spongeg
July 29th, 2006, 09:46 AM
Barnston Island is safe from developers – but the whole process of excluding land from the Agricultural Land Reserve remains under a cloud.
An Agricultural Land Commission panel ruled July 19 that Barnston Island should remain in the ALR. This is certainly in tune with the vast majority of speakers at an ALC hearing in June in Surrey.
However, the decision keeps the provision of “community need” alive and well. This is what the panel had to say in its ruling:
“A ‘community need’ argument, whether it be for residential, commercial, institutional, industrial purposes etc., must originate from the local government – not individual property owners. Community need arguments from local governments are to be based on local and regional planning assessments and supported by rigorous technical analysis, before being considered by the commission.”
In this case, the Greater Vancouver Regional District, which administers Barnston Island, did not ask for exclusion. Thus the application was shot down.
Much has been made of the individuals who serve on land commission panels that rule on whether land should be excluded from the ALR. In fact, three prominent Surrey candidates for the ALC South Coast panel – Roy Strang, Mike Bose and Rosemary Zelinka – have been suggested by people within the community. All would be good choices, because they know the issues and are fair-minded.
But no individual, no matter how strongly they believe in farmland protection, can override the “community need” provision within the ALC mandate.
The commission can “exclude suitable agricultural land from the ALR to meet community needs in cases where no reasonable alternative exists,” the panel ruling notes.
It was this provision that led to the exclusion of good farmland in Abbotsford, because it was located close to an urban area. This provision will likely be used to exclude some of the best farmland in Delta, land expropriated from farmers in the 1960s by the B.C. government. It may go to the Tsawwassen First Nation as part of a land claim settlement, and there are indications the band would like it to become an industrial park.
Surrey could use this provision to try and develop farmland in certain areas. There is presently a development underway in the midst of prime farmland in Tynehead (an area somehow left out of the ALR). Now that one development is underway, Surrey could logically (from a planning perspective) ask that nearby ALR land be excluded.
The trouble with “community need” is that it strikes at the heart of the original purpose of the ALR. The reserve was initially set up by the NDP government of Dave Barrett, and on its birth met with immediate hostility, precisely because local governments did not have the stomach to resist incursions onto agricultural land by developers.
Richmond is the best example. The best farmland in B.C. is buried under this city on Lulu Island. The whole island would be urban now without the ALR, because Richmond council could never have withstood the relentless pressure.
Municipal politics, as noted here before, is largely concerned with land development. Developers and their business associates finance the bulk of municipal campaigns. There is big money to be made on rezoned land – which is precisely why Bill Tsakumis has been trying for so long to get portions of Barnston Island out of the ALR. He managed to convince other landowners there to join in this latest application – but it would be foolish to exclude Barnston Island from the ALR.
Land is a trust passed from generation to generation. Land that can be used to grow food, in a province that is mostly mountains, is a precious resource.
That’s why no government, Social Credit, NDP or Liberal, has dared get rid of it in the past 33 years.
The public realize the importance of preserving land that can be used to grow food. This land will continue to be valuable in the future, as the population of B.C. grows. In many cases, it is being used more productively than ever.
The “community need” provision within the land commission’s mandate needs to be examined carefully. A strong argument could be made for its deletion altogether, so that farmland is only considered for exclusion if it is not capable of being used productively.
Any other exclusion provisions are subject to political whim.
Frank Bucholtz is editor of the Langley Times. He writes weekly for The Peace Arch News.
http://www.peacearchnews.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=44&cat=23&id=698593&more=
An Agricultural Land Commission panel ruled July 19 that Barnston Island should remain in the ALR. This is certainly in tune with the vast majority of speakers at an ALC hearing in June in Surrey.
However, the decision keeps the provision of “community need” alive and well. This is what the panel had to say in its ruling:
“A ‘community need’ argument, whether it be for residential, commercial, institutional, industrial purposes etc., must originate from the local government – not individual property owners. Community need arguments from local governments are to be based on local and regional planning assessments and supported by rigorous technical analysis, before being considered by the commission.”
In this case, the Greater Vancouver Regional District, which administers Barnston Island, did not ask for exclusion. Thus the application was shot down.
Much has been made of the individuals who serve on land commission panels that rule on whether land should be excluded from the ALR. In fact, three prominent Surrey candidates for the ALC South Coast panel – Roy Strang, Mike Bose and Rosemary Zelinka – have been suggested by people within the community. All would be good choices, because they know the issues and are fair-minded.
But no individual, no matter how strongly they believe in farmland protection, can override the “community need” provision within the ALC mandate.
The commission can “exclude suitable agricultural land from the ALR to meet community needs in cases where no reasonable alternative exists,” the panel ruling notes.
It was this provision that led to the exclusion of good farmland in Abbotsford, because it was located close to an urban area. This provision will likely be used to exclude some of the best farmland in Delta, land expropriated from farmers in the 1960s by the B.C. government. It may go to the Tsawwassen First Nation as part of a land claim settlement, and there are indications the band would like it to become an industrial park.
Surrey could use this provision to try and develop farmland in certain areas. There is presently a development underway in the midst of prime farmland in Tynehead (an area somehow left out of the ALR). Now that one development is underway, Surrey could logically (from a planning perspective) ask that nearby ALR land be excluded.
The trouble with “community need” is that it strikes at the heart of the original purpose of the ALR. The reserve was initially set up by the NDP government of Dave Barrett, and on its birth met with immediate hostility, precisely because local governments did not have the stomach to resist incursions onto agricultural land by developers.
Richmond is the best example. The best farmland in B.C. is buried under this city on Lulu Island. The whole island would be urban now without the ALR, because Richmond council could never have withstood the relentless pressure.
Municipal politics, as noted here before, is largely concerned with land development. Developers and their business associates finance the bulk of municipal campaigns. There is big money to be made on rezoned land – which is precisely why Bill Tsakumis has been trying for so long to get portions of Barnston Island out of the ALR. He managed to convince other landowners there to join in this latest application – but it would be foolish to exclude Barnston Island from the ALR.
Land is a trust passed from generation to generation. Land that can be used to grow food, in a province that is mostly mountains, is a precious resource.
That’s why no government, Social Credit, NDP or Liberal, has dared get rid of it in the past 33 years.
The public realize the importance of preserving land that can be used to grow food. This land will continue to be valuable in the future, as the population of B.C. grows. In many cases, it is being used more productively than ever.
The “community need” provision within the land commission’s mandate needs to be examined carefully. A strong argument could be made for its deletion altogether, so that farmland is only considered for exclusion if it is not capable of being used productively.
Any other exclusion provisions are subject to political whim.
Frank Bucholtz is editor of the Langley Times. He writes weekly for The Peace Arch News.
http://www.peacearchnews.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=44&cat=23&id=698593&more=