Fear the Reaper

Meet the woman slowly crushing Philly's urban agriculture dreams.

Published: Dec 15, 2010

Neal Santos

Christina Kobland: Friend of bobolink, foe of farmer.

[ buzzkills ]

Last week, in a development that didn't exactly make the 6 o'clock news, the Schuylkill Center for Environmental Education quietly withdrew a zoning variance request that would have let it host a composting facility. Urban farmers were bummed; Christina Kobland was not. Kobland had just won again.

Before becoming the scourge of urban farmers, Kobland was, of all things, a model for QVC, the TV home-shopping network. At 60, she still has the look: blond, svelte, a dazzling smile.

ADVERTISEMENT

Four years ago, armed with a bachelor's degree in zoology and a love of animals, Kobland re-created herself as a conservationist-for-hire, opening her own business, Native Return, which specializes in helping communities cultivate native plants and, in turn, wild animals. Her clients have included Whitemarsh Township, PECO and Philadelphia's aviation division. As her company has grown, so, too, has her zest for wildlife preservation — to the point where it's pitted her against a group of people you might think she'd find a lot in common with: Philadelphia's urban farmers.

Kobland was one of the leading critics of expanded commercial farming at Manatawna Farm, opposed trails on a 33-acre plot in Whitemarsh Township, and was the helmswoman against the composting facility at the Schuylkill Center. And she'll be quick to tell you: She hopes to prevent similar operations in the future.

Kobland's efforts to squash urban farming projects began early this year, when Whitemarsh Township revealed plans to develop a 33-acre plot of land, known locally as the East 33, into nature trails and, Kobland claims (and the township disputes), gardens. Kobland, who once sat on the township's environmental advisory board, worried that the supposed gardens would hurt animal habitat and created a petition and website, east33.org, to fight the project. When township supervisor Bob Hart announced in September that the development might "never come to pass," Kobland declared success.

Then, this summer, she became embroiled in the hottest zoning showdown of the year: the Manatawna Farm debacle, which pitted the Nutter administration, Planning Commission and urban agriculturists against a group of neighbors and conservationists.

As part of its ambitious GreenWorks goal of establishing 12 new urban farms by 2015, the city planned to offer five acres of Manatawna Farm, a 76-acre plot in Roxborough that is part of Fairmount Park, for urban produce production. The farm, four miles from Kobland's home, currently contains community gardens, hay fields and untouched woods. Her problem wasn't with the agriculture itself, she claims, but the meadowlarks, foxes and turkeys that she says would lose their habitat.

"It would be wonderful to take truly urban areas downtown — vacant lots, asphalt — and convert them into farms," she says. "But what they wanted to do here, it wasn't really urban farming."

She and other critics, including animal-rights activists, neighbors and local students who grow hay there, went to Councilman Curtis Jones Jr., whose district encompasses the farm. Again, Kobland won. Jones penned a bill banning commercial farming and expanded gardens at Manatawna, which the mayor signed in November.

Parks Commissioner Michael DiBerardinis, whose department fought for the farm, sees its critics as having acted selfishly: "Quite frankly, I think people didn't want change. ... We were creating habitat. The individual interest of those folks beat the public good."

Kobland not only got her way, but maybe laid a trail for others to follow. When the city floated a plan to expand commercial farming elsewhere, at Fox Chase Farm, it was shot down again — though Kobland had nothing to do with it this time. Councilman Brian O'Neill introduced a zoning bill very similar to Jones'.

"They say, 'Go somewhere else.' How many times have you heard that?" asks DiBerardinis. "But I'm not deterred. The mayor's sustainability goals are worthy enough to keep pursuing."

Easy as it might be to dismiss Kobland as just another NIMBY, she's driven by an intense passion for the environment. She speaks lovingly about every animal she encounters, whether it's the world-traveling bobolink or her dog Lexi, and becomes noticeably unnerved while speaking about hunting. She simply doesn't see farming as part of those ideals; she believes that the environmental movement has been co-opted by urban agriculturists at the expense of wildlife preservation, and that she is fighting the good fight.

