|
|
|
|
Greyhound Bus
Lines Abandons Rural Communities
Left with no alternative transportation,
the loss of Greyhound bus service will create real hardship for many in
rural communities.
Greyhound Lines, Inc., a transportation fixture in rural
communities for decades, announced recently that it will end service to
260 stops – mostly smaller cities and rural communities – in its
northern region. Service will be lost to cities and towns in Minnesota,
Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Washington, Oregon, Idaho,
Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado.
This loss of service serves as yet another example of rural communities
being abandoned. Greyhound represented a cost-effective option for both
personal travel and the transport of goods and freight in rural
communities.
Many rural seniors and low-income residents used Greyhound for trips to
larger cities for necessities such as medical care, and trips to nearby
communities for work. Now, for example, a rural resident living near North
Platte, Nebraska, will have to travel to the closest Greyhound stop in
Lincoln, 250 miles away, to get anywhere on Greyhound. |
|
Nebraska Grazing Conference
The fourth annual Nebraska Grazing Conference will be held at the Kearney
Holiday Inn August 10-11. The conference, a collaborative effort with many
co-sponsors, has consistently drawn 200+ participants from several states.
Speakers and panels will cover a variety of topics: catching carbon and
carbon trading, weather and climate, livestock ID systems, grazing
management, grass growth, weed control with goats, and farmer/rancher
experiences.
Preregistration is required. Contact the UNL Center for Grassland Studies
for information, 402.472.9383 or www.grassland.unl.edu
Center Annual Report
You can read the Center for Rural Affairs’ latest Annual
Report on our website. Or if you prefer, a printed copy is available
at no charge. Just call Rita, the friendly person who usually answers the
phone, at 402.687.2100 or email ritam@cfra.org
to request your copy.
Center Annual Gathering
The Center for Rural Affairs' Annual Gathering will be held February 26, 2005.
Reserve the date and stay tuned for more details as planning for this fun,
inspirational day continues. |
Closest Greyhound stops will now be hundreds of miles away from rural
people in the states affected, further isolating them from what they need in
larger cities. Many of the rural communities and businesses affected do not
have other forms of public transportation – no air travel, no rail service,
and now no bus service.
And many of the rural people affected have no transportation alternatives –
no private vehicles, no local public transportation. One of the crucial issues
facing rural communities is access – and Greyhound has now compounded the
issue of access to transportation for rural people.
Greyhound was born in small-town Minnesota, founded in Hibbing, Minnesota in
1914. In their literature and on their website, they advertise this fact and
appear proud of it. Yet, in a bottom-line decision, Greyhound has abandoned
its roots.
Wilmer, Minnesota, mayor Lester Heitke told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune in
reaction to the Greyhound announcement, “I’m afraid that the concerns of
rural Minnesota are forgotten.” And the concerns of rural Nebraska, rural
Iowa, rural North Dakota, rural Wisconsin ….
Contact: Jon Bailey, jonb@cfra.org
for more information.
Good Development
Creates Genuine Opportunity, Active Citizens
This kind of development builds assets,
respects future generations, and inspires people to become involved in
community life.
Not all economic and agricultural development is good development.
To truly develop rural communities and make them better places where our
children and grandchildren will want to raise their families, we need to make
good choices about what kind of development to nurture. If it creates jobs
that pay poorly, damages the environment, and bleeds profit out of the
community to absentee owners, the costs imposed on the community may outweigh
the benefits.
Good development builds assets and skills. It may provide quality jobs with
good benefits and incomes to enable people to buy homes, educate their kids,
put down roots, and become contributing members of the community.
Empowering local people to establish owner-operated businesses, farms, and
ranches is one of the best forms of development. It keeps profits in the
community and provides opportunities for people to build assets and earn
middle class incomes as business and farm owners. When real wages are falling
in many industries, creating ways working people can become business owners
increases equality and opportunity.
As important, nurturing locally-owned businesses puts the economic future of
the community in the hands of its own members – people committed to its
future. That is especially important as large employers – both corporate
farms and manufacturers – increasingly move offshore for lower-wage labor.
Good development respects future generations and thus protects land and water.
That is critical to the quality of life and the local economy. Only if we
protect our resources will they be there to sustain farms, ranches, tourism,
and other resource-based businesses in the future. Only if we protect the land
and water will the rural environment draw young families to live and raise
families in our communities.
