the long term. Quote In addition to its vast landholdings, LDS also runs a number of farms through the for-profit subsidiary AgReserves. The AgReserves network includes row crops farms, ranches, and tree crops orchards in North America, South America, Europe, and Australia. AgReserves’ mission is to “invest in and operate agricultural assets to generate long-term value for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” according to its website. Farming is also central to the Mormon Church’s robust private welfare system, which relies on a network of farms, ranches, dairies and food processing facilities to produce goods that can be redistributed to members in need. Many of these welfare farms are run by volunteers, though some church members serve on these operations as missionaries. The welfare system produces hundreds of millions of pounds of food a year. Cool stuff! Thanks, -Smac 2 Link to comment
LoudmouthMormon Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 Another 42k acres of productive farmland owned by the church? Cool beans. Literally. With current hurricane news, I'm reminded that we are the largest private landowner in Florida, owning ~673k acres, or roughly 2% of the state. I'm guessing 2 back-to-back hurricanes impacting FL is because there was a problem in the Florida prayer server in heaven, and when resolved, 2 decades of LDS prayers for moisture were received all at once. 40 minutes ago, smac97 said: Quote The nonprofit also leases land for solar and wind renewable energy. I wonder if the solar/wind uses are viable in the long term. Here in Colorado, you can see massive wind turbines pretty much any time you drive east and out of the cities on the front range. My wife is taking a trip to Texas, and was amazed at how many turbines she saw. A few years ago I was at my county fair, talking to some locals about it. If you have the right kind of wind on your farm , you might as well get paid quarterly to have someone build a turbine on it. The local farmers were divided between the lucky ones with windy farms, and the mad ones without enough wind. The split between favorable and unfavorable opinions on the whole deal seemed to align closely. 2 Link to comment
Tacenda Posted October 10 Share Posted October 10 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Calm said: I agree, corporations need to do more donating not making it so the small town families can't afford to farm. Edited October 10 by Tacenda Link to comment
The Nehor Posted October 11 Share Posted October 11 4 hours ago, Tacenda said: I agree, corporations need to do more donating not making it so the small town families can't afford to farm. Economies of scale are making small scale farming nonviable. Most of the relief and government subsidies to help small farms get hoovered up by the big corporations who split their big farms into a bunch of “family” plots owned by various employees who may or may not be aware they are supposedly running their own farm. 4 Link to comment
Tacenda Posted October 11 Share Posted October 11 35 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Economies of scale are making small scale farming nonviable. Most of the relief and government subsidies to help small farms get hoovered up by the big corporations who split their big farms into a bunch of “family” plots owned by various employees who may or may not be aware they are supposedly running their own farm. This came up when I asked should corporations stop buying up all the farmland. AI generated: Yes, corporations should stop buying farmland because it can have negative impacts on rural communities, the environment, and food production: Economic inequality Corporate ownership of farmland can lead to concentrated land ownership, which can contribute to inequality in rural communities. Environmental damage Corporate ownership can lead to the deterioration of the environment, including the soil and water needed for food production. Job loss Corporate ownership can lead to job loss in rural communities. Food safety Corporate ownership can lead to food safety concerns and less transparency in the marketplace. Family farmers Corporate ownership can lead to lower prices paid to family farmers, which can drive them out of business. Some legislation has been proposed to restrict corporate ownership of farmland, such as the Farmland for Farmers Act. This bill would: Prevent corporations, pension funds, and investment funds from purchasing or leasing agricultural land Strengthen state-level restrictions on corporate farmland ownership Authorize civil and criminal penalties for violations of the law Booker Introduces Legislation to Protect Farmland from Corporate ... Jul 27, 2023 — “Concentrated land ownership is one of the root causes of inequality in rural communities and beyond, and growing fina... Senator Cory Booker Stopping Corporate Ownership of U.S. Farmland Should Be a Priority for Government | Opinion - Newsweek Apr 27, 2023 Newsweek Corporate Control of Agriculture – Farm Aid Farm Aid Show all Generative AI is experimental. Link to comment
