Campbell & Co. view farmland as housing estates and has no vision for the future. By appointing his cronies to the board, ensures his view of life continues. He can't see 2 minutes into the future, let alone 2 generations.

Barrett brought in a bunch of other things that benefit ordinary BC citizens. a lot of those things are still in place. Little things like "You can't strap kids in school, and a simple thing like removing pay toilets. women suddenly didn't need to clutch some coins on the way to the toilet.

Good for Little Fat Dave, and governments that came after, for keeping such things in place.

But the developers are always out there buying their way into getting more land out of the reserve. First it was golf courses.

Our family farms on the Saanich peninsula. Most of the space used is leased from others now as property values rise. No farms, no local produce, loss of local jobs. Increased cost of food imported from somewhere else.
The locals flock to the Sidney Market and the Saanich fairground market. They wait patiently till the local farmers shows up. Picking crops prior to arrival might mean a few minutes late. But the regulars wait for produce so fresh the wait is worth it.

Pat Bell the current minister appointed a "Political friend" to the commission a couple of months ago. The guy was at a public meeting within a few days advocating removal of farm land. Somebody blew the whistle and he got removed. Oh says the Minister, he didn't know he had been appointed when he spoke publically. Sure Minister Bell and we believe in Tinkerbell.
Good article but don't forget, it was WAC who was reported to have said. What's the big deal, you can always buy the stuff from California. But he did bring inthe BC Ferry system that the current government has tried to abil out of being resonsible for, but still pays the subsidies for a so called private company.

Watch the land commission with great concern. It wasn't accidental that the long established system got changed by Gordo and friends. We fear for the small BC farmer living next door to a place worth over 20 millions of dollars,and the new guy doesn't like the smell of farm animals, or the fellow who does hay on the peninsula, and one new townhouse owner tried to get him arrested for having a sprinkler running at night. Or the constant string of complaints about noisy cannons protecting fruit in the interior. I'll take Vancouver Island strawberries over some water soaked Califorian ones any day.

Perhaps more notable because it involved fruit-growing country, were many who seemed to have developed a greater interest in turning their orchards over to developers.

Their appeal included stories of apples being fed to pigs on account of market conditions. I noted, at the time, that top prices were being demanded by the supermarkets for the fruit - much of it not of good quality.

I believe there are many phony arguments over so-called marginal farmland. Unless the land is solid rock, I doubt there are many such "marginal" areas that, with all that is compostable (including sewage) that the Lower Mainland yields, could not be upgraded to good arable land.

As gasoline and diesel fuel increase in price, and subsequently so do the prices of food from further away, and as the loss of farmland continues and food prices also subsequently rise (producing less food from less land); we will face a food crisis. Only then we people pay attention-though too late as houses and other development has 'sprouted like mushrooms'; paved over local farmland. You can't blame the farm owner, as 'we' continue to buy imported food, farm costs rise, the farmer is looking out for himself-just (apparently) like the rest of us.

The problem is vision-its short sighted.

Will gasoline continue to be relatively cheap?

What is relatively cheap gasoline? $1.19/litre?
$2.00/litre?
$3.00/litre?
$4.00/litre?

Will it still be relatively cheap to import food from far away?

Will farmers continue to grow food without making a profit, or actually losing money?

Will communities/municipalities still pursue continued growth?

Will communities/municipalities still pursue continued growth at the expense of arable land?

Does anyone consider that there is a limit to growth?

Seem to me the Vision is: More of the Same!

In the ALC's ruling in the Barnston Island case, they rejected the owners' argument that, since the land would require significant improvements to make it good farmland, it should be removed from the ALR.

From the ruling:

So allegedly poor farming soils were not sufficient justification to have the land excluded from the ALR.

Since many agricultural activities do not require good soil (mushroom farming, greenhouse agriculture), perhaps this is not as counter-intuitive as it might initially seem. Although it does seem rather distant from the initial ALC goal of protecting arable land. =^)

For the rest of the ALC decision:
http://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/application_status/Barnston_Is/35256d2.pdf

I can imagine how pissed of some people would have been with the introduction of the ALR.
What about private property rights?
What about the land owners who suddenly had their land devalued extremely?
There has to be a better way to protect farmland, without stealing money out of the pockets of land owners, many of whom owned their property for generations.

If you treat land as a commodity then you will have to deal with the vagaries of the market and governments. Perhaps we should insure the stocks of shareholders too so they don't get burned when the value drops?

If you use the land to live and farm on, and want to keep it in your family for 'generations' then the monetary value of it would seem inconsequential.

Private property rights aren't being abused. No one is confiscating the land or expropriating it for an undervalued price. No money is being stolen from anyone. Removing the potential for profit to serve a greater good is hardly theft.

Apparentley there is a Charter challenge in the works. This is clearly a goofy system unique to BC.
It sure smells to me.

If the removal of land is left to locals, especially to land owners, there won't be any farmland left in BC.

As the logical economic systems are being destroyed in favour of globalizes market economies, in other words colonization, and family farms are forced to close, huge areas in BC are now in the hands of speculators, who are, in many cases, the "friends and owners of the government", just waiting for the abolition of the ALR, so they can subdivide and sell to developers.

By the way, IMC, how do your define "property rights" in view of the Free Miners Act, where we land owners own the "surface rights", whatever they mean? How do you define the division between surface and subsurface rights ?

As far this idea of "land suitable for agriculture" is concerned, it is hogwash.

When we bought our land in 1975, it was designated as " not suitable for agricultural production" and was not in the ALR. We petitioned its inclusion and have developed large organic market gardens, which we now have given up on accountg of our age, but we still produce
food in the form of beef, which thrives
on this lamd and over much of Canada in harsh climates and poor soil conditions, improving the land with their presence.

With the world sinking into a food production crisis on account of overchemicalization and the criminal GM food production, and 25 million die of starvation every year, we can not listen to the goofballs of the Fraser Inst et al, advocating "the best economic use" for the land, which means parking lots and subdivisions.

Ed Deak, Big Lake.

They bought or homesteaded the land as farmland, and they are free to sell it wehn they want......as long as it stays farmland. I would order an immediate halt to ANY and all non-agricultural/animal husbandry developments throughout all of BC.
Our cities originated for the most part in farmlands, as agriculture was an esential part of settlement. Perhaps it was necessary to build towns to service the farms back then, but it ain't now. If the developers want to develop and the cities want to expand, then please do so on rock, not on irreplaceable soil.
Developers are a lazy lot; they don't want to blast rock, and would rather just push dirt around. Too bad, I say!

I saw this same thing happen in Richmond many years ago. It was called Terra-Nova, and it was the the only area in Canada where you could grow three crops a year. The council in Richmond was owned by Progressive Construction and I went to many meetings where the speakers said the land was no good. I'd seen it for years and how it was missused. I had to leave Richmond because I couldn't stand the uglieness.

Palharry

A friend of mine has a large piece of land in the ALR. For years he complained about not being able to subdivide his land.

When I pointed out to him the fact that he got the land cheap and paid low taxes on the land because of its being ALR, he never did have much of a rebuttal...

Freebear, you are right on. With peak oil around the corner (or already upon us), agricultural land on our doorsteps is going to be crucial. No more 2000 mile Caesar salads, folks.

Israel made the desert bloom. Californians made the desert bloom.
Any land is arable, when you pour enough money into it.
If agricultural land is to be protected, it should be feasible.
If it makes someone money to grow products on it, then it's viable.
Why should we ask land owners to subsidize some kind of unnecessary green space.
In fact this whole ALR thing is stupid. Canadians don't even leave a footprint on our country.
This whole state of affairs is Socialism, which of course is evil.

Blather on, little toad. If you lived in the province and had the slightest knowledge of the issues, I'd take some time to respond to try to plant at least one original thought in or hollow head.

But since you obviously live in another province, one that elected a drunk lunatic for a premier, it's obvious I need waste no time. He hasn't the brains God gave a gnat, and youhaven't half of his either.

See ya later, dinosaur

Of course, so called socialism is evil, whatever the word means. It is obvious that the best form of life is the "competitive equlibrium of the marketplace", where human flesh is the most important commodity.

The "marketplace", otherwise known as the pigsty, where the masters throw bits of food to the pigs and then laugh as they watch them fight for it, stomping over and biting each other.

The world will never be happy and prosperous, until there are crowds fighting each other at the gate of every factory and business, begging for jobs, competing who can do them below the minimum wage level.

Ask the prestigious conservative economic think tank, Fraser Institute, who will tell you that the minimum wage laws are crimes against "economic efficiency" and workers should be paid what the employer thinks they're worth. The great Milton Friedman said so, so it must be correct. This is why all governments on Earth are following his instructions, written in his "Free to Choose".

So, where is the definition of "property rights" you great hero of deep intergration into the free enterprise USA ?

You so called "conservatives" seem to be hot when mouthing slogans, but when it comes to facts and thinking, it is "daaaaaaaaaaa"?

Ed Deak.

zalm; you are so ignorant, I live in BC. Is that good enough for you?
I am happy to see you refer to GOD in your pathetic statement.
The market rules. That is not a bad thing, it's only something you and Fat Lix don't understand.
How many fatties have you licked lately Fat Lix ?

You exist in B.C. IAMC - no one as ignorant as you are can be said to actually 'live'.

In the absence of anything either intelligent or relevant to say you revert to the name calling behavior you learned during the sojurn in Alberta that served as an education for you.

It's hardly surprising that zalm would think you lived in the most reactionary province in the nation. It's just too bad you don't still live there.

The region around the Fraser Valley is not a desert.

The liberals must be using a new dictionary in which the words "reserve" and "park" are synonomous and "profit" comes before both of them. No matter how you look at it, the loss of farmland/ parkland for the sake of their buddies makin' a buck is just plain sad, not to mention unbelievably short sighted. I expected the decision to keep Barnston Island in the ALR as to do otherwise would have caused an uproar after the events of late and it will serve as a temporary smokescreen. The proof of the pudding will be in future decisions. Any bets on how the majority of those will go?

Developer Tsukamis will be back. This is his third attempt to pave Barnston Island. When there is this much money to be made (100s of millions) the greedy just keep coming back. Ag land has been under attack for decades and with recent changes to the commissions it's getting easier and easier to exclude land from the ALR. Barnston was an exception. With a society fixated on short term solutions that merely postpone the inevitable reckoning, not much is gonna change until peak oil and global warming start to bite.

"So allegedly poor farming soils were not sufficient justification to have the land excluded from the ALR."

Agricultural land has a wide range of soil quality. Interestingly, the ALC decision given in the link did not say what category the soil was. There are category 6 soils only suitable for grazing land in the ALR and that is appropriate. We have to keep a wide range of agricultural land available to future generations. The report didn't say what the soil was, so we don't really know how "poor" it was. If their argument was that it wasn't category 1, "prime" agricultural land, then their poor soil argument was a joke and the Commission should have said so. The report should have included more detailed information. Who's running this thing nowadays? Oh ya ....

Why is it that when ideologically warped minds run out of prescribed cliches, buzzwords and platitudes, and are incapable of understanding simple logic, or answer questions, they immediately accuse people of taking drugs ?

Is it because they are?

Just for your information my pathetic friend IAMC, I've never taken any drugs in my life, don't drink, or smoke, drink coffee, or take any medications. Not even aspirins.

Now how about answering my question on the definition of property rights, especially in view of the Free Miners Act?

E.g. Who owns a property with a mortgage? Who owns the property, or business bought with capital freshly created from the air by a bank, transferring the responsibility for its conversion into goods on the public, represented by a government?
The borrower, the bank, or the government?

Daaaaaaaaaaaaa???

And please none of the usual:"You leftie, godless, pinko, commie, socialists, etc"
We have heard them a few thousand times before.

Ed Deak.

Agreed.

My understanding is that irrigating deserts raises the water table and releases salts into the soil. Irrigating deserts is not a long-term solution.

I think the ALR is justified in a market economy because farmland is not an ordinary commodity. When farmland is transformed to urban uses, it is generally a one-way transformation (or at the very least it requires enormous resource inputs and/or time to transform it back to farmland). Food security is a strategic consideration that should outweigh shorter-term land market choices. And since we are headed for a higher energy-cost environment, protecting farmland close to population centres makes huge sense.

The alternative to paving farmland is building on hillsides. Not only are there expenses due to steep slopes, difficult road & infrastructure construction, and huge DFO stream setbacks, but the public in general has not yet accepted the trade-off, choosing between paving farmland and hillside development.