The most important element of good development is human development. Some
communities succeed at economic development where others fail. They succeed
because people, many people, take initiative and responsibility.
These communities identify people’s gifts and talents, develop them more
fully, and put them to use. They embrace diversity in leadership. The more
perspectives and ideas brought to the table, the greater the range of options
to pursue and the capacity to effectively evaluate them.
Good development engages people and enables them to build assets, gain control
over their lives, and become contributing members of communities. It gives
people a stake in the future of their community and empowers them to take
responsibility for its future. It creates genuine opportunity as it creates
good citizens.
Agree or disagree? Send your opinions,
questions, or comments to Chuck Hassebrook, chuckh@cfra.org
New Homestead Act
Is Gaining Support
The New Homestead Act – designed to revitalize struggling rural communities
– is making progress in Congress.
Initially introduced in the U.S. Senate by Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Chuck Hagel
(R-NE), the Act has gained 15 cosponsors, including Sam Brownback (R-KS), Tim
Johnson (D-SD), Tom Daschle (D-SD), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Norm Coleman (R-MN),
Mark Dayton (D-MN), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Zell Miller (D-GA), Conrad Burns
(R-MT), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and John Rockefeller (D-WV).
A companion bill to the Senate New Homestead Act (S. 602) has been introduced
in the U.S. House by Representatives Tom Osborne (R-NE) and Earl Pomeroy
(D-ND). The bill (H.R. 2194) includes the same language as the earlier Senate
bill.
More cosponsors are needed, so ask your Senator and Representative to join the
list if he/she is not already on.
A key portion of the Act has also been included in the tax bill that recently
passed the U.S. Senate. It provides investment credits for buildings and a 30
percent tax credit for investments in starting or growing owner-operated small
businesses.
We are working to get this provision adopted by the conference committee that
meets in September to work out differences between the House and Senate bills
and to produce the final legislation.
The New Homestead Act provides a variety of incentives to live and do business
in counties that have lost at least 10 percent of their population over the
last 20 years. Lead sponsor Senator Byron Dorgan made the case well when he
said: “America’s Heartland is being relentlessly depopulated. Several
decades ago, when America’s cities were in trouble, the Congress enacted
urban renewal and model cities programs to help them. Now, it’s time to help
America’s Heartland.”
Contact: Chuck Hassebrook, chuckh@cfra.org
for more information.
Agricultural Appropriations
Update
The House bill cuts value-added and
conservation programs, turns down help for farmers’ markets. Senate action
is delayed and may not take place until next year.
The House of Representatives approved the FY 2005 Agriculture
Appropriations bill on July 13, 2004. We continue to see an assault on
programs passed under the 2002 Farm Bill with mandatory funding status
(meaning they should not be subject to the annual appropriations process).
Two programs we have been advocating for because they stand to make a real
difference for small and mid-size family farms, the Value Added Producer
Grants Program (VAPG) and the Conservation Security Program (CSP), both
sustained cuts under this appropriations bill. The VAPG was cut from $40
million in mandatory funds to $15.5 million. The CSP was capped at $194
million.
The Farmers’ Market Promotion Program (FMPP), a 2002 Farm Bill initiative
designed to bring assistance to thousands of family farmers and ranchers who
market quality, locally-grown fresh food directly to consumers, has yet to be
funded through the appropriations process.
The FMPP would provide grants to agricultural cooperatives, local governments,
non-profits, economic development corporations, and other eligible entities
working to establish, expand, and promote local farmers’ markets, community
supported agriculture (CSA) farms, farmstands, and all other forms of direct
marketing.
Senator Marcy Kaptur provided an amendment on the floor during debate of the
appropriations bill that would have provided $6 million for the implementation
of the FMPP. This amendment failed by only seven votes.
Now we await the Senate’s version of the 2005 agriculture appropriations
bill. It may be a long wait. Barring a miracle, it is unlikely the Senate will
act prior to the election or even the next calendar year.
Contact: Traci Bruckner, tracib@cfra.org
to find out how your Representative voted on the Kaptur amendment, contact. To
find a farmer’s market near you, go to www.ams.usda.gov/farmersmarkets
A Discussion of the Differences
between Rural and Urban Lifestyles
Over the past half century, differences between
rural and urban have blurred, and some of the peace of rural living has dimmed.
