Welcome to the Garden City Lands!

This blog about saving the Garden City Lands, Richmond, BC, explores the issue in depth. The Garden City Lands Coalition site introduces the issue.

Note: We have a new Green Events page.

In 2009, the Agricultural Land Commission rejected the application to remove the Garden City Lands from the ALR.  That brought the struggle to save the Lands into a period that is quiet but crucial.

Note: If you support saving the Garden City Lands and wish to receive the Garden City News, a brief newsletter emailed once or twice a month, simply send this subscribe email.

Metro Growth—how to help

Update: It’s past the stated end of the feedback period (Feb. 5), although it seems likely that feedback would still be accepted.

Background: Three earlier posts (Jan. 21, 22, and 23) follow up on the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy public meeting in Richmond on January 21, 2010. The first, “Feedback to Metro by Feb. 5,” introduces the Feedback Form with a thorough example, with some emphasis on the Garden City Lands. The last shares enlightening points made by Johnny Carline, Metro’s chief administrative officer.

Main point: You can let Metro know that the Garden City Lands, which are zoned Agricultural by both the Province of B.C. (ALR) and the City of Richmond (AG1), should also be zoned Agricultural by Metro Vancouver. If the lands remain as Urban on the Metro Maps, they are less protected from the Pave Garden City forces, who have not given up.

This post aims to answer two key questions:

• “Can I help?”
• “How?”

Yes, please help! When Metro’s public meeting in Richmond broke into discussion groups, my group leader from Metro Regional Growth said that they are more likely to act on a suggestion if several people write about it. Your voice matters, and every additional voice matters.

How? After gaining basic knowledge of the strategy, you could:

• Use the online Feedback Form.
• Or download this PDF version. You could use a printout for rough work, and/or send the filled-in printout by mail or fax.
• Or download this Word document. You could do rough work in it and/or email the final version as a Word or PDF attachment.

Some suggestions about writing your feedback:

• If you lack interest or knowledge about a question, save everyone’s time: give it a “Don’t know” rating (or just don’t rate it or comment about it).
• Please recommend that ALR land in Metro Vancouver be designated (zoned) “Agricultural.” At minimum, please recommend that the Garden City Lands (confirmed ALR land) be designated “Agricultural.”
• If you get caught up in learning about the exciting and promising Regional Growth Strategy, please still ensure that your feedback will reach Metro by Friday, Feb. 5, 2010.
• For an example, see the “Feedback to Metro” post.
• KISS: Keep It Simple—Succeed.

Appendix— Metro Vancouver Regional Development Division contact info:
Mail: 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC  V5H 4G8. 
Email: growth.strategy@metrovancouver.org
Fax: 604-432-6339

Affordability, the Garden City Lands, and beyond

Urban-sprawl proponents like the ones who made Richmond’s Garden City Lands their chosen battleground are at it again in their spin on housing prices in today’s Vancouver Sun. I agree, though, that housing is not cheap in one of the world’s most desirable places to live, especially since there’s such a large proportion of high-quality new homes. I also agree that urban sprawl on Metro Vancouver agricultural land might dampen housing prices. It’s just that I find it hard to understand how that’s desirable other than for the ALR-land speculators/developers who would reap most of the financial benefit. 

In the Richmond situation, sprawling the City Centre population out over the Garden City Lands would destroy the bog with its carbon-sink role and urban-agriculture potential and make the city far less liveable. Furthermore, the whole region will become a lot less liveable if the obscenely funded attempts to get the Garden City Lands out of the Agricultural Land Reserve ever succeed, since that precedent could easily be the beginning of the end of the ALR. If liveability can be damaged enough, housing values will decline too. Is that a good trade-off?

The following letter to the Sun by UBC’s Professor Patrick Condon, James Taylor Chair in Landscape and Liveable Environments, says it best:

Once again the Vancouver Sun rips a fax off the machine from St. Louis’s Wendel Cox’s Demographia Institute and his Dr. Tony Rescei and gives it prominent play on page one of today’s business section (“World Class in ‘Unaffordability,’” D1, Jan. 26, 2010). The curious might want to actually go to the study itself to find that it has not had the benefit of any review by non-biased outside sources, nor are its claims about the negative influence of land use controls on house prices backed up by a single reference. Demographia is infamous as a mouthpiece for the auto and oil industry, who number prominently among their mostly corporate funders. For Demographia to suggest that land use controls are at the core of the affordability problem, when Calgary which has very few controls ranks almost as poorly as Vancouver in this respect, is absurd. To suggest that we should emulate Detroit, Cleveland, Kansas City, St. Louis, and Pittsburgh as our models, which by their reckoning are the best of the lot, would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic. If you have ever been to those places, you know. Lack of land use controls are not the reason why houses are cheap. It’s that nobody wants to live there.