let’s roll Posted October 11 Share Posted October 11 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: This came up when I asked should corporations stop buying up all the farmland. AI generated: Yes, corporations should stop buying farmland because it can have negative impacts on rural communities, the environment, and food production: Economic inequality Corporate ownership of farmland can lead to concentrated land ownership, which can contribute to inequality in rural communities. Environmental damage Corporate ownership can lead to the deterioration of the environment, including the soil and water needed for food production. Job loss Corporate ownership can lead to job loss in rural communities. Food safety Corporate ownership can lead to food safety concerns and less transparency in the marketplace. Family farmers Corporate ownership can lead to lower prices paid to family farmers, which can drive them out of business. Some legislation has been proposed to restrict corporate ownership of farmland, such as the Farmland for Farmers Act. This bill would: Prevent corporations, pension funds, and investment funds from purchasing or leasing agricultural land Strengthen state-level restrictions on corporate farmland ownership Authorize civil and criminal penalties for violations of the law Booker Introduces Legislation to Protect Farmland from Corporate ... Jul 27, 2023 — “Concentrated land ownership is one of the root causes of inequality in rural communities and beyond, and growing fina... Senator Cory Booker Stopping Corporate Ownership of U.S. Farmland Should Be a Priority for Government | Opinion - Newsweek Apr 27, 2023 Newsweek Corporate Control of Agriculture – Farm Aid Farm Aid Show allm Generative AI is experimental. This AI reminds me of the one page, front and back, small print description of potential side effects in just about every pharmaceutical…it’s a wonder people will take something to clear up a skin rash when the disclosures/disclaimers described side effects “that may lead to death.” TIC 1 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted October 11 Share Posted October 11 Isaiah 5:8 “Woe to those who attach house to house and join field to field, Until there is no more room, And you alone are a landowner in the midst of the land!” Not aiming this specifically at the church. Just capitalism in general. 1 Link to comment
LoudmouthMormon Posted October 11 Share Posted October 11 (edited) If you'd like a musical version of @Tacenda's and @The Nehor's last four comments on this thread, here you go: TikTok is cool. Edited October 11 by LoudmouthMormon Link to comment
Tacenda Posted October 11 Share Posted October 11 (edited) 7 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said: If you'd like a musical version of @Tacenda's and @The Nehor's last four comments on this thread, here you go: TikTok is cool. Exception here, the more large corps make the less they pay with tax loops. But she's very talented! Edited October 11 by Tacenda Link to comment
the narrator Posted October 11 Share Posted October 11 10 hours ago, The Nehor said: Isaiah 5:8 “Woe to those who attach house to house and join field to field, Until there is no more room, And you alone are a landowner in the midst of the land!” Not aiming this specifically at the church. Just capitalism in general. For the same reason, the "lord of the vineyard" is the villain in Jesus's parables--not a representative of God. A wealthy landowner who seeks to simply increase his wealth by requiring poor farmers to pay rent to use his land (or are paid with unlivable wages) while he does nothing himself is an object of derision, not adoration. Link to comment
Dario_M Posted October 11 Share Posted October 11 (edited) I don't really see any problem of it. Good for our LDS community that they buy some land. 🤝 Edited October 11 by Dario_M 1 Link to comment
nuclearfuels Posted October 11 Share Posted October 11 21 hours ago, smac97 said: Cool stuff! 1. Perhaps - in order to facilitate God's children to multiply and replenish the earth, the Church leaders are planning on reducing pesticides and other components that reduce health and fertility? 2. As we approach the Second Coming, economies will become more and more unstable so food storage and distribution at an institutional level are warranted. 1 Link to comment
Tacenda Posted October 11 Share Posted October 11 11 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said: 1. Perhaps - in order to facilitate God's children to multiply and replenish the earth, the Church leaders are planning on reducing pesticides and other components that reduce health and fertility? 2. As we approach the Second Coming, economies will become more and more unstable so food storage and distribution at an institutional level are warranted. I keep thinking they are going to develop the land into properties or communities, like they have elsewhere where they rent the homes/townhomes. 1 Link to comment
Calm Posted October 11 Share Posted October 11 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I keep thinking they are going to develop the land into properties or communities, like they have elsewhere where they rent the homes/townhomes. There are certainly places they have done this with purchased undeveloped land, but they also have kept much of the ranches and farmland they bought as ranches and farmland, which is why the Church owns Deseret Ranch. Found this history of Deseret Ranch on its website, it is interesting how some of the land was then unusable or in need of some TLC due to a timber company’s shortsighted business practices. It is even kind of a family ranch. https://www.deseretranches.com/Home/LegacyHistory Quote Several families with ranching experience in the western United States were invited to come to work, selling their own ranches back home to join the effort in Central Florida. Many of those early families stayed, put down roots, and became proud Floridians whose third-generation descendants still work at Deseret today Edited October 11 by Calm 3 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted October 11 Share Posted October 11 3 hours ago, the narrator said: For the same reason, the "lord of the vineyard" is the villain in Jesus's parables--not a representative of God. A wealthy landowner who seeks to simply increase his wealth by requiring poor farmers to pay rent to use his land (or are paid with unlivable wages) while he does nothing himself is an object of derision, not adoration. I like this. Ever since I learned about how subsistence farming and the estates that fed off their excess labor worked this parable has irked me as a representation of one’s eternal reward. 1 Link to comment