Even as recently as 50 years ago, the distinction between rural and
urban was extremely pronounced. Those in rural areas were mostly identified with
production, while those in urban areas were viewed as consumers. That pattern
has changed, and rural areas have been left with a confused identity.
It’s dangerous to generalize, but here goes. Fifty years ago, rural folk
tended to shop at the general store and consume what the land would produce.
Eating patterns were seasonal, and needs were much simpler.
Urban residents bought their clothing from retail stores and often consumed
their meals from cafes and restaurants that dotted cities. When and why did the
patterns and trends separating rural from urban become fuzzy?
Technology and transportation have had the largest impact on our culture and
have literally brought the urban to the rural. Many consider this progress.
Rural residents can now travel to work if needed and earn income to help support
their family’s changing requirements.
Television gave rural residents a better glimpse of what urban folks identified
as fads and trends. Those in cities were the trendsetters, while rural residents
often struggled to catch up. Our eating patterns now mirror our urban
counterparts, and a steady year-around supply of the same products once
available only seasonally has become the norm.
Rural people have been given many more opportunities in the last 50 years, and
the lifestyle they had wasn’t complete. They have become as much consumers as
their urban counterparts.
None of what I have mentioned is necessarily wrong or bad, but it has changed
the way we perceive rural. Consolidation of consumer goods at a cheaper and more
affordable price has forced most of us to take a closer look at why our
ancestors settled in to become rural residents in the first place.
Balancing our needs as rural consumers (which we are) with the production aspect
of our existence is a great challenge. Right now we are out of balance, and the
victim is the rural way of life we worked so hard to get away from in the last
50 years.
While it may sound easy, few of us are willing to give up some of the luxuries
we gained in trying to become more urbanized.
Ironic, isn’t it?
Contact: Michael L. Holton,
michaellh@cfra.org or 402.687.2100 x
1015 for more information.
Corporate Farming Notes
Local control at issue in a Kansas Supreme Court
ruling and in the Minnesota Governor’s Advisory Task Force recommendations.
In May the Kansas Supreme Court ruled against county-level
authority to regulate feedlots, stating counties cannot enforce regulations that
are stricter than state-based regulations.
This decision upholds the lower court decision from an October 2002 case where
the Kansas Livestock Association and individual feedlot operations disputed
Norton County regulations.
The opinion of the Court was based on a 1998 law that, in their view, grants the
state government sole power to regulate feedlots. In shifting power this way –
by increasing the state’s authority through decreasing the local
government’s power – the Kansas Supreme Court has taken away the ability of
local citizens to have a stake in the landscape and resources of their locality.
In June, Governor Tim Pawlenty released the Minnesota Animal Agriculture
Industry Report compiled by the Governor-appointed Advisory Task Force.
A major theme coming from the report relates to local control and the
“barrier” it creates for the livestock industry. The report suggests the
task force needs to continue to investigate and “develop recommendations on
ways to increase predictability and uniformity for livestock producers in siting
operations….” The recommendations will be completed this fall in preparation
for the 2005 Minnesota legislative season.
The report also states that until the Governor has had an opportunity to review
these specific recommendations, local governments should refrain from
implementing county and township-level moratoria or other restrictive actions
that limit livestock production.
One only has to look at the make-up of this Advisory Task Force – stacked with
industry representation – to assume what those recommendations will include:
elimination of local control. If the task force was to be considered legitimate,
it would have been wise to include members that truly represented the interests
of family farms and rural communities.
The Land Stewardship Project and other organizations have formed their own task
force looking to support the scale of farming that elevates family farms and
rural communities. Maintaining local control as a function of an active
democracy is a cornerstone to this approach.
Contact: Traci Bruckner, tracib@cfra.org
for more information.
|
|
Feature
article:
Health Care in Rural America: Part I
Health care in rural communities has many aspects – access to physicians, dentists, nurses, and mental health services; the financial circumstances of rural hospitals; federal rules concerning Medicare reimbursement rates and the impact on rural hospitals and healthcare professionals; and the consequences of all of these on the health of rural people.
While each aspect is important, this article will focus instead on issues related to health insurance coverage and health care costs of rural people.
Health Insurance in Rural America
Rural residents – particularly those who reside in rural counties non-adjacent to urban counties (referred to here as “remote rural counties”) – are more likely to be uninsured than non-rural residents. Residents of remote rural areas are also more likely to be uninsured for longer periods of time – their chances of being uninsured for an entire year are a third greater than residents of urban counties.
