Listening is the key to compromise

No one enjoys a compromise.
But compromise is essential to resolving any dispute, and it’s a fundamental feature of democratic governance.
So while nobody involved in last week’s debate over confined animal feeding operations in Jay County came away happy, at least everyone came away with something.
Agricultural producers — those folks we used to call farmers back in the day — came away knowing that a proposed moratorium on CAFOs isn’t going to happen. The county commissioners had proposed it, but it was a long shot at best. A county moratorium on landfill expansion went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and was rejected on legal grounds.
The still-coalescing group of people concerned about the scope of CAFO development in the county came away with assurances there will be a comprehensive study of current CAFO regulations, restrictions and requirements in the county zoning ordinance.
Two or three things are clear after last week’s meeting of the planning commission:
•The ag community — particularly those with an involvement in what they refer to as 21st-century farming — have their act together. They ought to. This is their livelihood. So they were able to articulate their case successfully and credibly.
•Those in opposition to CAFO expansion, though heartfelt in their arguments, need to do a better job mustering their arguments and their facts. Emotions are unlikely to win the day.
•And it’s time for the focus to shift from projects on the immediate horizon — such as the J-Star Farms development, which has been handled with incredible clumsiness — to the ones yet to come.
If there is a consensus to be found, it might come together around a few basic principles:
•The existing county zoning ordinance is insufficient to meet the changing face of agriculture in the 21st century.
•The state of Indiana has dumped this challenge in the county’s lap. Ag producers routinely say Ohio has tougher regulations, leaving local government in Indiana to play a role that really should be left to the state.
•Reasonable people ought to be able to work together to find reasonable solutions, ones that don’t impede development but that also don’t degrade property values and don’t imperil the environment.
Going forward, we’d offer two bits of advice.
To the opponents of CAFO expansion, we’d suggest that they still have a long way to go when it comes to getting their act together. It’s time for leadership to step forward. That also means becoming involved in the study process for ordinance amendments, not from an obstructionist standpoint but from a practical approach.
To ag producers involved in CAFOs, we’d urge that they not get cute about the potential for tighter regulations in the future. By that we mean, don’t rush projects through under the current regulations in order to avoid stricter rules in the future. Doing so would be a breach of faith as far as last week’s compromise is concerned.
This is not going to be a simple discussion or process to work through, but just because it’s complicated doesn’t mean it’s impossible.
Civility was the watchword at Thursday’s meeting, and that’s great.
But the key is listening to one another, and that’s not always easy. —J.R.