the narrator Posted October 11 Share Posted October 11 32 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I like this. Ever since I learned about how subsistence farming and the estates that fed off their excess labor worked this parable has irked me as a representation of one’s eternal reward. The fig tree, temple cleansing, parable of the tenants, Caesar's coin, great commandment, widow's mite, and prophecy of the temple's destruction in Matt 11:13-13:30 come together and make much more sense when they are all part of one literary narrative of Jesus condemning the temple priests for enriching themselves off the backs of poor and turning the temple into a den of robbers. The lord of the vineyard in Matt 12:1-12 isn't Jesus but instead those priests; the priests "feared the people: for they knew that he had spoken the parable against them" because they got the message--they were the lord of the vineyard, and the renters they had been profiting from weren't happy about it. Likewise, the point of the widow's mite wasn't to praise her faith but rather to point out that the temple and priests' corruption was resulting in a poor women ending up with nothing when she was supposed to be the recipient of temple tithes. 1 Link to comment
Calm Posted October 11 Share Posted October 11 17 minutes ago, the narrator said: the point of the widow's mite wasn't to praise her faith but rather to point out that the temple and priests' corruption was resulting in a poor women ending up with nothing when she was supposed to be the recipient of temple tithes. Why not both? Link to comment
LoudmouthMormon Posted October 11 Share Posted October 11 The OT has a bunch of stuff about usury, what does the NT have to say about it? Link to comment
The Nehor Posted October 11 Share Posted October 11 34 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said: The OT has a bunch of stuff about usury, what does the NT have to say about it? Nothing. The early Christians were opposed to it though. Link to comment
the narrator Posted October 12 Share Posted October 12 (edited) 18 hours ago, Calm said: Why not both? Because he didn't want to give the impression that the poor should go completely destitute by giving everything they have to a rich religious institution when that institution was supposed to be giving to them instead. Edited October 12 by the narrator Link to comment
Stargazer Posted October 12 Share Posted October 12 On 10/11/2024 at 6:37 AM, The Nehor said: Isaiah 5:8 “Woe to those who attach house to house and join field to field, Until there is no more room, And you alone are a landowner in the midst of the land!” Not aiming this specifically at the church. Just capitalism in general. Really? How about socialism in general? It wasn't capitalism in general that led Stalin to consolidate small farms into big ones (and coincidentally murdering the previous landowners). And in the process of subduing all the people who didn't like the idea, deliberately starved millions of people. Perhaps you've heard of it: the Ukrainian Famine. 1 Link to comment
Tacenda Posted October 12 Share Posted October 12 I'm not too savvy about what the church does with the land. But after reading the following article, it looks like they lease it back to the farmer. Does that mean the farmer sold it to the church but can farm it and pay on a lease? Which bothers me. for good reason IMO. Could it be that the farmer couldn't keep up with the mortgage? If so, the church should just help them out. But you know me.... https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/the-mormon-church-a-massive-landholder-just-expanded-its-2b-us-farmland-portfolio-across-8-states/#:~:text=Farmland Reserve%2C with its long,they said in the statement. Link to comment
Calm Posted October 12 Share Posted October 12 55 minutes ago, Tacenda said: ? If so, the church should just help them out. And if it was bad management on the farmer’s part that led to the mortgage issue? And they would continue to bad manage in the future (say insist on raising a crop that wasn’t profitable)? Or maybe they don’t want to pay the additional fees for taxes and property maintenance? Maybe they want to have the option of walking away soon, have no one to inherit the land and the price offered was generous. Link to comment
Tacenda Posted October 12 Share Posted October 12 22 minutes ago, Calm said: And if it was bad management on the farmer’s part that led to the mortgage issue? And they would continue to bad manage in the future (say insist on raising a crop that wasn’t profitable)? Or maybe they don’t want to pay the additional fees for taxes and property maintenance? Maybe they want to have the option of walking away soon, have no one to inherit the land and the price offered was generous. You make a good point, I shouldn't make it all or nothing. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now