Every developer who proposes a hillside development is haunted by the ghost of Mary Hill =^)

wuwuwuuwwu

My recent interest in the ALR arises out of the charges laid against Dave Basi for allegedly accepting a $50,000. bribe from two developers for the purpose of building a 650-unit housing development.

It changes the pattern of Basi's activities somewhat ... from allegedly influencing the sale of BC Rail ... and now this.

Read a report from the pleasant little village of Sooke, after their 2 boat launches had been sold to private ownership. They developed a bumper sticker which says: "Who do I have to bribe to get a public boat launch again?" Poor, sad British Columbia.

Sorry folks, the sea air must've got to me. Should've explained that better.

Basi is charged with allegedly having influenced the removal of land from the Sooke ALR for the housing development. Just can't imagine what he said.

Here is something interesting I found on barnstonisland.ca as they were answering the misinformation put out by the developers trying to get the land excluded from the ALR:

"13 ) Barnston Island soil quality is a problem.

Barnston Island has some of the best farmland in BC, according to almost every soils expert. Even the consultant retained by the development faction says that all of the soils are improvable to class 2 (very high quality) and that farming is viable. Barnston Island has been farmed for a century and has supported several multi-generation families. Both Opus Cranberries and Avalon Dairy have invested millions in farming on Barnston in recent years."

So, according to this atleast, there is no soil problem on Barnston Island. Maybe someone should have informed those political hacks appointed to the Commission.

Again, we need a static viability criteria to determine when land should be removed and when it shouldn't. That these are now political decisions is unacceptable.

IAMC:

It does? And which market would that be? The one free and clear of government regulations and other sorts of interference that allows some to benefit at the expense of others? Is it that market? Is it the market where I can set up a factory on my residential lot? Is it the market where Eagle Ridge Bluffs are not destroyed so jet setters can get to Whistler faster, and without paying a toll (in other words subsidized from the public trough)? Or is it the market that builds bridges on Indian reservation lands without recompense?

It's just so conffozin' knowing which market it is you refer to.......

Rick; yes it's all of those examples you gave. Each and every point you made was right.
Yes, set up a home business, without interference from the Govt. F. them, it's your property.
Eagle Ridge is okay, there is plenty of nature in Canada. This won't make one bit of difference to our environment.
Yes, build a bridge on an Indian reservation, and pay them lots of money to do so.
Rick , the market always has, and always will rule.
Sorry for the bad news, but if you can think of an alternative that works, let us know.

But the market is not ruling.

1] The indians are not getting paid...

2] and how much nature do you destroy before the point of no return? If there is "plenty" of nature, would you care to quantify? Plenty is certainly not infinite.

3] And would you want an oil-recovery-from-old-tires plant next door to you? How come there are no Salvation Army missions in the British Properties?

Or maybe you'd like this next door? Afterall, you do not own the mineral rights under your property:

Up to four barrels of water are drained from the Athabasca River to produce one barrel
of tar sands oil. The water isn’t returned to the river, but rather ends up as toxic slurry dumped
in holding lagoons so big they can be seen from space by the naked eye.http://www.nrdc.org/media/docs/060607a.pdf

http://www.nrdc.org/media/docs/060607a.pdf

freebearGood postI am glad there is someone out there That understands why Urban sprawl is bad and why we should buy local food. When i drive though surrey and see all of these starter castles being built. On what used to be farm land,I wounder how they will be able to heat them in 5,10,15 years from now.

The market hasn't always ruled. No doubt they teach that at the MBA indoctrination camps, but an even cursory glance at human history puts the lie to such poppycock. Surely you can find better myths upon which to base your worldview?

The market is a form of dictatorship of the most powerful, using persuasion, fraud and blackmail to extort benefits from others.

Our so called market based economy is supposed to be booming, while millions become poorer by the day. According to StatsCan BC's child poverty rate is 23.9%, while the national average is 17.6%, thanks to our market crazy government sending money out of the province by the truck and computer load.

There are almost a million people, many, if not most of them employed, yet in the foodbank lines that grow by about 65,000 per year.

I'll be selling my calves in about a month and will get for them what the conspiracy of a few American based multinationals decide we should get,
while prices in the supermarkets rise every day. Blamed on high fuel costs, of course, which is nothing more than a good and fraudulent excuse to fleece the public.

In the name of the "globalized free markets" of course, now not even taxing the obscene profits of the controllers of the markets.

I'm a dedicated private enterpriser and have gone through hell to be and remain one. But an economy should run like a road system, where people are free to drive approved vehicles within strict rules, protecting life and property.

Our economic system is exactly the opposite. It rewards violence against others and the destruction of the environment, life and property. Obviously, the "road warriors" enjoy it, as it gives them free hand to ruin others, but this can not go on for ever without self destruction, while also destroying the lives of present and future generations.

Ed Deak.

As Rafe has stated, as an MLA and a member of Gov't who succeeded the 1972 NDP, the ALR and ICBC where reviewed by the new Gov't and it was found the ALR and ICBC were like scrambled eggs that couldn't be undone...

The public assumes they exist on merit,...but they exist in a bastardized sense of reality,simply big legal albatrosses passed on...ICBC because Private Insurance companies felt they couldn't trust Gov't again( always bad) and the ALR became so "rooted" via the motherhood belief and the BIG LIE theory.

Rafe states that the Socreds fixed the problem of the abundant amount of non- agricultural land caught up in the ALR through fine -tuning. However, there is still a huge amount of NON agricultural land trapped in this 1972 NDP Gov't ALR Frankenstein.

I know ....because myself and my neighbours own small mostly 1/2 acre residential properties that for 70 years were NOT in the ALR, were never farmed...but somehow in 1972 our properties were somehow placed in the ALR, and it has been a total liability for us to be included within the ALR.

As per the ALC ACT, one's Local Gov't must approve your ALR exclusion application...but we have been refused. However, our Local Gov't (Richmond) has approved the 135 acre DFO ALR Lands exclusion. Its through this experience and much research on our part that we found the ALR is a SCAM , a crock,a weapon used by Gov'ts for manipulation and control which has nothing to do with saving farmland.., and unfortunately exists on motherhood mythology support by the General BC Public

In our area there are properties 8000 sq.ft in size within the ALR. The NDP expects these will be farms??? Huh??? The General Public assumes that the 1972 NDP Gov't creation of the ALR made a case by case analysis of every properties current and future agricultural viability. That's the start of the BIG LIE .

The 1972 NDP leader recently stated that the 1972 NDP felt they would be a one term Gov't only, and thus they would need to move quickly to do what they wished to do, good ,bad and ugly. The NDP used methodology to create the ALR that was simply expeditious and arbitrary...

For much of the ALR,...the NDP used each Local Gov't Agricultural current agricultural designations which the new ALR simply overlapped. Agricultural designations have NOTHING to do with actual farming viability. AGRICULTURAL Zoning is a cute term which can be translated into " We, The Local Gov't have no idea YET what to do with this land, thus we will provide the minimum of services"...

AGRICULTURAL LAND can also be considered NON URBAN,or RURAL, or pre URBAN . Agricultural designation just sounds "nice" , versus future this or future that

When the ALR was created....it provided a great excuse for Local Gov'ts to manipulate their OCP's,...to either deny ALR exclusions (Election campaigns: WE MUST SAVE FARMLAND!!!) or dip into the ALR as they see fit.

One comment by IAMC re: a Court Case...yes there is a Court Challenge..if it is the same person I have discussed the issue with, who has filed a Court Case due to the actions of their Local Go'vt . Suffice it to say, the way ones own Local Gov't can abuse the ALR should scare anyone with ALR property and even those with NO ALR property.

Unless one owns ALR Land , knows the ALC Act...ALC policy, and has reviewed the creation of the ALR, and the moebius/pretzel logic involved with all of the above , it is realy sad to see how intelligent people can blindly believe that the ALR itself has ever saved a square foot of farmland,but is really nothing but the Big Lie...and that the ALR is simply an UNcompensated theft of property rights, a huge cover-up,and basically a communistic act somehow allowed and umbrella'd under a democratic system

More Later

IAMC:

Zoning bylaws were set up at the request of landowners in order to protect their private property investment. In BC, the first zoning bylaw was set up for Shaughnessy at the request of the landowners. Our heritage of land use controls stem from private sector petition to the province.

"and that the ALR is simply an UNcompensated theft of property rights"

Please explain what property rights have been stolen from you. You still have the right to sell your land yes? But not the right to do as you please with it? Just as every other property owner must conform to the zoning regulations concerning their piece of land right? I wonder how loud you'd scream if a rendering plant was built beside your home and zoning rules be damned?

The ALR = the BIG LIE THEORY ??? ....no = BIG LIE REALITY !!!

Last April , the ALC held a Public Information Meeting re: the 135 acre Richmond DFO Lands ALR Exclusion application.

There were approx. 200 people in attendance .

As per the ALC Act, the Local Gov't ( City of Richmond ) approved the DFO lands ALR exclusion applications submission to the ALC.

Myself and my neighbours own small residential (mostly 1/2 acre) properties, which were somehow included in the ALR, even though for decades previous to the ALR's creation our properties were never farmed. We also requested of our Local Gov't that we too be allowed to apply for exclusion from the ALR, as we see our ALR inclusion as of no benefit to anyone but instead as an ever -increasing liability to ourselves .

If anything should be rubber -stamped with an ALR exclusion it should be us... Our inclusion in the ALR was proof the ALR's creation -methodology was arbitrary and expeditious. However, unlike the 135 acre DFO lands, we were refused permission by our Local Gov't to even apply for exclusion.
SECTION 23 of the ALC ACT would almost 100% obligate the ALC to automatically exclude us from the ALR once the application came to their offices

Why were we refused ?

At the ALC Hearing for the DFO lands, one of my "ALR" 1/2 acre neighbours stated that he grew up on a farm...then he turned to the crowd of 200 and asked for a show of hands of who else amongst the crowd had grown up on a farm.

Approx. 5 hands out of 200 were raised.

When I spoke, I also turned to the crowd and asked how many of the 200 also owned any ALR Property.

Approx. 10 hands out of the crowd of 200 were raised.

Thus, given this sample base...over 95 % of the General Public have (i) never actually farmed and (ii)never owned any ALR Property. These approx. 200 people were the people that were motivated enough to attend an ALC hearing,likely the dreaded armchair farmer "expert" urbanites... but what about the rest of the General Public and their actual in -depth knowledge of the ALR ....vs the BIG LIE presumptions/assumptions re: the ALR which seem to predominate ???

Given the DFO ALR Lands situation (application for ALR exclusion to the ALC approved by the Local Gov't), and our own situation (application for ALR exclusion to the ALC denied by the Local Gov't), what is the ALR really all about???

Given we have identified the 135 acre DFO Lands as the largest single piece of BARE Agriculturally- zoned land in Richmond...and which could actually be farmed.. and the City has approved its exclusion application(and yet denied ours )....This indicates the ALR has nothing to do with saving FarmLand, but a corrupt CONTROL tool to be used to suppress land prices, be manipulated to satisfy Local Gov't agendas, deny certain classes of property owners any benefits of progress but instead most certainly incurr and absorb all the costs, even though owners of property in the same area, of similar sizes and the same circumstances were not included in the ALR.

Through all this, and via much due diligence and research, we have uncovered our own Local Gov't ALR agenda,(ie the reason WE are kept in the ALR )and effectively proven the ALR has nothing to do with saving farmland... and we now have both them and the ALC very ,very nervous.

ALR = BIG LIE is about to be exposed big time !!!

More Later

To STUMP:

First of all, may I ask if YOU own any ALR Land or do You Farm???

In BC , Land Use aka Zoning is the sole jurisdiction of one's Local Gov't. With possibly very minor exceptions,this was the case BEFORE 1972 when the ALR was created.

However, when the ALR was created,this created 2 classes of BC Property Ownership (i) NON ALR Property owners and (ii) ALR Property Owners

NON ALR Property Owners were still only beholden to their Local Gov't OCPs. Zonings etc.The ALC had no jurisdcition over them.

However, after 1972, when the ALR was created ,at the stroke of a pen ,another class called ALR Property Owners was created.

ALR Property Owners were beholden to TWO " CITY HALLS " Govts..ie (i) the BC Gov't (ALC) and (ii) their own Local Gov't and must request permission from BOTH to do anything, but first starting with your Local Gov't granting you permission to apply to the ALC. No permission to apply = stuck in the ALR.

Thus, I and any other BC property owners prior to 1972 were EQUAL. After 1972 one can either claim that NON ALR property owners have more rights than ALR Property Owners...or more logical a conclusion is that the NON ALR Property Owners have the same basic rights and never lost them...thus the ALR Property owners had these same rights taken away...it was not compensated...aka UNcompensated.. that is theft...( theft is defined as depriving the owner of the lawful use of their property ). Things certainly changed after 1972 aka something went missing....