Johnny Carline—Metro CAO “gets” what’s happening

Johnny Carline, Metro Vancouver’s chief administrative officer, shared significant insights at the Metro Vancouver 2040 Regional Growth Strategy public meeting at Richmond Culture Centre on January 21, 2010:

• “If there is one issue that has taken off in the past few years it is the issue of food security.” In response, Metro has added a regional food strategy.
• Another important  issue “not around when we did our planning in the 1990s” is “reducing greenhouse gases and protection from climate change.”
• It is fundamental to “establish an urban containment boundary” and to “structure in a way that is both economically and environmentally efficient.”
• We must not “allow agricultural land to be an escape valve for housing and industry.”
• By far the majority of people support protection and viability of agricultural land.
• The public wants more conservation, and Metro has expanded its strategies to reflect that.
• Affordable housing requires major injections from federal and provincial governments, supported by municipal governments.
• Eighty percent of respondents in an unbiased survey wanted a higher level of regional authority.
• Metro was never informed about Richmond council’s decision of Feb. 11, 2009. (City staff were supposed to inform Metro Regional Growth Strategy staff that the designation of certain ALR lands—the Garden City Lands and the Department of National Defence Lands—was under study.)
• Re a question about designating the Garden City Lands as “Agricultural” on Metro maps: “If the Land Commission’s decision is firm, that would appear to be the designation that should apply.”

Perhaps needless to say, Johnny Carline’s talk and answers were cause for optimism.

Tkatcheva alerts council to act fast

After the Regional Growth Strategy public meeting in Richmond, B.C. on January 21, 2010, City Centre activist Olga Tkatcheva sent this message, which she has kindly shared here as a guest blogger. It highlights something that the Richmond community needs its council to address in the next week.

Dear Mayor and Councillors,

In preparation to the Regional Growth Strategy meeting in Richmond on January 21, I found that Garden City lands is currently still designated as Urban under the Regional Growth Strategy draft. That is despite the results of the vote by all the council members at the General Purposes Committee meeting on May 11 of last year. The designation of the Garden City lands and Department of National Defense (DND) lands was questioned, and it was decided to inform the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth planners that council was still considering the designation and would report its decision. In other words the designation was under study.

There are a few areas around the Metro Vancouver in the similar situation that are designated as Under Study and marked by a star on the Regional Growth maps, but very disappointingly Garden City Lands is not shown that way or as “Agricultural” despite its confirmed Agricultural Land Reserve status. I am urging you to investigate this matter in a prompt manner to find out why not even “Under Study” temporary designation has been reflected in the Regional Growth Strategy draft. Was it because some kind of miscommunication happened, or is it an attempt from the staff to pave the road to paving the Garden City Lands in the future? In his presentation at the January 21 meeting, Mr. Johnny Carline stated and showed with a timeline  on the screen that the period for municipal input into the Regional Growth Strategy ends on January 29. Afterwards there is a ratification period but not another input period.

With best regards,
Olga Tkatcheva

PS. The minutes of the General Purposes Committee meeting of May, 11, 2009, refer to
Richmond’s Comments on Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy. The minutes state that this was moved and seconded and carried:

(3) That comments be added to Section 2E of the report to reflect that Council is still considering the future of Garden City Lands and Department of National Defence (DND) Lands as agricultural land in the Regional Plan and will report the City’s position as soon as it is formulated.

Feedback to Metro by Feb 5, 2010

Metro Vancouver is completing the public input stage of its Regional Growth Strategy process, which is called Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future.” In Richmond, people are sick of phony consultation that is just window dressing, but my impression is that Metro Vancouver’s consultation is genuine.

A key aspect of the public consultation is the Metro Vancouver 2040 Feedback Form. The stated deadline for public feedback is very soon, Friday, March 5, 2010.

I will show here how I filled it out. That is partly introduce you to the form and partly to share some ideas. I hope you will at least provide Metro with good feedback related to Richmond’s Garden City Lands.

Metro Vancouver 2040 Feedback Form

A. In Part A, eight objectives are stated. Participants are asked to rate how well the Regional Growth Strategy will achieve each objective on a 5-point scale. A rating of 1 means “not at all,” and a 5 means “Very Well.”

Objective 1. Contain urban development within the Urban Containment Boundary. 4

Comments: It will depend on improved buy-in from the municipalities.

Objective 2. Direct growth to Urban Centres and Frequent Transit Development Corridors.  4

Comments: The difficulty is that municipalities are so undisciplined. For instance, Richmond seems about to approve of turning an industrial area on the North Arm into a mixed-use area that is mainly residential.

Objective 3. Protect land for industrial activities. 3

Comments: Municipalities are quick to eliminate industrial land, which is needed but not very lucrative for developers. Besides directly affecting the supply of industrial land, that indirectly affects the supply of agricultural land, which some municipalities seem to view as at least an industrial land bank (if not a residential land bank). Metro Vancouver’s role in dealing with this ongoing problem is lacking in clout.

