Depending on the size of your county, that rule could be counterproductive, as most people will only travel a certain distance to go to a farmers' market.
That rule may make several vendors choose not to stay in it, hurting it more than helping.

Not sure I understand Herbgal, is it the established market that in instituting the non-compete rule or the new market for growers only that intends to do this?

I'd say that this is a decidedly non "free market" approach. Looks like something a huge corporation would do to its vendors rather than farmers' market management.

Is this place really such a god-send to farmers that it can determine what they do offsite?

I have not heard of this practice and I've been involved with farmers' markets for over a dozen years. No doubt, there have been plenty of people who have thought of this during moments of frustration but more rational thoughts or cooler heads on governing boards have prevailed.

Steve

Never heard of it but can understand the reasoning in certain situations. Are the other markets held on same or next days or are there many competing(available space) markets operating in a relatively small area?

Usually the rules are designed to eliminate competition for a few vendors whose product sales are suffering because of their own shortfalls. Naturally the produce growers think that any market can only support a limited number of other produce growers; bakers.....ditto....; flower people......ditto....; and so on. When will they learn that more competition makes a healthier market. I heard of one CA farmers market that had almost 150 vendors in it and all were doing well.

However the last point that you mentioned, a grower only market, is becomming more of a normal practice and I fully support that regulation. Many farmers' markets have organized with a mission of supporting LOCAL agriculture. How can that goal be realized when some vendors are selling obviously out-of-state produce? Even when vendors are selling a similar comodity, if one is able to purchase non-local produce at a discount and sell it at WalMart prices then local farmers would be forced out of operation. The non-producer only markets also loose customer support because most customers shop at farmers' markets to purchase fresh local produce and support local agriculture.

Steve, it is the existing market that has added the new ruling. They do not want any competition.

Our reason for starting a new grower only market was because a large group of us are tired of selling our homegrown items next to a "farmer" who just drives to a terminal and buys his/her stuff. The sad part is many of them claim to have grown it! The existing market has a great deal of resellers because, face it, it's easier and you make more money!

This is a large community, 260,000 + residents plus a large draw from surrounding communties. The existing market is the only one in town, so there is plenty of room for another market. The new market would be held on one of the same days...Saturday markets are hard to pass up...the other day is different. It just seems like restraint of trade to many of us. Plus we feel like the more the merrier and that customers have the right to be able to know that what they are buying comes from the local area...not trucked in from out of state.

Obviously, and as you say Herbgal, the existing market does not want ANY competition.

"Studies have shown" (don't you like that phrase), farmers' markets tend to be neighborhood affairs in that customers, generally, do not come from very far. (As Ann points out.) I recall an Oregon State University study of the Ashland market. Something like 90% of the customers live within 1 mile of the market. Now, I grew up outside of Ashland . . . I don't think any part of that city is more than 1 mile from Interstate 5 and it is all within a dozen miles of a much larger city (Medford). The notion of the community-building nature of a farmers' market is more than just a notion. They benefit neighborhoods and neighbors.

Your new grower-only market is a noble undertaking. There's plenty of room in your city. I do not believe that brokers have an easy or highly profitable enterprise. They often work very hard and make little money. The tragedy is that consumers often can't figure out the difference between growers and resellers. I fault market management for allowing the situation to occur.

The reality is that brokers, by definition, may not even own the produce that they are selling (let alone grow it). In other words, they pick up produce from a source (usually a produce company) and return what they haven't sold at the end of the day - paying only for what was sold.

bmoser and I would probably agree, it as indefensible to allow competition between someone who picks up a load of produce on the morning of the market and someone who spends months growing a crop. Where such competition occurs, no claim can be made that the market exists as a retail marketing benefit to local farmers. And, the reason this country loses 20% of its farmers each decade is because many simply cannot make a living selling wholesale, period.

Herbgal, your idea regarding restraint of trade is justified. If this market is backed by local government or economic development entities - - you should raise holy hell. And, don't be afraid to enlist your most reasonable member to speak to the press about the problem. The media LOVES controversy. For the good of the communities served and for your own economic good as farmers, MAKE THEM BACK DOWN!

Steve

Steve,
Well said!
We have regularly run up against the "box lots" providers at our local farmers' markets. It's dead wrong and it does nothing to encourage a healthy market or encourage local producers. I absolutely hate it... especially the ones who claim it's Home Grown. In fact, last year, we had a customer visit us after visiting one such stall. We always tell new customers that we grow everything we sell. She said, "Doesn't everyone here do that?" She had NO IDEA. When she found out another vendor who had "home grown" signs up actually purchased the produce from a terminal, she returned to that vendor and gave him a piece of her mind. She then complained to the market manager. The "home grown" signs disappeared. Don't you wish we had MORE customers like that???

Regarding the non-compete... it's a shame you are made to choose. However, we joined a grower only market last year and, although it was smaller and less well-known, those customers who came were there to BUY. I know it's hard to leave a market where you have a good reputation and have made many friends (both vendors and customers), but it sounds like you have a lot of integrity and belief in what you do.
That non-compete is ridiculous and it sounds as though it was put in to cover someone's hiney, not to benefit the vendors as a whole. Again, a matter of integrity.

Best wishes at the new market. I think you will find you sleep better knowing you picked the grower only venue.

DD