Great Barrington — The state’s silence about its decision to award the purchase rights of 52 acres of prime agricultural land to an established dairy and meat farmer, instead of to a successful landscape designer and horticulturalist, has ignited a firestorm of accusations and innuendo about why the state acted as it did.
But two factors, apart from the varied speculation sweeping the town, may have influenced the state’s denial and its decision to exercise its right of first refusal on the land being sold by nonprofit Project Native: the nature of Helia Native Nursery’s original proposal, and the state’s requirements for the purchase of protected agricultural land.
It appears the state may have made its decision to award the purchase option to North Plain Farms owner Sean Stanton because the initial proposal by Helia Native Nursery owner Bridghe McCracken, rejected by the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR), did not conform to its guidelines for maximum commercial agricultural value for use of the land.
McCracken and Project Native Board Chair Erik Bruun say MDAR had tightened these regulations earlier this year without their knowledge, but MDAR Monday (June 13) told the Edge in an email that no new regulations had been added.
MDAR last month told Stanton he could purchase the former Project Native farmland on Route 41, land that the state controls through its Agricultural Preservation Restriction program (APR). Stanton had applied when the MDAR issued proposal requests for the land after rejecting a March proposal from McCracken. McCracken had been renting space on the land from Project Native, a native plant preservation organization and nursery that is selling the land due to financial problems. McCracken also owns Helia Land Design, a landscaping business, for which she planned to also grow plants on the land.
McCracken and Helia applied to the state as Sky Meadow Farm, LLC, created in January 2016.
Stanton, who told the Edge that 100 percent of his livelihood comes from his farming, is trying to expand his main, 15-year-old operation on 10 acres, based down the road and near the Project Native farmland. He leases 180 acres total in Great Barrington, and the $102,000 farmland would be his first land purchase. Stanton says he has for years searched for APR land. Helia’s McCracken wanted to set up a multi-faceted rare plant growing and selling business, continue the land as an active preserve for such plants. She also planned to have goats and chickens for the sale of meat and eggs, and a maple syrup operation. Project Native accepted McCracken’s proposal after receiving a total of 5.
With her offices already on the land, McCracken invested time and money on the basis of an unconfirmed conversation with an MDAR representative who, McCracken says, told Project Native Board Chair Erik Bruun she was a shoo-in for the purchase rights, only to reverse course and exercise its right of first refusal to deny her application. MDAR then put out a request for other applicants.
MDAR spokesperson Katie Gronendyke has repeatedly declined comment as to what, if anything, was said by that representative or as to the agency’s reasoning for its decision.
Project Native and McCracken had in April entered into a purchase and sale agreement, and were so certain Helia would be permitted to buy the land that the organization issued a congratulatory press release that noted the state still had to sign off on the deal. Two days later, McCracken’s proposal was denied.
But it was at this moment in the process that the playing field was leveled, after MDAR issued a public request for proposals (RFP) to purchase the land.
Three proposals went out: McCracken’s second, modified proposal; a proposal from Stanton, who in May received the purchase rights; and a third, rejected applicant, the identity of whom is unknown.
While Project Native’s Bruun and McCracken declined to provide the Edge with Helia’s original, early March proposal — one that included Helia’s proposal to Project Native –Bruun told the Edge Friday that “in retrospect,” that first proposal “should have been more strongly formed around agriculture. That’s fair to say.”
“Certainly the second proposal was much stronger than the first,” Bruun added. “The initial proposal was to continue what Project Native was doing, only better. It was not heavy on the horticultural/agricultural elements of it.”
And Bruun said this is all “speculation” on his part, however, since MDAR has, until recently, “refused” to communicate with the organization or McCracken.
But McCracken also said that as a result of a still-active lawsuit against MDAR in Hadley over APR land there, the MDAR in February added a new, second tier of criteria, which Bruun said had “a heightened sense of maximizing commercial agricultural value. They determined that we were not doing that and that Bridghe was not a farmer.”
In its email to the Edge, MDAR denied that the timing or content of any changes to its criteria had an impact on their decision.
But Bruun said Monday that MDAR wants to meet with Project Native next week in response to the organization’s appeal, a Freedom of Information request, and a request to meet.