Just last week, Kobland enjoyed her most recent triumph. Following the Manatawna and East 33 battles, she voiced her objection to the proposed composting facility at the Schuylkill Center (of which she used to be a board member), which would be run by the company Philly Compost. Again, her concern was that wildlife habitat would be lost. Many of the same people against Manatawna joined her in preparation for the Dec. 22 meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment to determine whether to grant the Schuylkill Center a needed zoning variance for the facility.

But last week, the Center silently withdrew its variance application.

Lee Meinicke, president of Philly Compost, denies that the project was halted because of opposition, citing a current lack of funds. The Schuylkill Center, which could have pursued the variance anyway, declined to comment. Kobland says her success has nothing to with the fact that she once served on the Center's board: "My motives are very simple and pure. I'm fighting for the value of animals."

That may be, counters Meinicke, but the results are still damning. "To me, the global warming issue trumps everything. These folks have chosen to put their energies in [wildlife]," she says. "I want to put food closer to where we eat. ... If we can't fix that, we're all toast."

What's Kobland's next move? Among other things, she hopes to move the Urban Farm Girls operation off the Schuylkill Center. They kill groundhogs, she says.

(holly.otterbein@citypaper.net)

Comments

Escalating losses in biodiversity are a major cause of increased global warming. Urban farming has it's place in center city, and I am all for it in place of concrete and on vacant lots, but it will do little to combat global warming compared to native plant habitat preservation and protection of our threatened species. These are the natural resources we must all work to protect.
by Christina Kobland on December 16th 2010 2:36 PM

Amazing to me, that some people like Kobland, can NOT see the forest for the trees.
Losses in biodiversity are the cause of global warming, but rather quite the opposite, Christina!
by Harry Catapilla on December 16th 2010 3:19 PM

Christina et al were trying to protect critical wildlife habitat which is disappearing at an alarming rate. That critical habitat would have been destroyed so that 10 farm plots would be formed to benefit what? maybe 10 people? Good work, Christina!
by Linda Maslin on December 16th 2010 3:27 PM

"Biodiversity losses are a clear sign that our own life-support systems are failing." - University of Delaware Professor Doug Tallamy, PhD, Author of Bringing Nature Home.

by Christina Kobland on December 16th 2010 3:36 PM

opposing composting is, in my opinion, pretty stupid. Composting is good for the environment, good for soil, and helps keep otherwise biodegradable waste out of landfills.
i mean if you really want to protect biodiversity, why not ban outdoor cats within city limits?
by brendancalling on December 16th 2010 4:31 PM

To think that producing local food only benefits the people producing it is very narrow minded. Many people benefit from the reduction of greenhouse gases that a local alternative provides. There are less food miles on our plates, which equals less CO2 from transporting food from elsewhere. Same goes with the compost that has been reduced from the waste stream.
And Christina, your own quote points out that biodiversity loss is a symptom. Not a cause. Maybe you should learn to put the horse before the cart.
I'm all for native habitat, but seriously, there are better opponents on this than a garden plot. Why don't you try to stop a developer, instead???
by Harry Catapilla on December 16th 2010 4:36 PM

Why not use a city lot for composting? The habitat that is now protected is an important corridor for local wildlife, besides being critical for nesting birds. You won't find threatened birds nesting in city lots but they are in the area in question. Also, the area is not easily accessible as opposed to neighborhood lots which would be, causing less driving.
by Linda Maslin on December 16th 2010 6:04 PM

Ms.Holly Otterbein has,apparently, taken a position and then attempted to defend it - as opposed to reporting the news. Even if her argument had merit, she has attempted to explain it with a string of oxymorons. ex. - she lists a number of positive accomplishments & then complains about them; DiBerardinis wasn't creating habitat, he was trying to plow it under. Doesn't anyone else think that creating "urban farming" in a wildlife corridor is 'bass ackwards'? And,why the need for the snide remark ("of all things, a model for QVC")?
Truth be told,Manatawna Farm, east 33,& Fox Chase Farm, fight global warming by preventing our metropolitan area from becoming a worse heat island. Create urban farming in the city by farming brownfields & encouraging community gardens on a grand scale.
I support what Ms. Kobland and her MANY supporters have accomplished.
by Bruce Conner on December 16th 2010 7:30 PM