Does it escape the General Public that the NDP, in creating the ALR could have Legally expropriated every piece of land it considered "agricultural" ...why didn't they ???... because then it would have to COMPENSATE them.....aka BUY them up at fair market price...and likley bankrupt BC.

Isn't the ALR effectively land kept in the Public Trust for future Agricultural needs ??? Why not buy it up ,place in Public Ownership and ensure that it stays in the Public trust...like Stanley Park ??

As mentioned in my previous submission, we have a few properties in our area 8000 sq.ft. that were included in the ALR. Are you aware that to even apply for ALR exclusion,you have to complete a form and PAY a $ 600.oo fee regardless of size yet across the street form us in the ALR we have acreages that because of their NON ALR status have no such extra hoops to go through.

The ALR was simply a method to force this NDP "farmland - forever" vision onto a certain class of Private Property Owners in cost saving ambush fashion and expect them to bear all the cost and at no benefit aka UNcompensated.

When the NDP cast this communistic ALR net, because they were in such a hurry, they trapped 1000's of BC Property Owners who never were... never will be... nor ever could be farms... simple corrupt inventory yet fool the BC Public that we have X millions of acres in the ALR, when in fact there are untold thousands of us as part of the bogus ALR= farmland "number-statistics"... and the General Public swallows it hook line and sinker...

Many of us have had enough of this BS, we don't like being lied to,screwd around, manipulated , nor have this ALR= BIG LIE supported by some members the General Public who undeniably benefit in a huge fashion from our illogical and irrational UNcompensated ALR inclusion.

Rest assured, the ALR , if it doesn't change and restructure,...will implode... its only a matter of time....as it will be more and more seen as a corrupt tool/weapon...which is logical given it started off in corrupt fashion as a massive theft in 1972.

More later

I wonder if you would enumerate exactly which property rights you are being denied and what costs you have to bear?

Sorry, I thought your latest more later was the previous one.

No, I don't own any land in the ALR and any farming I do is of the backyard and/or container gardening variety. I do eat however, and I don't have much sympathy for land speculators. I prefer long-term sustainability over short-term greed when it comes to planning decisions. That's why I can see a need for the ALR.

With regard to Stanley Park, it was never in private hands to be expropriated.

You're projecting today's reality onto tomorrow. Who's to say that the land you claim as unfarmable will still be seen as such in a decade or ten?

I'd love to hear your solution for food security in these increasingly insecure times. If it's better than the ALR I will jump on-board and you can count me among your converts. However, if all you're bitching about is the fact you can't cash in on the current bubble you won't have much sympathy from me.

The Agricultural Land Commission’s decision to deny applications to remove land from the Agricultural Land Reserve on acreage south of Albert McGowan Park (above) and at the former sanitarium property at Tranquille (below) will result in costlier developments in Kamloops, according to Mayor Terry Lake.
------------------------
One should have no problem guessing which side of the ALR debate this guy is on! The fellwo who bought the Tranquille property has been trying for some time to get his way. Obviously at last part of the town council is behid him, but at what cost?

Maestro:

Do you have a good land use planning consultant? If your case is as clear-cut as you claim, a good planner can help you negotiate the process at City Hall and with the ALC.

A lot of property was designated ALR based on incomplete information. This is why the ALR is fine-tuned over time -- that is, some inclusions and exclusions are permitted to rationalize the boundary.

ALR property owners are not entitled to compensation for their land use designation. On the flip side, when a land is rezoned to a higher value, the owner does not need to pay the windfall back to the local government; conversely, as long as your land can be used for the purpose for which it is designated, you are not entitled to compensation.

For better or worse, the fact that the land hasn't been used for farming for a long time doesn't really matter to the ALC.

This is silly -- even the NDP value private property too much to expropriate all farm land. They chose not to expropriate because it was a stupid idea, not because it was expensive.

Property is a bundle of rights, and not all rights go along with each property, depending upon its land use designation. The provincial government believes that local governments have a vested interest in transforming agricultural land to other urban uses in order to increase property tax revenue, so they chose to create a provincial commission to regulate agricultural land. This changed the bundle of rights that go along with agricultural land, it did not remove all of your property rights.

Changing land use designation is a pain, it is true, but having strong land use regulations protects all players in the market by making the marketplace more predictable. This encourages greater investment in land improvements -- including agricultural land. These laws, in conjunction with the Farm Practices Protection Act, protect the farmer from sub/urban encroachers who would move adjacent to working farms and sue them to make farmers stop spreading manure, shooting cannons to scare birds, and other agricultural externalities that effect adjacent landowners.

It is not perfect, but on balance, I believe the ALR to be good long-term policy.

ALR = BIG LIG THEORY

Further discussion re ALR;

FACTS FROM ALR MAPS

West Vancouver: has NO ALR

North Vancouver: has NO ALR

Port Moody: has NO ALR

Vancouver: has very little ALR, a few hundred acres, SOUTHLANDS area, most of it is Golf Courses and Estate Homes. Included in the ALR because it had a Vancouver defined "agricultural"(THE magic word) designation,....
RUMOR-BYLAW: Anyone that tries farming here will be shot by Jeeves

Burnaby : Has little ALR , a few hundred acres, South of Marine Drive, much of it not farmed..

Richmond is almost 50 % within the ALR.

Gee....Why do GVRD Cities with NO or little ALR have the highest land prices ??? Coincidence ???

Each Local Gov't that has ALR Land within its' jurisdiction has its own in-house policy re its ALR Lands...Richmonds' may differ 180 degrees from Surrey's , Delta's , Abbotsfords' .....all other things being equal. That additionally undermines the ALR credibility. ie subjective, inconsistent, different agendas etc.

In fact when the very FIRST ALR property was excluded for the ALR, did this not render it Null and Void...proof it was a poor piece of legislation...???

In addition, if you allow one ALR property ALR exclusion, must you not let all others out via precedent...why is the ALR treated differently????

In typical NDP Logic, which tends to do the opposite of their social engineering "save -the -world" attempt...the 1972 NDP quasi- legal guerrilla ambush did not obligate every Local Gov't to provide "ALR" as their pro-rated share of the desperately - needed "save the farmland" propoganda agenda.

What the NDP ALR Frankenstein did was backfire on them ,and in 180 degree contradiction to their socialist wealth distribution agenda, .....and with something no Daddy Warbucks/ Donald Trump "evil" capitalist could ever dream of...the ALR created more millionaires with minimum effort and off the backs of those the 1972 NDP ambushed and imprisoned within the ALR.

Was the NDP actually a front for a Land Shortage cartel conspiracy,... a quasi OPEC or DeBeers ????

Perhaps we ALR HOSTAGES should approach the Provincial Gov't and ask them enact legislation tht would obligate BC taxpayers to pay us ALR Hostages to maintain this bogus ALR... whose premise is based on some FUTURE PHANTOM FARMER who if they have not come in 34 years, we shouldn't hold our breath.

In the US they paid their farmers not to grow certain crops...in BC ..either pay us a cut of your NDP sponsored windfall gains...pay us a fee via your taxes on par with the loss of our highest and best use potential..or simply let us out of this bogus socialist ALR scam(cheapest solution).

Good luck to the current Court Case with the ALR as the defendant ...this legal case and the rest of us Pro Active ALR Hostages have got the system very very nervous..

The ALR was simply the NDP trying to play GOD, not realizing the DEVIL is in the details, and that it created NO Garden of Eden, more like a Frankenstein monster / Hell for many . Remember, Jesus Christ chose carpentry over farming...but he also had much to say about the hypocrites.

ALR ??? = NO MORE FREE LUNCH

And then Jesus chose poverty, sacrifice, and public service.

You're in hell? Puh-leeze.

Maestro:

The ALR is usually criticized because withholding land from urban use drives up prices. When GVRD cities with little ALR have high land prices, this counters the criticism. This point undermines your own argument.

Since each local government has different agricultural land policies, the province decided to intervene. Again, you are justifying, not undermining, the ALR.

No. The first exclusion demonstrated that the ag-land inventory required fine-tuning. No legislation is perfect -- humans are involved =^)

You are confusing the rights of the individual with the bundle of rights that are associated with a piece of property. Land uses, not land users, are regulated by local governments and the province. One ALR exclusion is not a precedent to allow all others out. The ALC has criteria, which are certainly open to criticism, which they must follow when making a decision to permit exclusion or subdivision. It is made on a case-by-case basis. You have no right to have land excluded.

No land owner is entitled to compensation for "lost potential" based upon the premise that their land should be designated differently. Your entitlement to the land is based upon its designation.

I understand that you are upset that your property is in the ALR. Hopefully, if your case does have merit, this can be changed through an exclusion application. But your arguments about property rights are flawed, and will not support a successful exclusion application.

GOOD hopefully some healthy debate.

To STUMP and Steve P...I stated I live in Richmond ....the BC Geo-political GROUND ZERO ALR jurisdiction. What area of BC do you live for context and reference sake...??

Steve P...do you (i)own any ALR Land and (ii) do you farm ??

Unfortunately...I see the NDP ALR Propoganda has been seared into the synaptic gap of many ALR supporters who I have found by and large own NO ALR lands. Many fail to see the contrarian logic that shows the ALR to be a failure to its propogandized intent. It is the ALR that is actually ON TRIAL...not those of us within it.

STUMP: Jesus also aimed for equality over oppression...Truth over falsehood he was against false Gods (ALR) promoted by false prophets (NDP). Also: Moses lead the Jewish people out of an oppressive regime they did not want to remain in and into a land they could ACTUALLY call their OWN.

Steve P..good comments and "food" for thought...However, your rebuttal to the my comments actually proves my point even more. Whether the ALR exists..or even expands ....or the ALR is eliminated tomorrow...the horse is long out of the barn...

Land prices , and especially ALR,has increased to a point long ago that most farmers ,and especially new ones... (given farming is a business ,...not a charity nor a public duty,).... can NOT afford to purchase and expect a reasonable return farming.

In the " a rising tide raises all ships..." economics...even the lowest price land rises in price...and passes benchmarks that make certain uses unviable economically.

The ALR has actually expeditiously forced up land prices across the board...This is due to something called progress and reality.

The ALR model only works if the land is secured in the Public Trust , publically owned....then there is certainty, and thus attracts those actually interested in farming. It is the Farmer that makes it farmland, other wise it is simply raw land for ???? use. No farmer..then call it whatever you want,ALR???? but it aint' gonna feed you.

However, The ALC and thus the ALR inclusion offers no practical support for farmers...it simply makes up fairy tales of possibilities for farming if this was done, if that was done ....blah blah blah. Ever see an ALC report which actually states costs etc... to achieve the " this is farmable" fairy tale dream ??? I haven't .

Like my fellow ALR colleague who grew up on a farm said...there was a farmer saying " If Aunt Phyllis had balls she would be Uncle George"... and the ALC simply acts as wardens making up bogus excuses to deny parole to many "innocent" ALR hostages of any possibility to be a farm...for the bogus hope of the future phantom farmer.

Its all about control, bullshitting the public.......and nothing about farming...

Simply stated : if a given single piece of ALR property cannot be farmed to provide the owner with their sole source of income ie allow them to be a full time farmer and make a reasonable living ...the ALR is simply a joke and the BIG LIE ....now 34 years old.

The land has been here, in various forms, for millions of years. Well, 7,000 if you're a Bible thumper.

We have control of our lands in various forms of ownership for very short periods, as all wealth and property are temporary controls of resources and energy, that have began and end in eternity.

The world is already overpopulated and food production and food producing lands are decreasing, for various reasons, very rapidly.

Does the temporary control of our properties give us the permit, or right, to destroy the food producing potential of that particular land forever and deny the right of future generations for food.

And let's not get started on the nonsense that future technology will solve all the problems, because such claims, like the Green Revolution and the GM seeds, are fraudulent and criminal, profit making schemes, which have been and are destroying food production. The claims of the benefits are bloody lies.

Yes, I own land in the ALR and have been in chemical and organic farming, with an off period, since 1948, and fully support the ALR.

Ed Deak.

I think the real false gods are those of unlimited growth, suburban sprawl equalling progress, and making the dollar "Almighty".

For context... I live in Vancouver and make every effort to source my food as locally as possible. The Trout Lake Farmer's Market is a godsend to me and I'm happy to pay the little extra for good food produced in my region.

Just because I don't farm doesn't really matter IMO. I don't log either, but I use paper and wood and have a vested interest in seeing it produced sustainably since scarcity usually means price increases.

