By Michael J. Cleary

As a friend once said, “They’re not making any more shoreline property,” referring to how its value and scarcity will continue to increase over time.

Recent events in Will County (and elsewhere) remind us that “they” aren’t making any more farmland, either.

The recent public hearings regarding the development of “solar farms” in the area have demonstrated there is very little agreement over whether and how solar farms should be allowed to be developed. In fact, if there’s one thing everyone can agree on, it’s that almost nobody can agree.

For the uninitiated, a solar farm is basically a farm-shaped plot of land, but instead of being covered with crops, it’s covered with solar panels which, I am told, convert sunlight into electricity. How this is done, I do not know. I tried to do a grade-school science fair project about it, but it was not exactly a success.

Of course, electricity is a thing most of us can get behind. It toasts bread and makes micro-waves micro-wave. And we sure do like our televisions and being “connected,” and all the other stuff electricity does. So, it seems like electricity producing solar farms would be something everyone wants. But alas no.

Many of the people who live very close to where the solar panels would be placed don’t like the idea of having to look at them instead of the pastoral beauty of farmland. These are the NIMBY (“Not in My Back Yard”) folks. Here’s an example: You might like hot sauce, but might at the same time not want the hot sauce factory operating next door.

Solar panels are not as pungent as hot sauce factories, of course, and there are many neighboring residents who are fairly neutral about the sight of solar panels.

There is another faction that opposes the solar farms for a more nuanced reason. These are the folks who doubt the need for placing solar farms anywhere. Among those, some may doubt the ability of solar to efficiently and effectively generate electricity. Others may doubt the trustworthiness or sincerity of “Big Solar.”

And there are still others concerned that taking high-yielding farmland out of production to cover that land with solar panels is a bad trade. The solar farms currently under consideration would cover at least 10,000 acres of farmland. That’s a lot of farmland that will not be producing corn, soybeans, or livestock — presumably forever.

But — and this is a big but — the farmland involved belongs to the farmers. Are farmers to be required to work their land for the good of the rest of us, also presumably forever? Farming is physically hard work. It’s also stressful and filled with uncertainty. The price of seed, fertilizer, and other supplies is a fluctuating market. The price a farmer gets for his crop is also a fluctuating market, often at the mercy of actions beyond their control. And then there is weather, which might leave the farmer with a greatly reduced crop to sell. There are so many factors that can make the difference between making money or losing money.

On top of all that is the fact that the younger generations of farming families are stepping away from farming. Older farmers are wise to consider any and all reasonable exit strategies. So, when some buyer comes along offering a price above the value as farmland, what’s that farmer to do? Some have decided to take the good price and sell the land. It’s hard to find fault with that.

It’s a conundrum, that’s for sure. If things get carried to the logical extreme though, we might find ourselves with plenty of cheap electricity to microwave our lunch, but no lunch to microwave.

Michael J. Cleary is Publisher of Farmers Weekly Review.