The American Farmland Trust reports that two-thirds of the state and local open space initiatives that included funding for farmers and ranchers passed in last month's elections. The Trust notes that this is down from 89 percent in the 2000 elections.

The decline is probably the result of two factors. A decline in exuberance about the economy made voters more stingy with their pocket books. And two, as David Goldberg of Smart Growth America, commented, "My sense is the low-hanging fruit has been picked." In other words, the marginal value of extra farmland protection declined as more voters began to feel that they have already protected sufficient areas for open space.

While these initiatives are basically subsidies to agricultural landowners, at least the local initiatives are passed primarily by the people who pay the taxes to support them. Thus, the link between the cost of the "open space" and those receiving the benefit is fairer and more direct. This removes some of the cognitive disconnect in that people who vote for the initiatives understand that what they are voting for will come directly out of their pocketbook. They aren't spending other people's money to the same extent that state and national spending does, which is why I think we will continue to see increased frugality in these initiatives over time.

As a side note, in states with high property taxes like Montana, the initiatives may be seen as an inefficient way of shifting some of the tax burden from owners of land to those earning income from labor and those holding their capital in non-land assets.