There are two separate issues here. However, the one depends on the other.

First of all, and most important, there can be no farm economy when agricultural land is estranged from agricultural use.

Therefore priority one must be to preserve the land for farming. Hence the need for and the reason to support and preserve the ALR and to prevent its corruption (which is currently happening as a result of the BCLiberals wanting to reward their friends at the expense of the good of the people in general).

Second, almost as important, there can be no farm economy if farming is not an economic reality for real farmers - which is the essence of maestro's point - although he seems to want to direct most of his anger at the ALR..unfotunately and illogically, in my view.

However, the farm income crisis is not in any way related to the ALR because farm economic viability is a problem for agriculture all across this country and in places where the ALR has no impact whatsoever.

For farming to become economically viable there must be a policy which would see an enormous rise in the price of food and an immediate cessation of subsidy policies - particularly in the US - which tend to make imported food too cheap.

Furthermore, my airline tickets and my ferry tickets now include a fuel surcharge to help ameliorate the high cost of oil for both those enterprises. Why not add a surcharge to food prices - which also 'contain' a large expenditure for energy? Westjet has just declared a record profit over the last quarter - despite high and rising energy inputs. Have you noticed any record profits in the agriculture industry lately? I think not.

Eliminate subsidies and make it possible for Canadian farmers to compete against imported food and let them begin make a decent living and the ALR will become a valuable asset for every farmer.

No longer will the maestros of BC be looking to cash out by selling good farmland to developers to put up little boxes made of tickey tackey that all look just the same.

Consumers will have to pay a lot more for their food though. Nevertheless, in the end, the result will benefit the country more than the current mess does and we will have an opportunity to actually support and benefit from a sustainable agriculture industry.

After about 3 years of research on the ALR and a huge pile of documents, one tends to see things in a diffent light than what one once beleived...after a bit of inspiration that starts this journey.

Our own elected officials were invited to a neighbourhood meeting and we discussed the City policy re: what is farmland, what isn't, and the mechanism to move forward for exclusion. Our elected officials said " basically prove you are not Viable...the "V" word...aka that your small ALR properties are not viable for the current zoning use."

Ok if that's Richmond policy .....stress Richmond's policy and from an elected official (credibility)....OK we thought great slam dunk coming up.

Please Note: I am not interested in debating " farmland forever" or indentured servitude to society with no other options....if the opportunity exists..its our right to pursue it...If this is a democracy then we have that right to follow due process, and especially in our case.

However...not so fast...
City Staff say they are too busy...then they write a response to our request to move forward with an exclusion, and City staff claim we ARE farmland.

We have meetings with ALC Staff...in their Burnaby offices.(NOTE..Trivia the ALC Burnaby offices were built on an ex -Strawberry Farm.)

AS we state our case,..Tha ALC Staff politely interrupt us and say.. " Sorry the value of your land and its V-I-A-B-I-L-T-Y as farmland are NOT valid(viable?) rationale for exclusion from the ALR."

Huhhhh???

The Agricultural Land Commission used to be called simply the Land Commission.

Agriculture is defined in Oxford dictionary as the "the science or practice of cultivating the soil and rearing animals". (City bylaws prohibit us from any farm animals due to our small size...forget the cultivation..it'll ruin the septic field.

Thus, if your own Local Gov't and the ALC aren't even in the same library let alone the same page, you tend to wonder what this ALR is really about... One thing is clear as all the evidence suggests..it has NOTHING to do with supporting and promoting farming... and AGRICULTURAL Land Commission is simply false advertising and simply an agency whose sole purpose is to be the other 1/2 of a Catch 22 in cahoots with your Local Gov't.

Regardless, we went into this quite cognitive of the Public's general perception of the ALR, and actually we can confess to ONCE being part of that save farmland perception.

However, rather than spend , and exhaust our resources into convincing the BC public after 34 years of ALR Propoganda, we then felt that the decision-makers(City) and gate -keepers (ALC) were the best targets of our pro-active efforts..aka we don't like being lied to and decieved.

If we ALR Hostages now have them ALL nervous...we must be on the right path...correct???

In the end, the ALR will either shape up ... and benefit everyone..or ship out...

The best and most sustainable food production system is the family farm and the best way to ensure adequate income for farmers, is the elimination of the multinational agribiz oligopoly "middlemen" class, bloodsucker sector and the return to the real market economy of producers dealing with users.

The same applies to all parts of the economy.

This "middle" sector controls producer incomes and prices, skimming off and pocketing huge profits while destituting the real producers, collectivizing both production and distribution into a few hands to blackmail the public into submission.

Where are the anti cartel and anti trust laws we used to have to prevent the return to a worldwide Dickensian Britain?

Tis is the ideal communistic system now fraudulently called "free enterprise capitalis" where the only freedom is the begging for handouts from the rulers.

The origin of this crime wave is at the university levels where the real economy is being distorted into illusory, monetary games and enforced by so called neoliberal and neoconservative governments in the pay of the international, corporate mafia of criminals. I've seen the nazis and the communsists at work and now recognize the same goons in business suits. The only thing missing from Harper's head is the "Totenkopf" cap. The rest is all there.
Campbell doesn't have the brains to realize what's going on. The guy is a puppet on strings, but Harper is the real menace.

I'm a firm believer in the mixed economy system and I think we had the best of it in the '50s and '60s, when business was making decent profits, but labour and the small producers also received decent wages and incomes, with appropriate increase in living standards.

There's no free lunch, or free trade, or free enterprise. Everything has to be paid for in real, and not monetary, terms. The only question is who makes out the bills?

Ed Deak.

I grew up on a parcel subdivided off my Grandpa's farm in Ontario. I work as a land use planning consultant and, among other things, help people deal with the ALC. My mentor in the biz is a farmer who owns ALR land in Langley. I don't think its current borders are sacred, but I believe agricultural land requires protection from swings in the market. The value of local agricultural land will increase, over the medium-term, as energy costs increase or if we have a dispute with our neighbours to the south.

The ALR tends to drive up the cost of urban land, while depressing the cost of agricultural land. This means you probably have paid less property tax with your land's ALR designation than you would have if the land was not designated ALR. The ALR is therefore good for farmers who want to buy or lease land, but not as good for sub/urbanites who want homes and commercial or industrial properties.

Another poster suggested eliminating subsidies for agriculture. Although I agree with this, I think freer trade in agricultural products would help developing countries more than it would help our farmers.

Staff are frequently too busy to be helpful at City Hall, and elected politicians sometimes do not know the specifics of land planning law as well as their staff. I hear this often. If people were treated well by City Hall, I would be out of a job tomorrow. =^)

If you haven't done so already, read your Official Community Plan, and see what kind of change is planned for your local area. If you can bring a proposal for your land that is in line with the OCP, this will help you get the support of City Hall.

To Steve P

You appear to be well - informed...for the most part.

However, (and Fiat Lux can probably confirm this ), I advise you to read the applicable Farm Tax status laws by BC Assessment.

There is an asumption by the NON ALR public that "oh...you are in the ALR = you pay LOOOWWW Farm taxes..quit yer bitchin.."

Actually the farm tax structure is an inverse proportion...the smaller your property the more gross farm income you have to produce ..or the larger your property the less gross farm income you are required in order to achieve an assessment that will result in LOW FARM TAXES...ie approx.$25 - $50 per acre in property taxes (based on local mill rate).

However,IF you don't achieve this gross farm income ie actually farm it...and satisfy BC Assessments farm tax criteria...your property tax automatically shoots up to approx $700 per $ 100,000 of assessed value.(ie Richmonds approx. mill rate.)

Richmond produced a major Agri- Study a few years back. The data shows average Richmond farm gross income at 17 cents per sq. ft.
My own 19000 sq.ft residential property would thus potentially produce $ 3230 in gross (NOT net) income if I tore down my house , driveway, septic field etc.(remember..Bylaws say NO Livestock)

Given the farm income benchmarks to achieve Farm Tax status...I actually need 2-3 X's the farm income (ie over $6000)that our City's own Agri-report clearly says is not even possible for my size of ALR property in order to achieve these "cheap farm taxes" for my small less than 1/2 acre property. Try to exist on even $6000 a year after net etc..hahahaha ???

CONCLUSION: I pay FULL CITY/URBAN RATE-TAXES

Check this Farm Tax out yourself....

By the way....as more of a background I know many of the major farmers in Richmond...including some relatives of mine . The reason they farm is that the land has been in the family for generations...(they didn't buy it recently)... it is a family business, it is able to provide a livelihood...at this present time... but their have been many close calls re commodity prices...However, it will get interesting when the Farm -BUSINESS gets divided up when the next generation quickly approaching adulthood and how the ownership pie gets sliced up even more... and IF they actually want to farm...

Them's the facts....enjoy !!!

To Steve P.

Re OCP, City Hall, Politicians, City Staff and Planners etc.

A recent THE TYEE article mentioned Vancouvers' recently retired Head Planner. L.B.

In the recruitment process for a new Head City planner...I recall one head hunter stating basically that the City is basically RUN by the Planning Department.

In hindsight...I think this is true, and to be blunt I always suspected it. Most major decisions Bylaws etc. revolve around the OCP,..Zoning etc.aka Planning.

I agree that often Local Gov't /City's elected officials often don't have all the facts nor know all the specifics...Lord knows I have found that by much experience..

However...when they don't have basic policy and basic facts straight...that is a major concern because that affects and corrupts the the decision - making process.

Using City Staff as a crutch, or even worse, allowing a few hired Rasputins literal free rein to use the City as a canvas for their professional artistic expression...sorry, but if I'm actually paying taxes yet seeing the OCP, Zoning , City policy etc being used against me and many others ... and we are bluntly being lied to ....I have a real problem with that...

The fact that we have actually done our homework and showed it to them...has them in fear and loathing.

Years ago I was part of an OCP drafting. WE all went in there naive and feeling so privileged and honoured that the City wanted our opinion and actually look after us. We had meetings... consultants... City Staff looking at how to officially plan the area. One question stuck...why hire a Private Consultant?? Why do we pay for City Planners...?

When the area OCP was being drafted, I could see that the Private Consultant presented something that was nothing we had even discussed nor previously proposed...

Being naive, many of us "Trusted them", went along with it, though something didn't seem right. In hindsight... this new OCP was actually actively structured to be very costly and difficult...intended to slow down the area's future rather than move it forward.

Later , I read of a technique, that I saw that I was a past participant in twice (ie this OCP ,..also with GVRD)... whereby the Gov't bodies get/invite motivated members of the Public on a given common issue...get them into small groups...ie 30 people ...create 6 tables of 5 each, someone is the CHAIR PERSON..writes down the given tables' comments...then reads them out, and they are submitted to the Gov't bodies.

When the dust settles...and the issue is "dealt with" one finds that perhaps maybe 10-20 % of what the public group advised was used /considered or even implimented...but that another much bigger pre-decided agenda was in place.....but we were used as " token" members of the public to make it look more credible and less Machiavellian, but regardless...one sees the fix-is -in...and the skepticism rises.

However...the blessing was it added to my "wisdom via past experience" when the ALR issue came forward.

More later

Maestro,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply re: farm taxation and public planning process. Sorry to hear that the planning consultant did an end run around your suggestions! OCP processes are indeed frustrating at the best of times -- it is impossible to keep everyone happy, and often political choices structure the alternatives the planners may suggest.
best wishes,

sp

TO G.WEST

Re your quote:

" No longer will the maestros of BC be looking to cash out by selling good farmland to developers to put up little boxes made of tickey tacky that all look the same "

You make good comments in general but I will take issue with this quote....it is on par with stereotyping sans the actual facts. It does nothing positively re the ALR issue...but makes it worse.

The main point is the ALR is promoted as 100% GOOD GRADE A Farmland aka priceless...sorry WRONG-O !!!! If the ALC includes bad corrupted 1972 ALR inventory, and one's Local Gov't uses this bad corrupted ALR inventory as a paper thin excuse to de-value your property, against your own interests and with another agenda in mind...the ALR has lost most if not all its credibility, if it had any to start.

Advice: please do the HOMEWORK, we are getting into quasi World War II style stereotyping of the propogandized enemy...I am not your "enemy"....

I guess the NDP tarred everyone included in the ALR with the same brush...but like an absentee parent...doesn't wish to admit it fathered some bad moves...and will let the ALC do the dirty work and be Mr. Clean and not only lie to us but also to the NON ALR BC public..

Many ALR exclusions,are admittedly, at BULK volumes... ie a few hundrd acres here a few thousand acres there...by major players...