The table below shows 2002 data on the insurance coverage and source of coverage of rural and urban America.
| County Type |
Uninsured |
Public Insurance* |
Private Insurance** |
| Rural Non-Adjacent |
24% |
16% |
60% |
| Rural Adjacent |
18% |
10% |
71% |
| Urban |
18% |
11% |
72% |
* Public insurance includes Medicare, Medicaid, and state children’s insurance programs (S-CHIP).
** Includes employer-provided insurance
From these figures we can deduce the following:
- Remote rural residents are poorer and older – The reliance on public insurance programs demonstrate lower family income and a greater need in these communities, as well as an older population; nationally, over one-quarter of children in remote rural counties are covered by Medicaid.
- Remote rural residents are less likely to be offered health benefits through their employment – Only 59 percent of workers in rural non-adjacent counties are offered employer-sponsored health insurance, compared to 69 percent of urban workers, and less than half of workers in rural non-adjacent counties are covered by their employers (compared to nearly 60 percent of urban workers).
Two factors are primarily to blame for the lack of employer-sponsored insurance in rural areas – workers in remote rural counties are more likely to earn low wages and residents of remote rural counties are more likely to work in small businesses. While low-wage workers (below $7/hour) are about three times more likely to be uninsured as other hourly wage earners, working in a small business appears to be the highest predictor of being uninsured in a remote rural area – over two-thirds of uninsured workers in those counties work for a small business with less than 20 employees.
It’s clear that the rural economy contributes – in fact, may be a cause – of the high levels of uninsured in remote rural areas. It follows that an economy built on low-wage labor and small businesses will have high levels of uninsured. If a rural economy built on entrepreneurship and small businesses is a good to be pursued – as we have advocated –then resolving the issue of how to provide health insurance and health benefits to small business owners and their employees is essential.
Who Are the Rural Uninsured?
Based on the most recent data available, the uninsured in remote rural counties are not a peculiar sub-population of their communities:
- 68 percent come from families where there is at least one full-time worker
- 30 percent are children
- almost two-thirds come from low-income families (less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level – less than $37,700 for a family of four)
Families with two full-time workers, married couples, and the employed are also at greater risk of being uninsured if they live in a remote rural county; there is no difference in uninsured rates among the rural unemployed and the urban unemployed.
Heath Insurance on the Farm
Farm and ranch families are generally insured at higher rates than the rest of the rural population. A 2001 Iowa survey indicated that only 5 percent of the state’s non-elderly farm population was uninsured.
A 2002 survey of Wisconsin farmers found similar rates of uninsured. However, those generally favorable rates may vary according to the type of farm and the economic situation. A recent survey of Wisconsin dairy farmers found 18 percent had no health insurance coverage, and 22 percent had insurance that did not cover all family members.
Farm and ranch families are more dependent on privately purchased insurance coverage than other rural residents or the nation as a whole. Half of the Iowa farmers surveyed and 56 percent of the surveyed Wisconsin farmers are covered by privately purchased health insurance. Only 6 percent of the nation as a whole has self-purchased health insurance.
While these coverage rates appear hopeful, they are often misleading … welcome to the rural world “underinsurance.”
Underinsurance in Rural America
There is growing evidence that rural residents have health insurance coverage that pays less of their health care expenses and that rural individuals and families devote more of their income to health care costs. According to the National Rural Health Association, these two phenomena are commonly accepted definitions of “underinsurance.”
Examples of rural “underinsurance” include:
- Only one in four insured Wisconsin farm families had coverage for preventative
care.
- Ten percent of rural residents rely on the individual insurance market for their health insurance, and, as we see above, the total is greater for farm and ranch families. On average, individual market plans cover 63 percent of medical costs, compared to 75 percent covered by group insurance plans. Half of individual market plans cover just 30 percent of health care expenses. More reliance on individual plans by rural people results in
more uncovered medical and health care expenses.
- 35 percent of rural residents with health insurance lack dental coverage (compared to 29 percent of urban residents). As a result, rural residents are 50 percent more likely than urban residents to report never going to the dentist.
- The rural privately insured are over 50 percent more likely to have no drug
coverage.
- Total annual health care expenses per person for non-metropolitan residents are18 percent greater than annual health care costs for residents of metropolitan areas. When viewed as a percentage of household income spent on health care expenses, a two-person household in a non-metropolitan area would spend 20 percent of their income on health care expenses compared to 13 percent for a similar metropolitan household.