Objective 4. Protect agricultural land and promote agricultural viability. 3

Comments: Metro Vancouver needs to be more proactive in designating land as “Agricultural.” I’d like Metro todesignate all Agricultural Land Reserve land as Agricultural. For a start, I ask Metro to designate Richmond’s Garden City Lands and the adjoining Department of Defence Lands as “Agricultural” in the Regional Growth maps. The City of Richmond has not been proactive, but most likely it will go along with it (even though the designation could be contested at the ratification stage). Whatever the result, Metro Vancouver will have done the right thing by NOT defying the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC). If Metro and the Commission work together, instead of being pointlessly at odds, then agricultural land can be more effectively protected and promoted. Together, they even have a decent chance of getting the municipalities on board. If they all ever start standing shoulder to shoulder, the individual city plus Metro plus the ALC will even stand a fighting chance when the need arises to stare down the federal government, as in the Gilmore Farm situation in Richmond.

 Objective 5. Protect the environment and environmentally-important lands. 3

Comments: Judging from the maps, there is inconsistent buy-in from the municipalities. For instance, West Vancouver and Richmond don’t show most of their Conservation and Recreation areas. Richmond shows the Terra Nova Natural Area but not the Terra Nova Rural Park, which has a significant agricultural aspect but would come under the “Conservation and Recreation” category. Because it is both, it could understandably be temporarily “Under Study,” but showing it as “Urban” is wrong.

Objective 6. Address climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for climate change impacts. 3

Comments: When the Garden City Lands and Department of National Defense (DND) Lands in Richmond are shown as “Urban,” that says it all. As the largest remnant of the Lulu Island Bog, they are a carbon sink.

Objective 7. Support the provision of diverse and affordable housing. 4

Comments: I’m giving this a high rating, 4, on the basis of hope. With the City of Vancouver as a notable exception, the Metro municipalities mostly just pay lip service to affordable housing. We really need Metro to take the lead on this. One example is that Metro could facilitate the availability of far more buildings throughout Metro with compact units for people at risk of homelessness. Vancouver has buildings with 200-square-foot units that may seem tiny to most of us but that are vastly better than the decrepit little rooms, at best, that are the alternative for the people who take up residence in them. If we give high priority to the neediest among us, then the first paragraph of “Vision” at the beginning of the strategy is an inspiring reality instead of insipid platitudes.

Objective 8. Encourage land use patterns that support sustainable transportation throughout the region. 5

Comments: Metro seems to be cooperating well with Translink.

B. Amendment Process

There may be requests to amend the Regional Growth Strategy Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping our future. Using the amendment process located on our website as a reference, does the proposed amendment process strike the right balance between ensuring regional objectives are met while protecting municipal autonomy?

Yes. However, I’d prefer to see Metro having a little more clout. All the ratings I’ve given for the eight objectives would go up if I could be confident of a stronger Metro.

C. Other comments or concerns?

In his presentation, Mr. Johnny Carline said that by far the majority of people support protection and viability of agricultural land, and he stressed not allowing agricultural land to be an escape valve for housing and industry. In answer to a query about designating the Garden City Lands (Richmond’s recently threatened ALR land) as “Agricultural,” Mr. Carline said, “If the Land Commission decision is firm, that would appear to be the designation that should apply.” In 2009, the Agricultural Land Commission in fact firmly rejected the application to exclude that land from the ALR despite the massive (and massively funded) application, and that reinforced its 2006 rejection of a previous attempt. No ALR decisions could more firmly show that a piece of ALR land belongs in the ALR.

However, it is awkward for the City of Richmond to ask for the Garden City Lands to be designated as “Agricultural” in the Regional Growth Strategy maps. That is because of extreme caution about an agreement (the Garden City Property Memorandum of Understanding, known as “the MOU”) that is largely inoperative because of the 2009 ALC decision but not yet terminated. Despite that over-the-top caution, I know from legal assistance to the Garden City Lands Coalition Society that the City would not be acting in bad faith under the MOU to designate Agricultural Land Reserve lands as “Agricultural.” The lawyer I asked has studied the MOU in depth, and he simply said it is a legal reality that the lands are agricultural. Furthermore, the Garden City Lands are zoned Agricultural, AG1, by the City of Richmond.

In any case, the MOU does not affect Metro Vancouver ability to designate the Garden City Lands as “Agricultural” in the next version of the plan.

Personally, I see this as being part of a common-sense approach in which Metro Vancouver designates all ALR parcels of a reasonable size (e.g., >10 ha or perhaps >5 ha) as Agricultural. Whether Metro Vancouver does that everywhere or not, please at least do it where the public input has called for it. In Richmond, that would mean designating the DND Lands as “Agricultural” as well. (The DND Lands are located between the Richmond Nature Park and the Garden City Lands and have a slightly larger area than the 55.2 ha Garden City Lands.)