As stated many times..there was a lot of by-catch in the 1972 ALR net which created the ALR...and there is this delusion that every ALR fish caught was an ALR keeper...I stated in our area there were lots of 8000 sq.ft "minnows"...Of course this number is included in the overall ALR stats.

No one touches or advocates for this sub - set of bogus -farmland small ALR Property owners.....

In an upcoming e-mail, I will provide a case example that in FACT..we are not windfall profit seekers...we are in fact mega-subsidizers ourselves....we are entering relativity arguments.

The interaction of the ALR and our Local Gov't is artificially suppressing our property values from the norm....all other things being equal...we are not even remotely asking for special priveleges...but E-Q-U-A-L-I-T-Y.........but what we have seen, and a Richmond Councillor has unwittingly let it slip..is that our own specific ALR inclusion serves another future purpose City Agenda which has absolutely nothing to do with
FARMING or AGRICULTURE.

PS We don't live on "good farmland"...we are in the lowest grade of farmland...

Maestro
I come from a farm background. I have a brother who's still trying to make it work both on an off the farm. I know exactly what you're talking about. The lyrical riff was just meant to inject a little humour.

As to the 'grade' of farmland in question, I'll take your word for it but, I'll refer you back to Ed's post and say that even marginal farmland is a hell of lot better than another cookie cutter subdivision and another Walmart parking lot. But I don’t begrudge you a good living either. I just don't know enough about your own situation to make anything other than general remarks.

I'd conclude by saying that if you really want make a career of farming I'm your best ally and I'm more than willing to pay a hell of a lot more for my food to make sure you can do it successfully.

Anyone who doesn't, in this province especially, is mad.

G West

Not a problem

Given my math....and a very optimistic proft margin of 10% of gross...and using Richmond's Agri statistics numbers I would need over 50 acres to barely make a living (if I sold my family off) ..ie approx $600 profit per acre X's 50 acres = $30,000 before taxes

Actually I am fibbing a bit..re" cash crops and profitability" I had INDOOR marijuana grow -opps on both sides of me...one group of renters actually hacked a patch out of the ALR bushland behind me and had a more "natural organic" grow-opp" we didn't even know about it. It was so well hidden by wild overgrown unfarmed "ALR farmland".

Even the president of the Richmond Farmers insitute admitted facetiously that "pot" is the only profitable crop.

I understand some Alberta farmers who produce hemp are also selling a derivative of the hemp seed called 'hemp hearts' or shelled hemp seeds (THC - 0%) which apparently contain more essential amino acids than milk, meat or eggs along with omega 3 essential fatty acids etc etc - All good stuff apparently and they retail at my pharmacy for $14.50 for 454 g.
Outfit called Rocky Mountain Grain Products from Lethbridge.
Somebody, besides the smokers, is making money out of hemp, it seems.

I hope you haven't reached the point where you've had to think about selling the family yet.

Best of luck, believe me, I understand where you're coming from. Obviously changes at the local level are necessary.

THE ALR AND HOW LOCAL GOV'T'S USE AND ABUSE IT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THEIR OCP'S AND CITY POLICIES.

Rather than being one of many oversights City Halls/Local Gov'ts are accused of.., they are actually mandated by Provincial legislation every 5 years to have a "vision " for your area of the City...

If you are in the ALR, this can amount to 2- 3 pages of illogical manipulative state - sponsored bullshit(BIG LIE ) and ignore the reality. ie ALR??? = farming !!! Bye !!!...see you in 5 years .... REPEAT !!!

Policy: Many GVRD jurisidictions have an arterial road policy to accomodate future growth...whereby single family housing on busy main "arterial" roads will be re-zoned to highe density. This also creates balance as these arterial roads get busier with City growth and are less viable as single family neighbourhoods.

Richmond has such a policy, and our own single family "ALR" neighbourhood is undeniably on what is a major arterial road in Richmond. Richmond is re-zoning such areas into multi family or subdividing lots into 2 .However, when we state our case re: arterial road criteria..the City has a weasel clause ie this policy and that it only applies for NON - AGRICULTURAL arterial roads.

Cleverrrrrr.....Thus an illogical bogus definition we 1/2 acres residential lots in the ALR are "agricultural" trumps the undeniable reality , the City can ignore us and keep us here ...till hell freezes over.

However, perhaps the time has come to force the City and the Province into truly defining what " agricultural" IS and what "agricultural" ISN'T.

EXAMPLE: Insurance companies were forced via court precedent to outline in THEIR policies what the DO NOT COVER or DO NOT INSURE for.....
Thus...if it is not listed on their Insurance policy exclusion list ...then they cannot deny your claim...

Again..ALR and Agricultural zoning is a crock... its used as a weapon against us in the ALR...and the General Public is all warm and fuzzy because they think the Gov't saves farmland..when the actual truth is 1000's of BC property owner's rights were stolen via the ALR BIG LIE .

My gosh, if the governments,locally, NDP,Socred provincially has stolen your property right, why not go to some court to argue you were robbed. But expect a lot of farmers to oppose you.
Go tell the tax payers who ar standing in line at assorted farm markets this morning buying produce picked a few minutes ago by hard working other tax payers you want to shut down their livelyhood. Three of our family members are selling this morning starting at 9AM. Those three and two others where in the fields at 5 this morning. The customers were waitn for farm fresh produce well before opening times. we are heading up the peninsula in a few minutes tobuy from other local producers stuff the famil farm doesn't produce. Richmond used to have a lot o berry fields. The area became strip malls and other unique money makers years ago becasue there was no protection of farm land. We have three grandchildren who have paid their way through university by their manual labour in the fields, became skilled in animal handling through their 4H years.
a trcuk load of market animals is on teh first ferry this morning going to the lower mailand auctions. Does the family memebr driving the truck charge extar for fuel increases. You got to be kidding, he just works harder to cover the increased cost.

If you can't sell your one acre lot, well tough on you.

To: DPL

QUESTIONS

Can I sell you a bridge...???

Have you read this TYEE item from Rafe's original article...down to everything prior to your comment...??? Good constructive debates/ discussions...

Are you member of the 1972 NDP ??? Aha!!!!

When Rafe was on the radio, I recall him once saying the best way to get rid of a bad law is to ENFORCE IT.

Ok ...enforce the ALR ...if the ALR is to be credible A to Z , it should force every ALR landowner to farm...and then we open another HUGE can of worms...

It appears that you live on the Island . Obviously if you don't live on the Mainland , the logistics demographics are different . I know the local scene...

However, the ALR is the entire BC scene... and its credibility is in serious question when -Cause FACTs are brought forward. Major court cases are thrown out on tiny technicalites... the ALR exists because it hasn't been challenged due to even the most RIGHT WING Gov't who may be totally opposed to it realizes it would be a huge legal liability to the entire province....

Did I once say that you can't farm...did I once say I was against FARMING ???am I against you doing extremely well farming...??? If you can teach me how, GIVEN MY SITUATION... I'll be the first to sign up.

You appear to be equating the ALR with active and profitable farming...your first big mistake. Obviously you sound like you can do it successfully.... GOOD FOR YOU .....AND MORE POWER TO YOU and YOUR Family ...

Its the FARMERS that protects FARMING, not the ALR...You likely farm on land previously zoned for agriculture...and first zoned agriculture by your Local Gov't.
ADVICE Check out on how the ALR was created .

I somehow doubt you are near a major city....I am right at the very edge of my city....

I do NOT have a one acre lot....its less than a 1/2 acre..and you will never see any cash crop off my or 1000's of other similar sized small ALR included properties in BC....if you do actually farm you know that as fact.

I have already calculated that I would need approx. 100 acres to barely be able to feed a family using my own Cities' agri - stats. That is consistent with many of the absolute minumum farm holding size of many PROFESSIONAL Richmond Farmers I do know...

Cheap 100 ALR acres in Richmond are selling for $8 -$10 million.

Obviously DPL, that intolerant socialist " we- know -better and screw you " mentality that demonizes certain non -socialist facets of society has stuck with you....

I think Rafe made it fairly clear that the ALR exists not on merit...it exists as a tough legal liability for post 1972 NDP Gov'ts to undo...thus it will take parties such as myself to clean it up. Sorry...its not my public duty to be part of the NDP albatross and subsidize the rest of BC, which is what this is really all about...

Local Gov't and the ALC have coasted to easily on the ALR designation...there is a " Show Cause" facet to anything illogical...

Sorry DPL, I am a first generation Canadian, almost 99% of my extended family either FARMED or worked on FARMs when they arrived..., including in-laws from Alberta..and 99% of them do not farm any longer..nor their kids ...nor their grandkids...

Thats a democratic choice...unlike the NDP's ALR....do your homework ....and I can't recall the last time I saw an NDP election sign in the ALR

Seems the fellow just above this post is mad at somebody, anybody. Yes I do live on the Island,but spent about 15 years working in downtown Vancouver prior to that. If I was a NDP member in 1972 isn't the issue. It is that no government up to the present one has tried to cut up the ALR legislation. and now it seems even they are having a few problems in that direction.Barnstrom Island and Tranquille comes to mind. Quick buck artist are always out there and of course couldn't care less where the groceries are coming from. A lot of farmers on the lower mainland were Docred and yet they seem to have agreed the legislation brought in by the Barrett governemt on land protection was OK with them.
So you have a half ace lot in the ALR. IF you arn't using it why not sell it as the taxes on farm land are pretty low. maybe you want to get out from under the system and make a bunch of money. The question I might ask is, when did you buy it? Prior to the ALR coming into force? There are some local folks actually making some money on very small areas in farming. Try organic, more money to be made there.

To DPL

I guess you are into stereotyping,...so let's keep it going.

The Ferries.like the ALR, are a nuisance any way. Let's cut em...heavily subsidized...mostly by mainlanders like me...it seem the Island produces nothing but bitter socialists anyway...Lets "ALR" em...ie lock em in...

Apparently little old Davie , your 1972 NDP hero....who probably doesn't know which end of a BULL to milk, is living the Life of Reilly retired on Van Island on two non -farming pensions..as an ExMLA/ Premier and Ex-MP...My guess is over $100,000 GROSS because he and his ilk never could get a real job...yet they were somehow experts on everything like farming ,insurance...." bingo "...

Go back to the 1972 NDP Gov't debates on the ALR ..full of stereotyping ..

You seriously can't be a farmer...this is a joke right...??? Your " farm taxes " quip proves it...if you actually know the farm tax structure which I explained previously...1972 NDP was sloppy, lazy...which is why they were professional politicians. Check out how many of Davies cronies are millionaires..Cadillac socialists ...but not through farming !!!

If you are a farmer, you are an embarassment to many real farmers who I do know who are very intelligent. In fact its your type of stereotyping that will lead to the ALR's downfall. Lead along like sheep....

But again you are pulling my leg....this is Davie ... right..C'mon fess up..????

I love your earlier "threat" that a lot of farmers will oppose me....if I go to court....Actually I'll bet the vast majority of farmers would cheer me.

Davie,...If I or anyone else ever do actually go to court on this issue , you and your minority of "farmers" can't oppose me...because it would involve a legal trial with evidence and arguments....not a Public Poll or a petition....That's exactly what the NDP did, it avoided due process, ambushed people,....now the predictable mess.

I think I will get the Swiss Navy submarine to watch for the ferry you use that we mainlanders disproportionally subsidize.

Maybe its the raw sewage you Vancouver Islanders guys keep pumping into the ocean...rebounding back into the water supply, affecting the food chain,... though I did hear a biologist state that it is technically rich in nutrients , it makes crabs and other bottom feeders grow bigger faster....

Actually, maybe I am more "left wing" than you in the sense I have a serious problem with someone , especially Gov't, creating a sub -class of property owners...who are told they must secure their property for something that will never happen,absorb all the cost...and anyone actually in the ALR knows exactly what I am talking about...

You are part of the problem not the solution..do your homework or did you ever go to school.."Davie"??? ....you obviously shoot from the lip...

If you or anyone wants to pay approx. $275 lb for blueberries(I am in low grade peat bog soil)... for the next 30 years... guaranteed, I'll have my lawyer draw up an agreement, and I will keep quiet and keep my 1/2 acre in the ALR.

However, I find pro ALR socialists are often the cheapest bastards out there...

Sorry Davie, if we don't have a deal...........you lose...again...

I know DPL is pulling my leg...(if not ahhhh!!!)

TOPIC: Why the ALR will kill farming...

As mentioned earlier 100 + acres of Richmond ALR farmland was selling for $10 million.

If this land was not within the ALR..it would likely be worth $100 - 200 million.

Thus, ALR land is worth approx 1/10 of NON -ALR LAND or , conversely NON -ALR LAND is worth 10X's ALR Land.