A copy of APR purchase option criteria obtained by the Edge and approved by MDAR Commissioner John Lebeaux on May 18, 2015 shows no significant changes to the purchase option guidelines compared to the current regulations on MDAR’s website approved May 31, 2016.
MDAR confirmed this Monday, but also noted that what the agency changed in February 2016 was the definition of “farmer” to include corporations. It also clarified that the purchase option can only be assigned to a farmer, not someone leasing to a farmer. These changes, the agency added, were made before Project Native’s March request that the state waive its right to take control of the land and issue new proposal requests.
Bruun was unclear if these were the changes that he thought may have tripped up Project Native and Helia. McCracken told the Edge her attorney had worked painstakingly to make it “extremely clear that what Sky Meadow Farm, LLC and Helia were doing is farming.”
When asked what MDAR regulations she thought had changed in February, she said she thought it was MDAR’s “ability to choose who farms and what it means to have maximum agricultural value; that they become the arbiters of this.” She said the state’s refusal to outline its reasoning has “created a lot of guess work.”
And whatever the MDAR’s reasons for choosing North Plain Farm over Helia, Bruun and McCracken remain frustrated that the rationale remains shrouded.
People have stepped in to sort it out. There was one conversation between a state lawyer and Project Native’s attorney, and even some involvement by Sen. Benjamin Downing (D-Pittsfield), but none of it ever shed light on MDAR’s reasoning, Bruun said.
“There were no return phone calls, no explanations,” Bruun added. “Why they are taking a tighter look at APRs in general, I have no idea.”
The state’s silence has led to some savage accusations in a small town where all the parties have known each other a very long time.
One is that Stanton’s position on the Great Barrington Selectboard helped him gain favor with the state. Even Bruun says it’s nonsense.
“I do not believe that Sean pulled any political strings…or made any mischievous or back room deals,” Bruun said. “For that reason, we’re still trying to understand the state determination that the initial application wasn’t strong enough.”
Bruun further said Stanton has behaved “above board” from the get-go. “He let us know he was going to submit a proposal. We had a respectful and direct conversations about it, and there’s no feeling of animosity between Project Native and Sean, nor belief or evidence that Sean did anything that lacked integrity in the process.”
Stanton told the Edge he was committed to a smooth transition for both himself and Helia, and had reached out to McCracken about giving her more time to move beyond the August 12 closing date. He said he would give Helia “a longer timeline for selling their stock and moving plants important to the native nursery and Project Native. I’m not interested in doing irreparable damage to the work that they’ve done.”
“Sean’s been upfront with us about his interest, and we’ve been upfront with him about the variety of mechanisms we have to try to protect our rights and interests,” Bruun said. “He has a lovely family and we want them to be successful. But we have a history of 15 years of work on this land that we’re just not going to walk away from.”
But based on Helia’s initial application, which Bruun says looked a lot like a continuation of Project Native’s mission, the decision may have been an easy one for the state, even after McCracken tried to tailor her second proposal to fit the guidelines.
MDAR’s guidelines say an APR farmer must have “owned or operated a Farm previously…” So while McCracken’s resume is impressive and shows extensive experience on various farms, the state may have seen Stanton’s operation more in line with a commercial agriculture enterprise as a source of revenue over the years.
And there are more criteria that may not have helped Helia. If there is more than one applicant for land, the guidelines say, the following kicks in: “Ownership of other land subject to an APR; Demonstrated farming history; Ownership of agricultural land; and Proximity of other agricultural land leased or owned.”
The proximity issue may have sealed the deal, since Stanton hays 40 acres just across the street, has a large layer hen operation a quarter mile down the road, and has his main base of operations a few miles away.
And even more criteria come after that, including, “The potential assignee’s number of Farm acres currently under production.”
Berkshire Natural Resources Council Executive Director Tad Ames has lots of experience helping farmers with APR purchases. He said the spirit of the state’s authority to exercise its right to first refusal “was created so that a second homeowner couldn’t buy the land next door so they could have a bigger yard.”
But something has changed, he noted.
“My understanding is that the state earlier this year revised and tightened its criteria for judging who is going to be a legitimate farmer, and it took a process that always seemed serious, but not particularly formal, into a more formal and regulated realm.”