- Rural, privately covered residents have out-of-pocket costs about 10 percent higher than urban residents, suggesting the health benefits of rural residents are less comprehensive.
- A survey of Iowa farmers found that out-of-pocket medical expenses averaged 11 percent of their income each year. Lower income respondents had higher out-of-pocket expenses, with over 40 percent of the lowest income families spending more than 30 percent of their income on out-of-pocket medical costs.
The Result: Poorer Health
The Center on an Aging Society at Georgetown University in Washington DC summarizes the health status of the nation as this: “The rural population is consistently less well-off than the urban population with respect to health.” More rural people have arthritis, asthma, heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, and mental disorders than urban residents. The differences are not always large, but they are consistent – the proportions of rural residents with chronic conditions are
larger.
The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured found that despite an older population and higher rates of disability in rural areas – which should require higher health care needs – rural residents actually receive comparable or less care in many measures, suggesting rural residents may not be receiving adequate care. For example, rural residents receive fewer regular medical check-ups, blood pressure checks, cholesterol checks, pap tests, and mammograms than they medically and statistically should.
The result of less than adequate care is worsening health status and increasing chronic conditions – exactly what has been found. The reasons are likely many – fewer doctors in rural areas and limited access to health care; rural people more likely to engage in risky behaviors like cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption; more rural people being overweight and exercising less; and more rural people being underinsured and uninsured for longer periods of time.
Despite an array of health care differentials between urban and rural people, the ultimate health status of rural people has much to do with health insurance coverage and the type of health insurance coverage. For example, rural people with employer-provided health insurance obtained more health care services than those with privately-purchased health insurance. Insurance that provided better coverage at lower cost, therefore, resulted in more – and presumably more regular and better – health care services.
Next month we will discuss potential solutions to the health care access and health insurance coverage challenges faced by rural people.
Contact: Jon Bailey, jonb@cfra.org
for more information.
|
|
|
Small Farms and Rural Communities Focus of New Grant Program
Responding to advocates, USDA will invest $5 million for research to benefit small and medium-sized farms and rural
communities.
The call for proposals for a new $5 million/year area within the National Research Initiative (NRI) grant program, Enhancing the Prosperity of Small Farms and Rural Agricultural Communities, was released on June 22. Projects must address small farms, rural agricultural communities, or both. An agricultural-systems emphasis was also integrated as part of this program.
The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) is accepting project proposals until October 5. Details are available at:
http://www.csrees.usda.gov
(Choose the Funding Opportunities link and scroll through the pages until you
find Small Farms, Rural Communities, NRI.)
Proposals that emphasize:
- environmental management
- high returns in production, processing, and distribution
- adoption of new agricultural technology, management, or rural agribusiness development; or
- growing opportunities and threats for small and medium-sized farms and rural communities will be given more weight.
Project awards are limited to $500,000 for 2 to 4 years of support. No matching funds are required unless the project is commodity-specific and not of national scope. State experiment stations, colleges and universities, federal research agencies, non-profit and private research organizations with the capacity to perform research are eligible to receive grants.
The Center and many others worked long and hard for this new national program, which resulted from an amendment sponsored by Iowa’s Senator Tom Harkin to the 2004 agricultural appropriations bill.
The amendment effectively required CSREES to solicit research projects to improve farm profitability and small and moderate-sized farm viability and to enhance rural economic and community development.
These research goals originally came from the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS), which has gone unfunded in recent years. Merged into the larger NRI, the IFAFS was still supposed to receive 20 percent of NRI funds.
NRI Program Leaders are available for consultation about the suitability of proposal topics. Contact Siva Sureshwaran, 202.720.3310 or
ssureshwarant@csrees.esda.gov
or Diana Jerkins, 202.401.6996 or djerkins@csrees.usda.gov
Contact: Kim Leval, kimleval@qwest.net
for more information.
Fresh Promises for America’s Rural Places
Presenting strategies and practices that are helping to revitalize rural communities
Miner County Community Revitalization (MCCR) – small towns working to improve local economies, strengthen families, expand financial assets, create quality jobs, and build affordable housing options...
In trying to address the local economy, the Howard School District, located 50 miles northwest of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, began receiving funding from the Annenberg Rural Challenge for projects to connect rural schools with their communities.