Of course, the socialist mentality does cartwheels, having demonized ALR or even NON ALR property owners... re: the evils of "legal profit".

However, property values are actually based on a democratic majority "vote" by the general public ie demand for "X" use.......who value Housing, Retail,Industrial etc etc. uses over farming......or else there would be far more farmers. Pro ALR Socialists don't seem to understand this.

Regardless, the market price for ALR land of $10 million for 100+ acres is THE current market price..If the seller is a farmer,..sure their family may have homesteaded it ..or got it for $50 per acre??? but the farmer is not going to sell it for a penny cheaper than current market price ..ie " for the good of society?? NO WAY !!!" Even Gov't cannot change that "current market price" fact.

However, given the reality that a rising tide raises all ships...and in an economic sea....even the lowest valued property will rise in price..even ALR land. It is quite unlikley that anyone actually paying $10 Million is also a farmer... or that the purchaser will actually try to recoup their $10 Million investment through farming.

What is more likely is that the ALR Land purchaser is a NON Farmer investor, who has cashed in on a NON ALR investment that has risen dramatically due to the land shortage the ALR has created in "supply = down vs demand = up " fashion.

The ALR has created this ALR vs NON ALR differential...and expedited it as well, and this gap increasingly widens. Consequently, this "rising tide " also creates a faster rise in ALR land values...and have been, for the last few years, far beyond the reach of anyone seriously interested in farming in the form of secured ownership, which is usually the best type of farm land security.

The NDP pension fund hasn't, to my knowledge, invested in the ALR nor farming......too low a return..probably invested instead in condos on EX Farmland.

maestro,
that rising tide raises all ships stuff - apart from anything else - and not to comment further on what appears to be turning into a nasty spat above here - that rising tide thing. It ain't true. There is lots and lots of evidence that there just isn't any real general upward mobility in this society, or in the States, since about 1980.

Sad but true.

All that the neoconmen and their theories have done since then is to line their own pockets and buy new yachts...for themselves and their friends. They are the real thieves and pikers. And us, the majority of citizens who enable their program - we're the real fools because we keep letting them do it.

G West:

Like the law of gravity...I don't make the rules, them's simply the facts or the reality of economic laws .

The "rising tide" analogy I was using applied to land prices, not wealth distribution. I am not talking about the rich vs poor gap. I am simply reportng what is going on here in Richmond...that's all.

If I am reporting the facts, then I can comment on them. I see this differential of ALR vs NON ALR....Richmond has 40 different zonings.... 39 of them are for NON ALR. 39 of them have land values 10 X's more than much of the ALR land values . What this means is while ALR has an option limiting taint to it...it will still be purchased at 10 cents on the dollar compared to other 39 zonings.

The ALR can freeze all the land it wants...and society can believe all it wants that the ALR is saving farmland. The ALR does not guarantee a farmer and farming...the farmer determines farming....The farmer will one day say to his family..Anyone want to farm??? NO- One?? Up goes the For Sale sign.

Actually, last night I drove by the 100+ acre farm that was sold for $10 million ..and across the street is another 50 acre farm with a "For Sale" sign.Here's your chance,pro ALR types,...or NDP pension fund...

Nobody is getting nasty...I think DPL is simply pulling my leg, and I am being sarcastic. However,if DPL is not pullng my leg..its that static view I find amongst ALR supporters that will also kill farmland...

To be blunt G West...all I ever hear from ALR supporters is a blind belief that the ALR is saving farmland..like its in the Thesaurus...and when this is debated (which I have done ad nauseum )they offer no answers or solutions.Its the same socialist in- denial chant...I have heard like a broken record since the ALR was created...It is embarassing to to listen to. What I also see is this stereotyping that everyone who wants out of the ALR is a filthy greedy Daddy Warbucks type.

Seriously..if you or anyone won the lottery, would you go buy a farm and farm it ???

All I suggets is , and highly recommend is to take the facts,..read the ALC ACT..do some homework..and seriously think outside the 1972 NDP BOX many are stuck in, and not act like Don Quixote...

To DPL

I guess you are into stereotyping,...so let's keep it going.
------------------------
Since you continue to rave on about folks not letting you sell your little lot for big bucks, and you won't be going to court or anywhere else to get it out of the land reserve, and you never quite got around to telling us when you bought that piece of propery,prior to or after the ALR was established, I guess it's safe to say you are just complaining.

By the way, you mentionmed Barrett never having a real job. I understand he used to be a social worker and more to your liking, it seems , a hot line radio guy, where he probrably made more money than as an elected offcial.

Just had a real brainwave. Go phone up Bell the current Minister of Agriculture, tell him you will vote anyway they want you to vote as long as you can get your less than half acre lot out of the reserve. His recent apointments caused a lot of concern, but maybe you being so unbiased might well get a job there. Mind you calling yourself a expert on farming matters with less than half an acre might be a bit of a stretch. Otherwise just move along.

Why the ALR is a crock....

If you access the ALC ACT..check out SECTION 23. It refers to properties within the ALR less than 2 acres.

It effectively states that any property less than 2 acres is exempt from the restrictions of the ALC Act...

We interpret this as they have effectively stated anything of this size is irrelvant to Agriculture...and the ALR aka unfarmable..not a farm .

This to us 1/2 acres is simply proof that the ALR was created so fast...some Bureaucrats and politicians got lazy and sloppy and rather than case -by- case exclude us from Day 1...it became simpler and more self -serving to include us...artifically inflate the ALR inventory, and fool us into it should be a slam dunk exclusion on demand...

The ALR boundaries were drawn....and there are 100)'s of properties stuck in Davies 1972 NDP ALR prison.Our Local Gov't uses this as an excuse to provide us even basic things like sewer hook up....oh ALR = Agriculture ...sorry...you can't have that ...or this ...or...

Social Engineering based on Non- Facts...don't you just love it ???

Now In Richmond...we have the 135 acre PUBLICALLY OWNED DFO Lands in the ALR...The City has allowed its ALR exclusion application , because the City gets 1/2....and has cut a deal with a 1st Nations Band for the rest due to a land claim issue.

Simply stated...this is all about grabbing cheap land ,get it out of the ALR and build parks and high rises.. and proof Gov'ts don't give a damn about farming...its a double dip excuse to either ignore you with this ALR tag and save money..or when it suits their purposes..get this cheap land out to help balance their books.

This is also happening in Tsawassen...where previously expropriated land from Delta farmers is being used for 1st Nations land claims settlement...

Again. 100's of acres of PUBLICALLY OWNED ALR Land is being taken by other levels of Gov't to the ALC for ALR exclusion..As I said...if its PUBLICALLY OWNED...its secured and can be leased.

Thus the ALR is a crock....Gov't really doesn't give a rats ass about farming...ALR is simply land banked for future non farm use....and tagging it as ALR serves as a massive camouflage / cover-up of this future save farmland scam.

BC jurisdictions with little or no ALR, think this is great...and as their NON ALR property values rise,....because in lieu of cutting cheques aka tax dollars..this PUBLICALLLY OWNED ALR ,is tentatively getting pulled out of the ALR...re-zoned.....and being used to settle 1st Nations land claims...ie its creating money a different way via Re-Zoning.

If this continues...and Richmond is the beachhead....watch 1000's of acres of current ALR land be pulled out of the ALR....and it appeasr 1st nations have no intent of farming it...as I said..high rises on ALR land that will soon become $100 +per sq.ft of land in Richmond for the 1st Nations share..and you wonder why us measly UNfarmable 1/2 acres ALR Hostage who have lived hear for yeasr and paid URBAN tax rates are a might concerned aka BIG LIES and H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y.

Again..ALR is a crock...State sponsored ALR prison apparently supported by many NON ALR types

Case closed !!!

DPL:

Thanks for the advice....again another stereotype...

Again..you miss the point...
When I bought my property, it was the best RESIDENTIAL HOUSE available in the area for our family. This 1/2 acre property has never been farmed in 100 years...see my last e-mail...it was in the ALR for the last 34 years...It never had a cow, sheep , crop, barn, silo...etc etc.

You mentioned your recall Richmond...1/2 acres in Richmond, many of then on title since the 1930's were never farms....they were some of the smallest residential CITY/URBAN lot sizes in RICHMOND amongst HUGE 100 acre plus farms...GET IT !!!

I pay FULL URBAN CITY TAXES .... NO discount...

Steve P can probably confer that City Planners and other Bureaucrats often use an existing road as a boundary for just about anything...often out of laziness vs reality.

We are that small fish caught in the NDP net...basically we have the exact same sized property across the street not in the ALR..in fact larger properties across the street not in the ALR.

Thus we have (i) NON ALR residential and (ii) ALR residential for the exact same sized 1/2 acres on both sides of the street.....whats the difference??? either both are farms or neither are farms...if one exactly the same is an " ALR farm" the other should be an "ALR farm" ...or if one is not a farm..the other is not a farm...or the logic is INconsistent thus sloppy.

However, don't worry... while its clear I am slightly right -of -center.... Premier Campbell, Minister Pat Bell, my Liberal MLA, and the ALC are most certainly aware of us and our issues.....I tend to be far more pro-active against those I presume are on my side...to keep them honest. NDP likley won't admit they made a mistake in their class warfare..I am that pro-active example/reminder that was due inevitably...

We have them ALL very nervous..if it makes you feel any better...

It's fasinating that the fellow just above this post keeps telling whomever might still be bothering to read this line has a real hate on the NDP. I do recall that Bennett the junior ran this province after Barrett, and didn't change thr ALR. One of the issues was supposed to be the ALR and the other was supposed to be ICBC. Gordo comes along and some stuff gets removed but wonder of wonders, some faily large places stay. The Liberal MLA up around Tranquille was asked what his position was. Claude's answer was no comment. As for first nations and the land they will eventually own, last time I attended main table discussions the fed and the provicne stated the land would be subject to the same limits as anyone else, with the possible difference on present reserve lands. So if they get extra land, it's subject to all provicnal laws. That policy might be changing, who knows. I guess it's up to us to read the AIP's. So although you wrote about Richmond, never did I ever mention half acre lots. The act , so you claim excludes properties under two acres. The ones who are upsetting you are not the Provicnal NDP, or for that matter the provincial Liberals either. Seems your minicipality is handling such cases so go get some of them unelected next time around. Or are yu trying t6o get farm land prices for the property, and taxes to go with it. If you owned the property for 35 years or so and you sell it, and pay residential taxes on it, hell you would be up a lot of bucks. The quicker you get off your rant about steriotyping the better for the rest of us who bother to read your lines.

Yeh DPL. in the last 106 years the NDP/CCF has not been in power for all but 13 years.

Kind of funny how all our current problems are still their fault isn't it?

I'm sure the ALR could be better - trashing it is no solution at all - even if it would lower maestro's blood pressure.

CHeers.

Exactly

...the NDP has not been in power for all but 13 years....gee I wonder why ???Lack of popular demand??? Not back by UNpopular demand?? Hey, nuclear waste lasts thousands of years...so do the lingering effects of BAD Law.....re-read Rafe's column...

Just so you are up to speed....
the First Nations are now throwing injunctions on Publically OWNED ALR land deemed "surplus"...now its not only in the ALR freeze...its got an injunction " freeze" so it cannot be sold without the 1st Nations being "consulted"..another gray legal term.

So Gov't now have to negotiate to lift the injunction freeze...Richmond told the Musqeaum.."ok we'll give you the highest re-zoning possible..HIGH RISE" ie top dollar...if you(Musqueam) get 1/2 the ALR Land and we(Richmond) get the other 1/2 , then the Musqueam lifts off the injunction "freeze".

Then Richmond allowed the land to go to the ALC for an ALR exclusion decision. Its stuck at this point...and the Gov't knows its in a major jam.... a big vise....they have both sides furious at them....(i)the PRO ALR types...and (ii) us ALR Hostages who see this as more proof that the ALR = Land Bank ..ie "long term saving" withdraw to serve agenda X... screw fairness.

DPL...

Here's more homework...
Check the expropriation laws...
Check the Local Gov't Act
Check the ALC Act.
Put 2 and 2 together.

If the Local Gov't wants your land..they can expropriate it ...they have to pay fair market price.

Fair market price is current zoning...further compromised by ALR inclusion which depreciates it... I already layed out the Richmond differential.

The Local Gov't (or any Gov't)can expropriate your ALR Land...nothing to stop them....pay a low "market" price....then apply to the ALC for exclusion for various " Public Land Poverty reasons" which is exactly what Richmond is doing...