At minimum, then, please designate the Garden City Lands and DND Lands as “Agricultural.” On the maps, that is the area bounded by Garden City Road, Alderbridge Road, Shell Road, and Westminster Highway.

“It’s not easy being green”

Issues of food security and protection of the environment and ecology—issues like the conservation of the Garden City Lands—are often complex. Sometimes action involves decisions that are not clearly black or white. Another current issue, gypsy moth spraying, illustrates how hard it can be for the public to even be clear what’s green. That issue is the topic of a post below this one. Fortunately, citizens with relevant expertise have provided comments that clarify.

In the immortal words of Kermit the Frog, “It’s not easy being green.” On this blog, Arzeena Hamir and others have a listing of Green Events that make it a little easier.

While browsing Arzeena’s listings, you may enjoy some musical accompaniment. How about the Ray Charles rendition of Kermit’s song, It’s Not Easy Being Green?

Btk gypsy moth spraying

The Garden City Lands Coalition doesn’t take a position on each environmental issue but does encourage awareness of a range of green issues and green events. We often hear from citizens about such matters. Here is a call for action that just arrived at the coalition’s email address:

Hello, I am shocked to read Richmond News Jan 08.2010 ”aerial  pesticide spray  proposed.” Most places this stuff is off limits, and here they try to do it again. Is that Richmond council out of their mind? What can we do in order to prevent it?

I am buying most of my product organically,  spending my hard-earned money in order to remain healthy, and now I cannot go outside without  having to smell Btk, losing our singing birds, etc. My crop is just coming up, and it will be sprayed, with a ten-day break between dousings. The only thing my family can do is leaving richmond for the time being and returning when it is all over, meaning this year I will leave my fields barren.

 What can we do? We must protest in masses. It cannot be tolerated.

Morgana Odin
Sigi Keller Bhanji

The writers clearly feel strongly about the issue. Other points of view have also been expressed in the media. Any comments? (If so, please add them below.)

Win-win for ALR and winery?

In the previous post about the Lulu Island Winery and its ALR implications, I ended with a note of optimism: “Personally, I wish continued success to both the Lulu Island Wineries and the ALR. That will require imaginative win-win solutions. It is still very possible.”

With that in mind, I emailed a four-page memo in PDF to the Agricultural Land Commission. It lets the commission know about the Lulu Island Winery’s infraction that everyone in Richmond who reads the local papers has already heard of. It goes on to suggest some examples of ways the winery could adapt what it’s doing to contribute to the goals of the ALR.

To be fair and as helpful as possible, I also sent the memo to Lulu Island Winery. The brief covering message told them that, although I had pointed out the apparent problem to the ALC, I had also “encouraged finding suitable permissible uses for the extra space as a means to resolving your problems. Your business is an asset to Richmond and can be a suitable use of ALR land. This is my contribution toward those happy results being achieved as soon as possible.” The winery owners will have received the message and attached memo  first thing on Monday morning, and there’s been no response by Tuesday evening.

Some Friends of Garden City will think I’m being too soft and compromising, and I should point out that my memo expresses my personal views. There is no single Garden City Lands Coalition position on the issue. People who support the goals of the ALR can have different views about how to achieve them in particular siutations like the Lulu Island Winery one. Feel free to express your views in the comments.

Click on the link to read the memo to the ALC re the Lulu Island Winery.

The need for ALC action at winery

This is the third in a series of posts related to the apparent infraction of ALR rules by Lulu Island Winery. That has significant consequences for the strength of BC’s Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), and saving the ALR is one of the motivations of many supporters of saving the Garden City Lands. The earlier posts, which name Bill Jones and Anne Lerner in the titles, appear immediately below this one.

Re “‘Entertainment palace’ grows on ALR land,” Richmond News, Dec. 25.

I visited the Lulu Island Winery palace today. I left in awe.

I’m awed by the mountain panorama from the empty “restaurant” area, the flawlessly hospitable staff in the vast sales and tasting hall, and the acres of flourishing grapevines.

Less happily, I’m awed by the audacity of the owners, who don’t let rules limit them. Under the Agricultural Commission Act, the rules for their business are the winery regulation, which is easy to locate online, complete with policy advice.

With that clear help, surely the owners know that only a small food and beverage lounge, not a restaurant, may be ancillary to a winery — and then only if B.C.’s Liquor Licensing eventually gives them a winery lounge endorsement after consulting the City of Richmond.

And surely they know that their three “wine tasting” halls (in addition to the main tasting/sales hall), go far beyond normal wine tasting space and are suited to large meetings and parties.

