Wasn't April wonderful? Some rain, even more sun, lots of days in the 70s. And so much in bloom and that special shimmery shade of green.

And boy, where did it go? May's on the doorstep.

Speaking of May ...

• We're proud to announce our next Little Coyote Speaker Series.

On Thursday, May 29, we invite you to "A Conversation with Randall Tomlinson."

Many of you know and love Randall, who's been part of our farm + food landscape for many years. A regenerative-ag expert, Randall’s farmed multiple herds of cattle at Sequatchie Cove Farm, where he also served as dairy manager.

He's also jaw-droppingly thoughtful, saying things we've never heard from other farmers. Wise, gut-punchy things.

If you missed it, here's our feature on Randall.

The event format is the same: the Little Coyote porch opens at 4.30, with our conversation starting at 5pm, followed by Q+A, drinks and a dinner menu.

Here's what is changing:

This Sunday, we'll announce a new addition to Food as a Verb.

Everything's staying the same: Wednesday and Sunday stories, beautifully done, sent to you freely.

This new addition? That's where you'll get tickets for the Speaker Series.

And so, so much more.

So, for now: save the date for May 29.

And this Sunday, join us as we launch our new Food as a Verb venture. You can get your Randall Tomlinson tickets then and ... so much more.

We're really excited, ya'll. Gonna be a blast.

See you Sunday.

• As we reported last week, The Farmland Preservation Fund passed the TN Legislature in an overwhelmingly positive vote.

Only one local representative voted against it: newly-elected Rep. Michele Reneau.

I asked why.

Her answer - or, her staffer's answer - is below.

(A response by Jess Wilson - board chair of the SE Tennessee Young Farmers Coalition - follows.)

Before that, Reneau had some freshman success last week. Her HB 130 bill - nicknamed the "Chicken Pot Pie" bill - passed unanimously and allows for more sale of homemade goods in Tennessee.

"By passing this bill," Reneau said at a committee meeting, according to the Times Free Press, "we'll give consumers more opportunities to purchase local food, and we'll give more small businesses the opportunity to thrive or start in their home kitchen to test the idea."

Before running for office, Reneau managed The Weekly Fig, an online store connecting producers and buyers. Her "chicken pot pie" bill - her nickname, as it gives folks a chance to sell homemade pot pies, for example - allows an expansion of what homemade goods can be sold, according to the TFP.

(This doesn't include unpasteurized milk or meat products.)

It also united some across-the-aisle folks. Rep. Justin Jones, a Nashville Democrat, praised Reneau's bill, believing it will help many Tennessee farmers.

"I think there's bipartisan agreement that this is a really important piece of legislation," Jones said, according to the TFP, "so I thank you for bringing it."

Finally, here's what Amanda Wilson, legislative assistant to Reneau, had to say about her boss's no-vote for the Farmland Protection Fund.

(It's followed by a response from Jess Wilson.)

Here's Amanda:

After hearing testimony and researching this issue, Rep. Reneau has a few reasons for why she could not support HB1325 as written. 

Please know that she absolutely supports efforts to conserve Tennessee’s farmland and natural resources—especially as development accelerates. We should all want to protect what makes our state special, and she believes land conservation can and should be part of that.

However, HB1325 as written raises serious concerns for Rep. Reneau. It sets up a state-funded program to purchase perpetual conservation easements on private land—without clear rules or safeguards.

Once the conservation purpose is defined, it becomes the dominant right to the land, overriding the landowner’s ability to adapt, improve, or even maintain the property long-term.

She found no clear criteria in the bill to guide who qualifies, how projects are selected, or how to ensure this funding benefits working farmers—not just wealthy landowners seeking a tax break. She wants to make sure public dollars remain publicly accountable.

While supporters often cite that 31 states have created similar programs, Rep. Reneau noticed they rarely mention that some of those same states are now walking them back, after seeing the unintended consequences—like inflexibility, loss of agricultural productivity, and permanent restrictions that can hurt the very land they were meant to protect. ...

Rep. Reneau believes there are better alternatives, like restrictive deeds or term-limited agreements, which can preserve land while allowing farmers to maintain control and flexibility as conditions change.

 Once a perpetual easement is placed—especially when tied to a tax break—it cannot be undone, even if the landowner's situation or the land itself changes.

Rep. Reneau believes in conservation, but she also believes in getting it right. That’s why she voted NO on HB1325 in its current form.

Here's Jess Wilson's response.

Representative Reneau is correct that the program that she voted on did not have clear rules and that this left the rule-making power up to The Department of Agriculture.

While this was part of the design of this bill, it was a common concern for lawmakers, especially Democrats who did not want to trust the Department of Ag. under Governor [Bill] Lee.

We totally understand this dynamic but also do trust the Department of Ag. with this for a few reasons.

One is that we have seen the sincere concern that both Governor Lee and Commissioner [Charlie] Hatcher have regarding not just farmland loss but the crisis of land access for young farmers. 

Also we know that currently the administration is working with groups that have really good information about how these programs work in other states, and given the interest in fiscal conservatism from this administration, we feel like they will choose to prioritize the best use of taxpayer money.

Also we intend to raise a stink if they don't choose well. The rest of the process is also not a free-for-all.

Based on TN law, the rules that the Department of Ag. writes will require approval by the Joint Government Operations Committee before implementation.

Additionally new funds will need to be appropriated each year to fund this program so it will require additional oversight in that way.

One issue that Rep. Reneau mentioned that we feel strongly about is that there is an income cap.

The problem with our current system is that conservation easements require that a landowner donates a conservation easement to a land trust (the value of the easement represents not only the legal costs around building this contract, but the difference in value between the property as it might be sold for development, and the property with a restriction keeping it from development) and that donation can be used as a federal tax credit for the landowner.

That only works if the landowner has a high enough income to absorb that credit.

Most farmers are not paying enough in taxes to absorb a large tax credit.

We will be pushing hard to make sure that the program is prioritized in a way that it benefits only farmers who cannot also absorb a tax credit.  

The question around the value points to the problem with Rep. Reneau's other solution - restrictive deeds.

Restricting a deed to make the property agricultural use only (which is exactly what a conservation easement does) means that the landowner is voluntarily decreasing the value of their property (just as they would with a conservation easement) however, they cannot recoup that lost value through a donation and a tax break, or through a program such as the Farmland Preservation Fund Grant program.

They are just giving up value.

While that's a lovely idea, no person just trying to get by is going to restrict their deed and give up that kind of value.

Putting that expectation on farmers seems unfair.

Farmland is currently unaffordable to young farmers and part of that is because they are competing against an inflated market for development.

Conservation easements and state funds that help pay farmers to enter into conservation easements offer a system for lowering the price for farmland by taking the development option off the table.

This system allows farmers to capitalize on the development pressure that otherwise threatens them.

The value of development is not just thrown away; it is paid to the farmer who is entering into the easement, and it is passed onto farmers who purchase the property at an agricultural value in the future.

While I'm sure some people regret decisions that they made when they were younger or that their ancestors made before them, this is generally a long legal process that requires a lot of discernment by the family - no one enters into this lightly.

Additionally, it is something that states should continue to tweak as they learn from successes and failures - that's how governments should work.

While there is no perfect solution to this problem, this particular program is a fairly simple step that fits well within the conservative ideals of our state. 

Story ideas, questions, feedback? Interested in partnering with us? Email: david@foodasaverb.com

This story is 100% human generated; no AI chatbot was used in the creation of this content.