In other words they can take your or any ALR Land knowing full well it is cheaper because they have made it cheaper by keeping you in the ALR...then grab your ALR Land when they want to and you are SOL, but it ain't gonna be used for farming...

This is already happening...looks like a long term plan in the works...and we even had an elected official here literally admit it, and this dude was actually an MLA member of the 1972 NDP Gov't that created the ALR....you probably know exactly who I mean...

The NDP clearly didn't know what it was doing...as usual...steal the rights then steal the land...and now its all coming home to roost. Now they have an even worse problem...hands stuck in the ALR cookie jar...the jig is up.

See you "equality for all" guys at the next tree hugging.....I'll bring my chain saw... invite Davie along .

Exactly

...the NDP has not been in power for all but 13 years....gee I wonder why ???Lack of popular demand??? Not back by UNpopular demand?? Hey, nuclear waste lasts thousands of years...so do the lingering effects of BAD Law.....re-read Rafe's column...

Just so you are up to speed....
the First Nations are now throwing injunctions on Publically OWNED ALR land deemed "surplus"...now its not only in the ALR freeze...its got an injunction " freeze" so it cannot be sold without the 1st Nations being "consulted"..another gray legal term.

So Gov't now have to negotiate to lift the injunction freeze...Richmond told the Musqeaum.."ok we'll give you the highest re-zoning possible..HIGH RISE" ie top dollar...if you(Musqueam) get 1/2 the ALR Land and we(Richmond) get the other 1/2 , then the Musqueam lifts off the injunction "freeze".

Then Richmond allowed the land to go to the ALC for an ALR exclusion decision. Its stuck at this point...and the Gov't knows its in a major jam.... a big vise....they have both sides furious at them....(i)the PRO ALR types...and (ii) us ALR Hostages who see this as more proof that the ALR = Land Bank ..ie "long term saving" withdraw to serve agenda X... screw fairness.

DPL...

Here's more homework...
Check the expropriation laws...
Check the Local Gov't Act
Check the ALC Act.
Put 2 and 2 together.

If the Local Gov't wants your land..they can expropriate it ...they have to pay fair market price.

Fair market price is current zoning...further compromised by ALR inclusion which depreciates it... I already layed out the Richmond differential.

The Local Gov't (or any Gov't)can expropriate your ALR Land...nothing to stop them....pay a low "market" price....then apply to the ALC for exclusion for various " Public Land Poverty reasons" which is exactly what Richmond is doing...

In other words they can take your or any ALR Land knowing full well it is cheaper because they have made it cheaper by keeping you in the ALR...then grab your ALR Land when they want to and you are SOL, but it ain't gonna be used for farming...

This is already happening...looks like a long term plan in the works...and we even had an elected official here literally admit it, and this dude was actually an MLA member of the 1972 NDP Gov't that created the ALR....you probably know exactly who I mean...

The NDP clearly didn't know what it was doing...as usual...steal the rights then steal the land...and now its all coming home to roost. Now they have an even worse problem...hands stuck in the ALR cookie jar...the jig is up.

See you "equality for all" guys at the next tree hugging.....I'll bring my chain saw... invite Davie along .

DPL:

I didn't say you had specifically discussed 1/2 acre lots..you misread the comment.

FYI

Richmond has 100's of lots (63' X 303")...small 1/2 RESIDENTIAL/ NON FARM acre lots located around the City Center, while many large farms existed elsewhere.

ALSO: After the (2) World Wars, the Veterans Act created many (1) acre RESIDENTIAL lots fromm EX Richmond farms...these were not (1) Acre "farms" ..get the hint...if these small 1/2 acre and 1 acre lots were not farms then ...why would they be farms = ALR 30 +years later ??? Magic NDP wand "I beleive I beleive" ???...we can fool people like DPL and G West ???

Yes, you are CORRECT that 1/2 the problem is that the Local Gov't won't allow us to apply for ALR exclusion...If we see no benefit to ALR exclusion...and that it is actually a liability to us...and its not our duty to absorb NDP mistakes,...this is a democracy,..and given the ALC ACT has always had exclusion provisions...why would they refuse our exclusion......makes no sense...right???

Then you start to do something every Gov't absolutely hates... you start to ignore the ALR BS , ignore them...and engage in research and do your own homework..then you smell "agenda"...and then they get very nervous...must have done something right.. onto something big...Now the Provincial Gov't gets nervous because they get implicated via the legally compromising structure...TOO LATE...TOO BAD!!

Gee DPL and G West...I fully support whatever you freely chose to do as a reflection of a free and democratic society..so whats the problem...I am not 7 ft tall...not filthy stinkin rich....those are provable facts...and more importantly not a farmer , nor is my property farmable...yet you seem convinced the 1972 NDP were right...seems like you shouldn't be on my ALR vs actual Farm jury ,....your minds are made up and won't change.

Not a problem....simply too bad...

maestro
Because the concept of a protected Agriculture reserve, properly constituted, administered, and logically and fairly run is the 'right' idea. In a province with very little good agricultural land it is more than a good idea, it is an absolute necessity.

That there may well be anomalies in the way it applies in some municipalities and that there may equally be examples of certain appointed individuals using their influence to manipulate results in their, or their friends' favour is equally likely.

Given the compromised nature of much of the current government, it even seems probable. I think you need to step back a moment and realize that your own personal anger and disinclination to see the forest for the trees may not engender much sympathy, in the general case, from others.

Again, as I said wrote before, I do not know enough about the details of your personal situation nor your evident ‘war’ with the Richmond municipal council to make an intelligent case either for or against your position. That’s my last word on the matter, other than to observe, as I did above, that you appear to have elevated your own blood pressure significantly over the matter. Moreover, that’s a pity.

Blood pressure is just fine...SVP....

Clearly you fail to see that the ALR is more along the line of a Provincial OCP...a Provincial Zoning... which bypassed what was normally Local Gov't jurisdiction via Local Gov't Act.

If anything is corrupted even in small amounts....it is null and void in the real world...

The NDP didn't create High -rise zoning for BC ....or Commercial zoning for BC, though they are on record for trying to create an industrial zoning for all of BC. They failed, yet apparently kept the ALR to save face.

The 1972 NDP did not quite review the analogy on how to properly identify the duck ie (i) if it talks like a duck.(ii) if it looks like a duck(iii) and walks like a duck,THEN IT IS A DUCK.

The 1972 NDP saw the feathers of the duck and then via idealogue consensus called it a pillow. This may be true if the pillow stays still, doesn't move, stays quiet and doesn't make a stink...

While the ALR may be analogized as the BC's version of GREAT WALL OF CHINA..some may try to remove it by taking it down brick by brick....However if it has weaknesses,of which it has many...its this inconsistency which will be its downfall and the domino effect.

Hint: current parameters they use to identify ALR/ agri -land are inconsistent with others...ie ducks don't have huge antlers and 4 legs.....those are called moose

As DPL keeps saying "well take it to court..." unfortunately even if one has a great winnable case..its usually the deep -pocketed ones that drag it out and its the last man standing = victor ..which in this case is Gov't....and Gov't often knows this..

However....the little guy wins via seeing the many cracks and exploitng them...so that the judge and jury say it looks like a duck..craps like a duck...quacks like a duck...it ain't a pillow...cASE CLOSED !!!

Its the BC ALR...so everyone in BC is tied to it, and future liabilites...The converse is currently happening..where 1/2 of Richmond and soon Delta will be seeing land within their jurisdiction being used to pay for the "sins of all of BC".....re Native Land Claims...

It means nothing to Vancouver..or West Van...or Burnaby etc. our so-called "BC brethren" ..who both cheer and breathe a sigh of relief that Native Land Claims with be settled with Davies sacred ALR cow in Richmond and Delta.......and that they themselves won't be taxed over it....and then further endorse this via ignorance, hypocrisy and silence towards a corrupt ALR now getting even more corrupt..

In other words, those not in the ALR not only gain from our 1972 ALR inclusion, we continue to stay in while our own Local Gov't and Provincial Gov't looks good giving away large amounts of ALR land via Land Claims of what may be good farmland in our very own cities, and deny us the same privilege...

Sorry G West...all of BC is connected to this...like the old saying "its best one guilty man go free than 9 innocent go to jail..." As I said to DPL...they are 1/2 right that our situation is a Richmond isssue... the other 1/2 is a BC -wide via it is a BC ALR issue...Thus all of BC is part of the problem...not just Richmond.

Davie was once quoted as ready to come an defend the ALR wherever its under attack...when the current court challenge was reported...

I may give him and his colleagues an invite...and give him a chance at redemption...he's only had 34 years...

Ciao

As I said before maestro, your vituperation toward the NDP that has only been in power for 13 years - 3 in the 1970s and 10 in the 90s - is telling. Why keep bringing it up? I've already acknowledged that problems may well need to be addressed - the fact that you're getting nowhere with addressing them has absolutely no impact as an argument when you spend 80% of the time venting at Dave Barrett, who hasn't been premier since 1975.

If you can't make your case any more clearly and with less ad hominem nonsense directed at a man who hasn't been in power for 31 years then I think you have a serious credibility problem. With respect, I think you need to rethink your approach.

I have sympathy for struggling farmers; if you're not a farmer - and it seems clear you're not, then you have a problem of another nature. I'd guess you want to either sell or develop your land and you're frustrated by an inability to do so.

Well and good. Exceptions exist and, as I said earlier, I'm not judging your circumstances.

But, if you want to tumble the whole edifice that I think is, and should be, protecting (even if in an imperfect way) the future viability of farming in this province then I'm afraid you don't have my support and sympathy for that little project. If, on the other hand, you have a constructive suggestion as to how the structure and policy can be improved and strengthened, allowing for adjustment to address legitimate concerns of citizens such as yourself in a rational way, let’s hear it.

G West;

No......sorry, actually I've written a litany of reasons worthy of a thesis why the ALR does NOT protect farmland,...nor should be equated with saving farmland, and may in fact kill farming.

I think the onus is now on you to perhaps offer a solution, given what I have outlined. Lets start from the premise of the land in Richmond that is
worth $10 million for say 100+ acres.

FYI the reason is that it is still often farmed is not that it is profitable, but that the landowner would be taxed at $70,000(Urban Tax Rates )....but if the landowner can get someone to produce around $10,000 in eligible farm income....the property assessment acheives "farm status" ie the evaluation formula would deem it at say $50 per acre in taxes.

Many go through this tax charade...just so you know. Of course, this gives the appearance all is well. One of my neighbours has a 5 acre blueberry farm...and showed me his accounting..his costs are approx $22 ,000, his gross production around $24,000..thus his profit is around $2000. He is almost 70 years old, has a small private sector pension and is busy from April till September.Nets $2000 for 6 months work...does it solely for farm tax status...and yes he bought in 1968 before the ALR was created...ambushed and stuck.

So society gets $24,000 in blueberries on sweat- shop labour rates...so who benfits...??? certainly not the producer/"farmer"

The farm tax structure penalizes you for not farming...a rather sick joke on top of the restricted farmland only options

Please indicate to me what debt to society that a 100 acre landowner has to engage in this ass - backwards exercise.

I work from the model, which I was explaining earlier..that we were originally a mostly agricultural society...which then progressed to an urban... The ALR is the equivalent of keeping a minority of people in the horse and buggy era or Model T era while everyone else can move forward with societies modern evolution. Not only are we caught in the by -catch of the ALR, bluntly speaking ....so was that person with a 50 or 100 acre land holding...

Lets say I owned the 100 acre farm, its worth $ 10 million... convince me, G WEST , to offer it to my children to farm... versus to NOT sell it to a patient speculator...who may sit and let it go fallow...which is a legal option and by the way a large amount of ALR land in many areas just sits and grows weeds...

Your turn ....G West......regarding solutions.
Do you disagree with my suggestion that the ALR should have bought farmland and then leased it to preserve farmland ??? My problem is with telling private property owners they are in some public land reserve then walking away...

NDP bailed out Skeena mills...built Fast Ferries...etc etc..how much farmland could that almost $$$ One billion have bought instead..its all gone down the toilet... In Richmond my guesstimate is 10,000 acres ie 10 times the size of Stanley Park........ up the valley a hell of a lot more...

Over to you G West...

I'm sorry maestro but you're not paying attention. Roll back up this thread to where I wrote the following:

I'd conclude by saying that if you really want make a career of farming I'm your best ally and I'm more than willing to pay a hell of a lot more for my food to make sure you can do it successfully.

Anyone who doesn't, in this province especially, is mad.