Students studied area residents and their spending habits as well as their views of local business. Through making residents and businesses more aware of each other’s needs, gross sales in Howard increased 41.1 percent.
Further work led to community vision meetings in the fall of 1997, which brought together people from around the county to discuss concerns and issues. Students and adults worked together setting up the agenda and presentations, discussed Miner County’s weaknesses and strengths, and got to know each other.
Through these meetings, the Miner County Task Force evolved, with members from different parts of the county. Economic development and county beautification emerged as top priorities.
All this work was the foundation of a planning grant submitted to the Northwest Area Foundation,
http://www.nwaf.org, which resulted in a $500,000 grant. MCCR was born. Beginning with the 22 members of the Task Force, it has since grown to over 100 members. Membership is open to any resident in Miner County.
For more information about MCCR, visit http://www.mccr.net/
or call 605.772.5153. MCCR is directed by Randy Parry.
Contact: Kim Preston, kimp@cfra.org
or 402.687.2100 extension 1022.
Hoop Buildings the Focus of Conference
Iowa State University’s “Hoop Group” has put together an innovative conference on using hoop buildings for hogs and cattle, scheduled September 14 in Ames. This group of researchers will bring together local, national, and international experience in the latest research and practical information on expanded uses for hoop barns and reasons why these structures make economic sense for many farmers.
Hoops are attracting increasing attention for their low capital cost, competitive returns, and flexibility. Recent innovations have expanded hoop production beyond the initial focus on swine finishing. Alternatives include providing shelter to sows and piglets, dairy and beef cattle, and other livestock systems.
Conference topics include design of bedded systems, production costs, air quality management, animal health and welfare issues, pork quality, and marketing considerations. A panel from Australia, Canada, and the Ukraine will describe hoop structures from countries where they are mainstream practices.
The conference will be at the Gateway Center (Hwy 30 and Elwood) in Ames, Iowa on September 14. Preregistration (before Sept. 1) is $25 by calling 515.294.0557 or visiting the website:
http://www.abe.iastate.edu/ABLS/
An International Scientific Symposium is being held on September 15 in conjunction with the conference. The symposium will allow scientists and engineers working with a variety of innovative swine housing systems to share results and discuss research needs.
Researchers from Australia, Canada, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and across the United States will attend. For more information, contact Wayne Martin, Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture, 612.625.6224.
|
|
Business Successor Plan Not Just for Aged
“Three things ultimately happen to most company/farm/ranch owners: they live too long, they die too soon, or they become disabled,” said rancher and estate/investment planner John McGlynn Jr. recently. “Succession planning can deal with such personal and business difficulties.”
It’s not unusual for a company to have a policy that prohibits two or more of its top managers from traveling together. Many know that a loss of top management can adversely affect the financial strength of the company, as well as hinder future growth and profitability.
Each day you climb into your tractor, climb onto your horse, or take off in your car for another day’s work. You may be wearing all the top management hats for your farm, ranch, or small business: CEO, CFO, Director of Marketing, and so on. Ask yourself, “What would happen to my operation if it lost all of its top management today?”
A written Successor Plan is a method that spells out exactly what is to occur with your operation in the event of your death or disability. Your Plan may be simple or complex depending on your individual circumstances.
Successor Planning is NOT age related. It is NEEDS related, and all businesses need such planning if the business and the families are to survive.
A young married couple may need only a simple Plan. A Will for each, along with written instructions for the surviving spouse as to their agriculture interests, may be all that is needed for several years. A married middle-aged couple with adult children, some of whom are involved with the operation, others that are not, may require a more complex Plan.
Simple or complex, it is important that you include in the planning process all adults who will be affected. Their input is important; their wishes, wants, and needs may vary from yours. Listen to them, appreciate them, and respect them as you move along. Your Plan needs to be in writing and all people affected should have copies.
This is not a tax-driven process, but rather a process that includes your heart and your head. A well-designed, flexible Plan can satisfy both. The very worst thing you can do is NOTHING.
Start your Plan in your own home. Have your family discussions, then a rough draft of your Plan in hand before you visit your lawyer and your accountant. Instruct them to get you where you want to go with your operation under various scenarios: death, disability, and retirement. Planning is truly an act of love. Love for your family and your land.
Contact: John McGlynn Jr.,
who works from his Omaha office and can be reached at 402.891.2309.
|
