George S. Wehrwein

Tenancy Versus Ownership as a Problem in Urban Land Utilization

UR knowledge of urban ownership and tenancy is considerably less than that of farm tenure. At least, this is true statistically. Since 1880, we have had census figures on the number of farms operated by owners and tenants. Later, data on acreage as well as farmers were made available. Studies by the colleges of agriculture and the United States Department of Agriculture have revealed the reasons for the varying amounts of tenancy in various sections of the United States. We know a great deal about the land owners who are leasing lands to tenants and the relationship between the two. The 1925 census revealed the fact on a nationwide scale that about twentyeight per cent of the tenants were related to their landlords as sons, sonsin-law, or in other ways. We have discovered that the various forms of tenure-ownership, ownership with encumbrance of a mortgage, part ownership with a portion of the land rented, tenant, and hired labor―are, in fact, a ladder upon which the American farmer progresses. The 1920 census gave us the information for the nation

The Report on Land of the National Resources Board

In the brief time at my disposal today it is impossible to review in detail the mass of data and reasoning lying back of the report on Land Utilization and Policy submitted to the National Resources Board by its technical land committees. I can do little more than outline its contents and commend to you a study of the report at your leisure-it represents many points of view and is the latest contribution to the subject. It is my sincere hope that this report as far as the general reader is concerned will escape the pigeon-hole destiny of many other products of serious, conscientious and worth-while effort. It merits careful critical study by all agricultural economists. Indeed, this is a report dealing with our basic asset, which deserves reading not alone in academic cloisters. I hope it can be popularized so that wide distribution will be given to its facts and conclusions-all with one aim, to bring the collective intelligence of the people the democratic approach to bear on the problems of land and the broad field of conservation. Then we might look forward with hope to the reshaping of old land policies and the formulation of new policies in line with current needs recognizing change. The background of the Land Report goes, I suppose, to the founding of the Republic. In our land policies we can find a major segment in the history of the development of this country. I do not suppose there has been any decade since the opening of the nineteenth century when we did not have a lively national issue related in some way to land. But the movement towards thinking of land in terms of all of the people developed more slowly. Development of thinking which associated land with a program of public conservation was also slow in emerging. A great deal of progress was made with the rise of the Roosevelt-Pinchot conservation movement, centering on forest conservation. It has remained for more recent years to develop a new and broader consciousness of land as a national asset of diverse uses, an asset to be preserved and protected for the public welfare. The Roosevelt-Pinchot conservation movement had a strong emotional current. Part of its spark centered about the rise of

The Trend in Land Values and Land Utilization

THE significance of the trend in land values can hardly be understood without considering also the trends and changes in the utilization of land. Land values cannot be measured accurately in terms of land area per capita or &dquo;pressure of population,&dquo; but must be sought in numerous forces and factors. A study of the operation of these forces in the past will help us to forecast the future.

A Land Policy as a Part of an Agricultural Program

A land policy implies a conscious program of social control with respect to utilization, ownership, and acquisition of land and the human relations arising out of its use and ownership. Such a policy may be the result of direct public action by the federal, state, or local governments expressed in law, or it may take the form of indirect actions by state bodies, administrative units, or institutions. In many cases it takes the more subtle form of public approval or acquiescence in the work of semi-public or even private effort in regard to the utilization of land. The present paper deals only with such phases of a land policy as relate to the expansion of agricultural land. A proper policy with regard to the expansion of agricultural land can be stated in a few words. The ideal is balanced production. The time, rate, and method of expansion, as well as the selection of land to be brought under the plow should be controlled. The land resources of the nation ought to be classified and each class of land put into its proper use for the given time and place, making due allowance for future expansion, however. This is so simple and general that it will be accepted without serious objection as a part of an agricultural program. But to put such a policy into practice is not