> Even if cherries don’t pay, Hallstedt is determined to keep his farmland from becoming yet another subdivision. But to keep the orchard, Hallstedt said he needs to be able to stay in business.

Please tell me that "subdivision" here doesn't mean residential development.

Anyways, it's probably a good thing that food is so cheap that you need to create it at large scale to make any money off it.

Food production exists to feed people, not prop up small contributors to the food supply because their goods have been made too cheap and affordable for everyone.

New residential development and purchasing recently had numbers come out, they’re pretty bad.

If someone is buying land to subdivide, they would be better of not doing so.

Why do you want people to be homeless and overpaying for housing just to depress the price of food?

> Please tell me that "subdivision" here doesn't mean residential development.

Probably. I can't speak to the person quoted in the article, but for many owners of agricultural land, selling to developers for building tract housing is actually the goal. Farming is treated as a capital business, not a labor one, and any profits from agriculture are the intermediary dividends paid out while waiting for the land to appreciate enough to be valuable for another purpose (usually suburban housing developments).