Christina's critics seem to be missing the point...she's opposing the destruction of existing habitat for WHATEVER purpose. There are plenty of alternative areas for farming/composting where the installation would be an environmental upgrade, not destructive.
by Deborah Dale on December 17th 2010 1:39 AM

I'll take habitat for wildlife over "urban farms" (yeeeha!) any day. We can survive just fine without them. I'd rather see a human race that knows how to feel empathy with all creatures than one that knows how to most efficiently feed its own face. Hey, we're all gonna die anyway. Better to live ethically.
by Jim Harris on December 17th 2010 11:31 AM

I would suggest that the author read the Doug Tallamy book that Ms. Kobland quotes and rethink her argument. It's a game-changer. I don't have any evidence to support this, but I would think that the vast majority of composting and urban farming proponents are on the same page as the folks who want to preserve our woodlands and native species. I mean, the woman isn't fighting Philly Compost so that a Wal-Mart or McMansion development can be built on the same land.

It's bad enough the "green movement" has been politicized by having a polarizing figure such as Al Gore as its spokesperson years back. The urban farm movement should be applauding people like Ms. Kobland and the Wissahickon East Project for protecting the few slivers of undeveloped land we have left in this area. It's ludicrous to think we can't have a thriving urban farm scene, considering the thousands of abandoned lots in our city, and not protect our few natural areas at the same time. Replenishing soil, composting, and constructing raised bed gardens in urban area can happen very quickly. It takes lifetimes to reestablish an old growth forest. Your misplaced sensationalism would be better spent raising awareness on the raping of our land by marcellus shale drilling, Ms. Otterbein.
by John Janick on December 17th 2010 2:02 PM

It would seem to me, then, that Ms. Kobland and other animal rights/nature activists should be working closely with those in the urban farming movement to identify safe spaces for each. Avoid the conflict and work together towards what is so obviously a common goal.
by Sara on December 20th 2010 3:55 PM

It would seem to me, then, that Ms. Kobland and other animal rights/nature activists should be working closely with those in the urban farming movement to identify safe spaces for each. Avoid the conflict and work together towards what is so obviously a common goal.
by Sara on December 20th 2010 3:55 PM

It would seem to me, then, that Ms. Kobland and other animal rights/nature activists should be working closely with those in the urban farming movement to identify safe spaces for each. Avoid the conflict and work together towards what is so obviously a common goal.
by Sara on December 20th 2010 3:56 PM

Urban farming should be in truly urban areas...Fishtown, kensington, northern libs, Port Richmond, etc. Lots of land owned by Norris Square Civic Association that has been sitting for YEARS, undeveloped by its director, bought for pennies. The city could buy it back from them. There is huge interest in this in the Norris Square neighborhood and with the Kensington Co-op coming soon, it would be perfect!
by ctdd on December 20th 2010 4:24 PM

This city is notorious for having condemned buildings and lots that could really benefit from an overhaul. If those farms could be moved to one of these spaces, I think it would benefit the surrounding communities.
A composting plant would do well in an empty warehouse. People would pick up free gardening soil.
Take a 5 min walk around Kensington and Port Richmond and you'll find 5 spots that would benefit from those programs.
by Patrick on December 20th 2010 7:19 PM

This article seems very one-sided to me. Since when was defending animals bad? And she's right, those aren't urban gardens. Roxborough, really?

And did anyone else notice....it's all COMMERCIAL FARMS that have not been approved. That's not urban. The condemned buildings and sitting plots of land SHOULD be used not ripping down trees. That won't only boost the neighborhood, city kids will learn how to grown their own food. Now that's where the focus should be, not bashing someone who is right about conserving habitats!
by LS on December 21st 2010 8:32 AM

Christina Kobland is a visionary who truly deserves recognition. This dynamic woman's cause celebre has advanced a more responsible ethic as it relates to the importance of restoring ecological healing and harmony in our communities through native landscapes. She considers it all-important to protect existing habitats and do what's necessary to mitigate contributing factors in further habitat loss and degradation. Her mission is one of remediation. She get it.
by Bridget W. Irons on December 24th 2010 6:11 PM



Also In This Week's News Section

A Million Stories
The Bell Curve
 
 
ADVERTISEMENT