Inside the palace, it’s a small convention centre. It’s a thing of beauty, and I bet the owners are as nice as their staff, but neither the city nor the commission can ignore the skirting of ALR provisions and still convey that they, not developers, are at the steering wheel.

The Agricultural Land Commission does not patrol the ALR. It relies on city governments and citizens to report infractions. In the city’s new zoning bylaw, the agricultural zones are limited to “uses consistent with the provisions of the Agricultural Land Reserve.” If the city can’t enforce its zoning, then it’s time to ask the commission to act.

Personally, I wish continued success to both the Lulu Island Wineries and the ALR. That will require imaginative win-win solutions. It is still very possible.

Lerner slams winery’s restaurant in ALR

This post was provided by Richmond’s Anne Lerner as a guest blog in response to the previous post on the issue of the oversized restaurant that Lulu Island Winery, in contravention of the regulations of both the Agricultural Land Reserve and the City of Richmond, wants to use for China House during the Olympics. Besides sending this to the Garden City Lands Coalition, Anne Lerner sent it to the mayor and council of Richmond.

The answer to the large Lulu Island Winery restaurant on ALR Land must be No, immediately.

Council’s responsibility is to the city of Richmond’s best interest, not to the interests of one sly business. I’m counting on council to show backbone on this.

Their plea of ignorance is implausible.  They didn’t present their plan to the city until the last minute, forcing council to make an imprudent decision under pressure. (This “last-minute, time-limited pressure” ploy is used by lawyers in sophisticated law suits and business dealings.) They also presented it after the fact, having built the structure and quickly held an event to see if it would slip past the authorities.  Fortunately, the event came to the public’s attention because it caused many (unhoped for) problems.  This was a preview for the city of the damage that would result if the city’s well-thought-out regulation was ignored.

Any business sophisticated enough to employ a “marketing and development manager” is sophisticated enough to have planned this ploy of ignorance.  To initiate the winery business at this location required thorough research regarding all legal criteria prior to their investment.

The marketing manager’s quote, “too good an opportunity for the city to miss,” is pure bunk!  They are hoping to convince the city. The Olympics lasts two weeks.  The damage to the land will be permanent. This is no opportunity for the city, only an opportunity for the winery to start their hospitality/events business on a large scale.  It is already advertising its facility for lease for larger crowds than the law allows.

They knew how important the Olympics are to Richmond’s self-image.  They purposely offered to host the Chinese Olympics group prior to researching the regulations and necessary permits.  They didn’t reveal their plan and hoped to slip the construction and event past the council. 

OR, if the city became aware: They counted on the city making an exception for them in order to  save face with the Chinese/International community.  Their statement that the games are 56 days away shows their ploy was to put the city under the gun at the last minute so that they would be forced to approve this plan. 

Don’t fall for this. Rules were created to benefit the whole community, even if they inconvenience one business.  One unnecessary exception is a precedent.  There will be huge legal costs to Richmond to fight all future demands (using this precedent) to bend this rule. The food and beverage facility limit must be kept at the allowable 107 square metres.

There are other facilities available in Richmond for the use of the China contingent.  Don’t believe Lulu Winery’s contention that Richmond will lose out. Richmond can only gain by denying this request and opening up the opportunity to other venues with the appropriate facilities.

Re “Land rules stun winery,” Richmond News, Dec. 18:

1. The quote from the winery’s marketing manager regarding the problem crowd at the first reception/party held there shows that they were aware that limits were in effect on the number of attendees: ”The problem was that people didn’t leave the open house as expected.  They were supposed to be coming and going.  They weren’t all supposed to stay.”

2.  Ted Townsend, City of Richmond spokesman, is quoted: “We hope to still have China House in Richmond and will be doing everything we can do to make that happen . . . hoping to work with everyone to make this happen.”  Sounds like he’s guaranteeing the winery will get its way.  He should be guaranteeing Richmond that he will be looking out for the city’s interest. Whose interests is he representing?

3.  The insinuation by the Lulu Island Winery spokesperson that denying their location (that she unwisely promised) to the Chinese delegation will damage the relationship between the City of Richmond and the country of China is offensive.  Richmond has a longstanding, ongoing, strong connection with China.  The location of the hospitality base for their Olympic participants will not have any impact at all on this.  The only relationship that could be damaged by denying the winery their request is that between the winery and the Chinese delegation.  They had no authority to make that offer to the delegation.

There are other facilities available in Richmond for the use of the China contingent.  Don’t believe Lulu Winery’s contention that Richmond will lose out.  Richmond can only gain by denying this request and opening up the opportunity to other venues with the appropriate facilities.

Note: The Richmond Review still has an online poll on this issue. The Yes-NO percentage is 40:60, with the majority voting NO. Anne Lerner urges you to vote NO.

