Farm land ownership survey!

[sk_wheatking]

Look, if parents want their kids to farm then why don't they sell their land to them for 50,000 a quarter. Oh just a minute when they are done they want to cash in at 350,000 a quarter! Yet they want the next guy to set up their kids. Same with rent. Rent your kids the land for 35 an acre then, but,but just a minute we want to live in Phoenix in the winter so we want 80 an acre. But hey you better rent my kids your land for 30 an acre it's their right as a Sask farmer to someone else's land for cheap.

[sk_wheatking]

Look, if parents want their kids to farm then why don't they sell their land to them for 50,000 a quarter. Oh just a minute when they are done they want to cash in at 350,000 a quarter! Yet they want the next guy to set up their kids. Same with rent. Rent your kids the land for 35 an acre then, but,but just a minute we want to live in Phoenix in the winter so we want 80 an acre. But hey you better rent my kids your land for 30 an acre it's their right as a Sask farmer to someone else's land for cheap.

[blackpowder]

Exactly farm and wheatking.
Wheres it headed.

Inheritance laws would eventually have all land rented. But when a foreign coyntry owns it. All value added leaves.

[farmaholic]

"Look, if parents want their kids to farm..."

Some don't....it's the kids choice. Some parents can't afford to hand over the "Silver Platter Farms" to their children who "want" to farm.

My statements are not aimed at asking anyone to take less for what they've worked for or rightfully entitled to, just comments on the current situation. We are at a new level in Sask not seen before, and it likely won't go back down very far either...

[newguy]

The farmers that are serious about expanding and are willing to take the risk are still buying land.it has never been easy to start farming and never will be.a whole new interest from the next generation has come alive since large rental acres are readily available.

[Partners]

When it comes time to sell, I want the highest $$$..I don't care who buys it..I don't want to be old and poor.Worked hard all our lives to give someone a "Deal"..We never got any deals in the early 80's with high interest rates and land that was $100,000 a 1/4 then..

[charliep]

Perhaps a way to look at is the use of land as input/cost in yearly operations versus the longer objectives of ownership as an investment/way to build wealth. The thoughts about residency requirements for land ownership would vary depending on which of these hats you are wearing.

Way off topic but a question I asked in the past is how many farmers look at growth in equity on their balance sheet (growth from profits retained in the farming business) versus networth (inflation/increased land values included in net worth). Again this comes down to why you own land and your attitude to restricting non resident buyers.

[SASKFARMER3]

Here is a little word of wisdom what the **** do you need 5 to 10,000,000 in your bank when you're 80 years old. It's s easy to travel till you get to 80 but once you get their the house in phoenix really isn't a option that much longer! Your best travel years are between 40 to 70! A condo in the city by a nice one so that your kids can use it to go to university and then you can have it for retirement get the kids to have a roommate to pay the mortgage . And the one thing yes Alberta and southern Manitoba I'll give you less on average you guys consistently yet okay crops sis catch one it's a hit or miss if this years and the one thing yes Alberta and southern Manitoba I'll give you less on average you guys consistently. So yes land should be worth more in these two provinces.

[SASKFARMER3]

****ing auto correct the last bit should read yes Alberta and southern Manitoba should have higher land values than us do to a more consistent crop! Saskatchewan is guy and miss as the floods and drought effect us more!

[mbratrud]

As much as I like the idea of only farmer ownership, especially as a "youngish" farmer. It is critical that there is a speculative aspect to the market, just like the futures market.

One example of what I mean is a simple situation like a retiring farmer that has all his equity in land but just happens to be retiring after 3 or 4 disaster years on the farm. without outside investors his potential buyer list would like pretty dismal.

or how about the Young farmer that tried to make a go of it but is hit with a few bad years, and decides to get out before all his/her equity is lost? if the buyers list is restricted the ability to do that is severely reduced.

If you haven't noticed the price of everything else just keeps rising. Farmers need to have the opportunity to have their main investment move with inflation.

Farming is an extremely risky business, and we already are at the mercy of mother nature. I think if we limit land ownership rules it just increases our risk.

Believe me I know first hand the frustration around trying to compete with outside investors, but it worries me more when after I have done so. Some now want to change the rules.

Like an auction sale the more buyers the better chance fair market value is established.

IMHO: The problem is isn't land values it's what we get for returns, maybe our focus should shift from trying to have lower cost land to getting more for our products through value adding.

That's my 2 cents.