I-300 debate should focus on root issues

Don't just sit there, do something.

Lawmakers are hearing that advice in response to the demise of Nebraska's corporate farming ban, known as Initiative 300.

But do what?

The Legislature's Agriculture Committee is gathering opinions about the issue.

As we've noted before, I-300 was passed in 1982 by voters angered by excesses by corporate farm owners, and a longing to return to the good old days.

But last year, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, quashed the amendment, ruling that it violates the federal commerce clause and unfairly burdens out-of-state interests. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the decision.

As Associated Press writer Nate Jenkins pointed out, there's little evidence I-300 worked. There are 400 fewer farms in the state than there were in 2005, and the total number has declined 20 percent since 1985.

Those that have survived have done so by taking up their neighbors' land -- the average farm is 173 acres larger than it was in 1985.

Many don't miss I-300, saying it keeps young people out of farming by preventing them from partnering with non-family members in new farming operations.

Southwest Nebraska native Larry Sitzman, former state secretary of agriculture and now executive director of the Nebraska Pork Producers, says it's time to move on. He sees no need for the protection I-300 provided.

"Protection from what? Protection from ourselves? Protection from the fact we may have one (foot) stuck in the past?"

But some lawmakers may be tempted to position themselves as defenders of the family farm -- regardless of whether or not their positioning has any chance of resulting in effective legislation.

As we've said before, there's little purpose in an arbitrary ban on certain types of business structures if there's no effort to affect the root causes of troubles for small family farms.

Until there's a clear, intelligent plan, the best advice for lawmakers is: Don't just do something about I-300, sit there.