Bill Jones vs winery skirting of ALR rules

Retired farmer Bill Jones’s “Winery chips away at rapidly disappearing farmlands” letter responds well to the Richmond Review’s article titled “China House bid raises questions about farmland use.” Mr. Jones, a member of the Richmond Agricultural Advisory Committee, has taken a firm stand against a problem with Lulu Island Winery’s right to have a small restaurant on its ALR land.

The restaurant, which would take up far more than the space allowed under ALR regulations, would evidently also require parking either on Westminster Highway, where it would be an illegal hazard, or on the farmland, where it would do further damage to agricultural land.

According to the Richmond News in “Land rules stun winery,” the company’s excuse is that it was very ignorant. While Richmond staff may have abetted the ignorance, excusing it would put BC’s farmland protection on a slippery slope indeed. Surely, ignorance of ALR regulations and a city’s bylaws does not justify something so extreme, even if it might inconvenience some people we’d like to welcome (people from China, in this case). I agree with much of what the News has to say about it in its “Asleep at the switch?” editorial, although I’d go further.

Back at the Richmond Review, its website has an opinion poll about this topic (asking “Should Lulu Island Wineries be allowed to host China House for the 2010 Olympics?”) on its home page. With some imagination and overdue problem-solving, the City and the winery actually should be able to find an appropriate way in which China House can happen there, but undoubtedly a “Yes” to the Richmond Review’s poll question would be taken as agreement that the plan should go ahead in its current unacceptable form. If all else fails, China House should still be able to find an alternative site in Richmond. With that in mind, my answer on the poll is “No.”

Final note: A big thank you!

Thank you, Bill Jones, for bringing this matter to public attention and then reiterating the point in your letter about “serious abuse of rules for non-agricultural use of protected farmlands.”

A false dichotomy

Carol Southgate’s recent letter in the Richmond Review rebuts comments by Olga Illich, the developer-politician. Like many (but not all) developers, Ms. Illich would like to get rid of the Agricultural Land Reserve. Using her political skills, she creates a dichotomy between ALR land and green space. However, ALR land and green space are not mutually exclusive. Even ALR land and parks are not mutually exclusive. The Garden City Lands are the perfect example of how the citizens of Richmond can have all three at once. While remaining as green space in the ALR, they can be a park with an agricultural theme—with green space values, park values, and food production values.

OCP survey shortcomings and opportunities

This post about Richmond’s Official Community Plan (OCP) 2041 Update Survey adds to the recent Arzeena Hamir letter and Jessica Lai letter in the Richmond News, especially Jessica’s letter. It is basically for residents of Richmond, BC, but I suspect that readers beyond Richmond can pick up some insights from it.

I encourage Richmond residents to do the survey. You have just until December 18, 2009.

As Jessica Lai pointed out, the Garden City Lands should be shown on the 2009 Richmond City Centre map in the survey flyer as being in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), and the survey’s failure to get that right is a cause for concern in several ways.

One of the less obvious causes for concern is related to land value. The flyer shows the lands as “Park/School.” That gives an impression that the property should be valued like a school site or as a non-ALR park site. It hinders the ability to obtain the lands for ongoing ALR uses. Also, any increase in price beyond ALR-value would tend to fuel ALR-land speculation, adding to the cost of local food production and hindering the future of the ALR.

When filling out the survey, I found that it consisted largely of questions that would yield data that spin artists could spin however they wanted.

As with previous surveys, it also included questions with blatant bias. For example, the question that includes the phrase “to strengthen neighbourhoods” when asking whether the respondent supports a particular measure is almost certain to elicit an appearance of support simply because no one is opposed to strengthening neighbourhoods. (Even if they don’t agree with the measure, they’ll be reluctant to disagree, since they don’t want weak neighbourhoods, whatever that may be.)

There are a couple of open-ended questions that allow scope for meaningful answers if people have not been sapped by the more mind-numbing questions and have the energy to answer them with the care they are worth:

• After question 20, there is an unnumbered item that says “My top three exciting changes that I would like to see in Richmond in the future are. . . .” My first answer was something like “An agriculture-themed park in the ALR on the Garden City Lands.”
• The question was also flipped to this: “My top three favourite things that I wouldn’t want to see changed in Richmond are. . . .” My answers were “The Garden City Lands as green space,” “The growing appreciation for local food,” and “The growing concern for the neediest.”

A few other tips if you’re a Richmond resident doing the survey online:

• Check your responses as you go along. I tried using the preview feature, and the “Previous” button that should have allowed me to go back and edit did not actually work.
• The online survey hurries you by telling you that you can be timed out but does not tell you how much time you have. If I were starting again, I would have answers to the important questions ready before beginning the survey so that I would not be rushed when providing those significant thoughts._
• Also, the “Print” button did not work properly. It just enabled the printing of an uncompleted survey, not my completed one. If you will need a record of any answers, save them in some other way.