You're still taking swipes at the NDP, why? I have no problem with the province acquiring land like yours at a reasonable price and assembling it into economic units of farmable land which can then be leased to real farmers. In fact the NDP in Saskatchewan has a plan called the land bank which does this in that province - it also provides young farmers with a chance to lease/purchase the land under favourable conditions.

I think that it's a great idea but I can't imagine a BCLiberal government ever going for it - they would say it sounds too much like socialism.

I'd say you better take out an NDP membership and start lobbying them. With a little luck and a couple more Campbell scandals (which may be just around the corner in a local courtroom) you may get what you're looking for relatively soon.

This really is all I have to say on the matter. No offence, but I think the issue has been beaten to death.

Just above, the second sentence should read 'I 'read' the following' The writer was actually G West.

Apologies to him, or her, as the case may be.

I do affirm having the same sentiments relative to your case maestro.

Alcibiades

Again the points are missed...I have been spoon feeding with facts and figures and not "angels dancing on the head of a pin" arguments.

There seems to be an impression amongst some that my 1/2 acre with a house is next to nothing in value..thus cheap farmland ... ie that my property is farmable... when I clearly said way back that the City Agri- stats say I would produce about $3200 gross, and that I would actually need 100 acres to be able to make a reasonable living..but if I had to buy tha 100 acres it would cost approx. $10 million.

Thems the FACTS to start the ALR trial.

My case is not to invoke sympathy, but to bring this matter to a forum, as a party that has converted from being an admittedly blind kneejerk ALR supporter...figuring everyone that wanted out was a quick buck artist...yes folks I had the same mentality. However, through various inspirations I decided to dig deep into the ALR.

Conclusion: ALR = Scary sight

Sorry, to most who have written...while we have had a chance to debate this ALR issue in a forum I haven't engaged in before...it appears I am still debatng this with some parties who do not own ALR Land and whose views are still stuck on "save farmland -save farmland" chant mode ....the urban armchair farmer,...

As mentioned way back our delegation met with ALC staff aka " horse mouth " I left with the view that as ALR exclusion has always been in the ALC Act...and ALR exclusion applications were once based on objective pros and cons types of evaluations, more along the lines of is this good soil and can this actually be farmed profitably.

Now I am of the view the ALC is into bizarre "angels dancing on the head of a pin "stretches of probability...because the chickens are now coming home to roost.

Pressures are mounting..almost exponentially, and there are many valid logical cases for ALR exclusion...34 years later any given ALR property has had more and more impacts of reality called progress perhaps strenghtened by these same properties should never have been in the ALR in the first place.

Comments from the ALC such as the value of your land and the viability for farming are not excuses for exclusion.aka NOT a slam dunk exclusion

HUH???

Well, then lets put all of BC in the ALR, it fits the same criteria....land worth millions and can't be farmed..entire Vancouver West End....Lougheed Mall,....all of West Van... BC Place Stadium

Sorry folks..I am doubly paying for this as an ALR Hostage...with my taxes and my and 100's of others in the same situation.

CONCLUSION I and 1000's of others am innocent of being farmland yet guilty
of being ALR. Can it be said any clearer.

MAESTRO says: lying, manipulating and being in denial solves nothing...we all know that...it comes back to haunt us all...but the saddest thing is when its your Gov't doing it with blind support of many who don't do their homework...and I was ONCE guilty of that, embarrased about it , but wiser.

It's not too late ...yet... for others.

PS G West....still waiting to hear from you.

Re: my NDP "critique"

When the ALR was created....ol Davie was recently quoted as actually admitting the 1972 NDP all realized they were very likely a one- term Gov't...and best get their hidden agenda done ASAP. They most certainly did...

When the ALR was tabled in 1972 ...I recall two arguments..(i) the ALR will save farmland and (ii) ALR will create a land shortage...supply down =demand up and thus higher housing etc costs.

Well one of those most certainly came true, the latter trumped the former..

There is an old saying aka "when you whip it out..or if you whip it up...you better be able to suppport it " from start to finish. The NDP didn't and created a monster aka ALR.

Each Local Gov't has some control over its own ALR...via it decides which applications for ALR exclusion can proceed.That itself indicts the ALR...it gets political sans logic and reality.

COLLATERAL DAMAGE of ALR

In Richmond...which is the Ground- Zero example of GVRD ALR...what is happening is the cost of housing is driving OUT young families.Our School district has closed 6 schools, and more are likley, with declining enrollment projections for the next 10 years.

I have never ever seen that happen before...That will impact on Teachers...many of whom support the NDP...re jobs lost.

However, this does not imply children and families will be extinct....they will go where it is "more affordbale".ie up into Surrey , Langley, Abbottsford..Chilliwhack..etc. who are booming.

Many of these other Local Gov't with vast ALR lands are simply stating.."what is the better community good...ALR ??? or growth???...we can create more jobs etc. if we do this than farming".

So using Richmond as an example..we squeeze the balloon...the pressure is relieved somewhere else. If Richmond doesn't ..someone else will...

Well Richmond didn't and Richmond NON ALR property values have risen 2-3 X's in the last few years. Now Richmond is doing a poor job of absorbing growth...housing is unaffordable to crucial facets of society ie "growing families"...BUT it is being gratefully accepted up the valley and encroaching not only up to their ALR..in fact right onto their own ALR.

Our own Richmond politicians are still scared shitless over the ALR via the 1990's Terra Nova ALR issue...but are thicker than a fence post about ALR reality. However they "save farmland" PR by saying we will build up, not out...What is really happening is that they, and other Cities; have seen a new " cash cow" strategy re: Development Cost Charges ie DCC's..

When that developer builds a High Rise..he cuts a cheque to the City before he starts..worth several hundred thousand dollars....due the fact its a multi-family and each unit is charged a DCC.

Vancouver and Burnaby etc with barely any ALR land are doing the same...it is a huge cash cow. Richmond PR is that it saves farmland..when its really a ca$h cow and they can't pump them out fast enough for milking. In fact Richmonds new OCP is now taking out INDUSTRIAL/ Commercial land for High Rises...where are these once Ex farmland Industiral commercial zonings going to go...we have lost them....oh up the valley ???

Regardless, the point is Richmonds manner in dealing with its ALR has a major ripple effect to all other Non Richmond ALR...right up the valley.. The waves will continue to resonate up the valley...

THUS was a predictable mess,....ALR = Land shortages, Higher land costs...thus greater societal mobility...continued encroachment all over...UNstoppable.

maestro
I see you still expect some response from me - I thought I'd pretty much written above that that was all I had to say, but, since you asked.

The world isn't frozen in amber; things change. I notice you've breezed right over the suggestion by someone above that small ALR lots like yours should be purchased, have the housing removed from them and consolidated into economic farm units available for lease or lease/purchase with future restrictive covenants and made available to young farmers and not, at least it’s my view, to large commercial farming entities for consolidation with their already factory-farm sized units. [The restrictive covenants are not with respect to the ALR specifically but to avoid the kinds or rural / urban conflicts that frequently occur in the transition from farmland to housing.]

The move up the valley is insane and the resultant pressure on agricultural land along the Fraser is clearly a real problem. The worst possible thing that the GVRD and the province could do with respect to that consequence is twinning the Port Mann which will only encourage more out-migration and farm land estrangement.

Until there is some kind of real regional government and proper overall planning for the whole of the lower mainland all the way to Hope the problem will get worse, not better. Hopefully, the increasing price of gasoline will begin to raise the pressure on the whole system high enough and quickly enough that even the BCLiberals will not be able to ignore it.

All of these problems have an impact on ALR matters and farm policy and the whole situation is complex and difficult to solve. However, short-circuiting the process by permitting the piecemeal breakup of parts of the ALR is neither a solution, nor the beginning of a march toward a more rational urban/rural relationship.

Sane city dwellers should welcome the preservation of farmland and work for the continued viability of family farms. They ought to be willing to pay a lot more for their food now, not in the inevitable future when all the local land is gone and the increasing costs of refrigeration and transportation have forced up the costs of food anyway - food of poorer quality from far-away locations.

Will we make the right choices today in order to have a better chance of continuing to have a good life tomorrow? Probably not.

This is, definitely, my last word on the subject. I'm going to enjoy the rest of the weekend in my garden.

G WEST:

re "breezing over" on this hot day..???EXCELLENT POINT...again read between the lines

No, G west.... we have actually suggested to the powers that be to purchase us and do as they please....turn it over to Agriculture whatever...again the now long lost ALR workable model

You see G.WEST....we'll talk facts...again...or try to...

My NON ALR 1/2 acre neighbours 60 ft. across the street are moving on....selling the exact same property for 3-4 X's our ALR price...They can also build approx. 10 condos....30 Xs the people, 20 times the cars... on the same side on the same sized lot......gee you say.."too bad maestro...you greedy envious NON NDP person".

No...our neighbourhood has approx. 90 residential "ALR included" properties on this increasingly busy road. Our ALR property values have flatlined...One of our whacky Richmond councillors who is also an Ex 1972 NDP ALR founder actually suggested to buy us all up.

So OK.....whats the buy us up price....???

You see G West...we are caught in a no man's land...to buy us up would be fair market "ALR depreciated" residential price...via the bogus ALR designation, which keeps us at values 25 - 30 % of my neighbour 60 ft away across the street ....

The ALR designation UN deniably tends to scare people off, slam dunk case in comparing our two sides of the same road.... Given we have a mix of old and new housing,...suffice it to say we are talking a lot of money to buy even our 90 property "ALR-deemed" strip up... almost 1/2 our Cities entire annual budget.

If they did buy us up...and if they turned us into farmland at horrendous soil re-mediation taxpayer cost..on what is the lowest class of farmland..the NON ALR Richmond residents would shit....and revolt ..as then there would be 100's of others in our ALR in similar situation with the same request via this new precedent.

Richmond would go bankrupt at the first attempt..

So we specifically are in this ALR Mexican standoff.

So when we offer solutions even those consistent with the ALR PR...and they are ignored..or bluntly impossible...you see that you are actually being used...played as a fool, a sucker and a pawn...and this BS is supported by a general public that is equally played for sucker, fools and pawns.

This is why one doesn't try to convince (aka waste time)to tell the general public the ALR is BULLSHIT...you try the diplomacy route with the powers that be...and there is the acid test...When you see them cringe and their noses grow....you know you are onto something...and the proof that Santa and the Easter bunny doesn't exist can move to the back of the line with respect to the proof the ALR is nothing but the BIG LIE.

The "politically fatal mistake" and "mexican stand-off breaching mistake" is that we offered "the powers that be" a simply fair and equitable solution...wouldn't hurt an ounce of real farmland,..and be 100% consistent with what has actually been done elsewhere. ie equality with all other things being equal.....not special privileges.

Unfortunately...their actions and inactions have taxed our patience ..we see the fix is in... and the real agenda exposed...

As I said...Richmond has ultimately exposed the ALR mafia for what it is...they didn't negotiate fairly...and try to contain it like the smouldering fire it was becoming ....now we have the City, the ALC and the Province all over a barrel, ie entire BC ALR ..now fasten you seatbelts BC.....

Oh well we tried..

PS ....G West and all....at least we tried...now have Davie tell you the truth about Santa and the Easter Bunny,...I agree this debate is going no where with many of you....but again we tried...

ALR...?? Think POLAND in 1980...or Berlin Wall circa 1989...Don't blame us..blame all the Pinnochios on the other side of the table.

Ciao.

Meaostro sure sounds like a flustrated guy who wants to stick some condos on his small lot, and since nobody is jumping to bail him out He is back to Poland 1980.Oops almost forgot the Easter Bunny and Santa. Nothing to do with the start of this article "Farmland Fate in Local hands." Let's move along for Gosh shakes, hating a system any system for over 30 years must be hard on anyone

DPL

...can't keep you away,.. can we.???..like rubber necking and watching a traffic accident..

When I run for the NDP leadership....and win...and become Premier ,...I'll use the ALR model and apply it equally to all other societal issues. Does that not create a fair and logical balance ???.

Should be fun,...can't wait....do I have your vote...???

You can be my Communications Director...you can stretch things so far with misdirection and unsubstantiated insinuations (which I purposely avoided in my comments )you should replace "Siegfried and Roy" in Las Vegas.

I have to admit..I am baiting certain kneejerk responses...bait was taken..OUCH !!!

Sorry, you can't be Attorney General...I can foresee Capital Punishment for unpaid parking tickets.

Sorry, DPL , you are the one stuck in 1972....we are the ones progressively moving forward...your "broken record" views are part of the problem ...not the solution...

Maybe one day you will see it...I am not saying your are not a very intelligent person...as they are often the ones the experts say are the most easily brainwashed...take it as a compliment.

Enjoy !!!

Ciao