Reminder: The stated deadline for the survey is Dec. 18, 2009.

MPs – update about action

On Saturday, Nov. 14, four directors of the Garden City Lands Coalition Society met with Alice Wong, MP for the Richmond riding. That evening, John Cummins, MP for Delta-Richmond East, phoned me. In each case, the topic was federal help in saving the Garden City Lands, and the conversation was thorough.

In previous years, Mr. Cummins provided strong early help, which was particularly necessary when the Richmond MP was Raymond Chan, who was unlikely to ever become part of the solution. Since the Garden City Lands are technically in the Richmond riding (though right on the border of Richmond East), the directors asked Alice Wong to take the leading role and to act immediately. So far we have not heard about any further progress.

Right now, though, Ms. Wong is in China with Prime Minister Harper. While we realize that their attention during the trip is on China, the fact that the prime minister thought enough of the Richmond MP to include her in the small group of MPs with him seems promising. We are looking forward to news from Ms. Wong that her influence is paying off for the Garden City Lands issue.

NO housing on Garden City Lands!

This is a follow-up to the previous post, “Affordable housing on the Garden City lands?” (with the question mark at the end), which the Richmond News published in its Nov. 25 issue as “Garden City key to affordable housing.” It was prompted by a Nov. 20 News article, “Free land offered: Society,” and Malcolm Brodie, Richmond’s mayor responded in the Nov. 27 News in “No Garden City offer was made.”
___________________

Judging from feedback, I must clarify: my recent post did not condone housing on the Garden City lands — even if we obtain the property without charge under a federal program that uses surplus property to combat homelessness.

One critic with nightmares of a built-up Garden City lands told me that the best place for homes for the neediest is directly to the north in the Alexandra area, where much inexpensive housing has been demolished. His idea is a good example of what’s possible, so I’ll use it in the following scenario.

First, our council cooperates with our housing advocates and our members of parliament to get back the Garden City lands under the federal homelessness program.

Second, council arranges to keep the Garden City lands as green space, not a construction site, by using that program’s property-exchange feature.

Third, in exchange, council supplies suitable property of equal value. It consists of vacant sites in the Alexandra area.

Fourth, council makes those Alexandra sites available to community partners who build and manage affordable housing on them.

That provides desperately needed homes. At the same time, it’s one of the possible ways to conserve the Garden City lands for “Richmond’s Stanley Park.”

Affordable housing on the Garden City Lands?

Re “Free land offered: Society” (Richmond News, Nov. 20).

We’re told that Richmond’s mayor offered land to a Surrey society for affordable housing and “identified the Garden City lands as a possible location.”

The federal government is disposing of that property, and the city wants to buy it. As farmland in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), it is valued at around $10 million. If the city proceeds wisely, it will get it for that.  In contrast, the price will shoot up by $100 million or more if there’s any suspicion that the city will try again to get the property out of the ALR for construction.

If the mayor has blundered as reported, we taxpayers are sunk. But I bet he was misunderstood.

Perhaps, for example, he wants to use the Garden City Lands under the Surplus Federal Real Property for Homelessness program.

After getting the Garden City lands back from its land disposer, the federal government would give it to the city to enable housing that combats homelessness. To do that, the city would use a wonderful feature of the program, its property-exchange provision.

In the exchange, the city would receive the Garden City lands, ALR property where housing is not permitted. In return, the city would locate suitable lots of equal value and provide them to the housing project.

Essentially, the savings from getting the Garden City lands at no charge would be used to buy the lots. Since the city already owns some lots for affordable housing, they might be used, but I think they should be replaced out of the savings.

All this is not easy to do, but it is worth doing.

___________

For background, see the “Homeless + GCL” page on this blog.

California drought and us

“Food aid grows in California’s agricultural heart,” says the heading of a Wall Street Journal article. The caption for a video clip in the article summarizes like this:

California’s Central Valley normally serves as the nation’s food basket. But amid a severe drought in the region, so many farmers have lost their jobs, they are being forced to line up for food handouts and other assistance.

The video ends by saying that the farmers can only hope that there’s much-needed rain and snow this winter. Imagine what it will be like if those hopes get dashed. Here in BC, the need for local food will become more evident, but suffering through a shortage is a heavy price for learning what should already be obvious.

If it is used well, the Garden City Lands can have a big local-food effect in ways that are discussed in various places in this blog and on the Garden City Lands Coalition website. It is hard to understand why some people still find this hard to understand.

Community to Canada Lands II

In late July 2009, I described in Community to Canada Lands I how the Garden City Lands community was making every effort to help Canada Lands Company CLC know how to provide community benefit for Richmond.

One way the community spoke was in a torrent of letters, all expressing the writers’ opinions, not form-letter repetition. The Coalition has been informed (usually via cc) of 46 such letters (and no doubt there were more). Those letters were from 60 people, since some were signed by two or more people. A good example of the letters from citizens is this handwritten letter from 75-year-old Lorraine Bell.

The community also spoke through the Save the Garden City Lands petition urging the Government of Canada to be prepared to restore its ownership of the Lands for program needs within the ALR, such as urban agriculture and ecology uses, that serve the people of Richmond and Canada. At the time when it was sent to Canada Lands, there were 1,962 signatures on paper or in an online form.

The Garden City Lands Coalition sent Save Garden City: An urgent request to Canada Lands Company, a thorough analysis of the Garden City Lands issue. The binder, which included the petition along with sixteen other sections, had 200 pages, all carefully prepared. If Canada Lands went through that, they should by now be very knowledgeable about how to provide community benefit in Richmond, in keeping with their mandate.

Canada Lands has not even acknowledged receiving Save Garden City, let alone responded to it. It is disappointing that Canada Lands would snub the community in that way. It is not good enough or even remotely close to being good enough.

There will soon be a need for further action to ensure that they genuinely act on their community-benefit mandate with the Richmond property and, if need be, to ensure that Canada Lands’ good or bad performance in Richmond becomes well known throughout Canada.

Terra Nova – an inspiring saga

Prologue: For those who envision a community-changing future for the Garden City Lands, there is much to learn from Terra Nova, especially since Richmond recently received an award for Terra Nova Rural Park. It is located at the west end of Westminster Highway near Sturgeon Bank and shown on this Garden City Lands Coalition website page.

This account starts with the way the City of Richmond collaborates with the community, a key aspect of both stories.
_________________________

Sometimes it seems that Richmond, ever in search of a slogan, could adopt an old Rodney Dangerfield catchphrase: “I don’t get no respect.” In letters to the editor, the Olympic Oval is “a great big white elephant,” while the city’s snow-removal system is “Wait till spring.” And, stymied by the city’s ability to not act, public-spirited citizens like the Richmond Responsible Dog Owners’ Group (RRDOG) lose hope.

Truly, though, the City of Richmond has a brighter side. It’s exemplified by Terra Nova Rural Park, which recently won the Union of BC Municipalities award for “Leadership & Innovation in Environmental Excellence.” That crowns a quarter-century of community tenacity, our epic struggle to conserve Terra Nova for best uses.

In the mid-1980s, the Save Richmond Farmland Society and Richmond community mobilized to save Terra Nova, the green area in the northwest corner of Lulu Island. But the citizens were ignored by too many Richmond council members for too long. In the 1990 election, the citizens threw them out. In salvage mode, the new council used three years of planning and land swaps to make a large Terra Nova park area possible.

Still, it was an era when the only visions reaching council were developers’ visions, and the Save Richmond Farmland Society set out to fill the void. In March 1994, the society addressed council and provided council members and city staff with an illustrated 35-page booklet, Investing in our future: A city park at Terra Nova. It was a preview of today’s Terra Nova Rural Park and Terra Nova Natural Area.

With the 1996 election, there was a referendum to allow the city to borrow $28.5 million to acquire Terra Nova lands. The Save Richmond Farmland Society delivered 21,000 English and Chinese flyers to selected areas and organizations. With 58 percent, the yes vote won.

After listening again to the public at information sessions, the city decided, as expected, that Terra Nova parkland would be used for a mix of heritage park, habitat, and agriculture. Staff ably took it from there.

There’s much to like in the outcomes so far. In the Terra Nova Rural Park, for example, the Richmond Fruit Tree Sharing Project farm and Tzu Chi Foundation garden feed the needy, the Terra Nova Schoolyard enables kids to grow their own food, and a healing garden sprang to life this year through miracles of generosity.

Thousands take part. From spring to fall, kids, community gardeners, and volunteers tend the fertile soil. Companies provide support. Visitors delight in the scene. It’s an oasis of harmony.

Much more is happening, like the construction of trails and boardwalks, the conversion of the red barn to a gathering place, and the restoring of a heritage home, an ancient slough, and a crabapple ridge.

A wonderful aspect is the role of city parks staff. They have come to a place of community vision and nurtured it. They have thought far ahead, facilitated success, and steadily got things done.

Since councils and staff have teamed so well with our incredible community, Richmond richly deserves its award. Terra Nova is indeed a model of leadership and innovation in environmental excellence for BC municipalities. In ours, we can emulate our Terra Nova success with more cycles of vision, teamwork, and results, all in a culture of respect. 

_________________________

Epilogue: It’s job done, the Save Richmond Farmland Society has donated its remaining funds to the Garden City Lands Coalition Society. Combined with a previous $500 donation, that brought the total to $700, generous help that is much appreciated.

Joe Peschisolido clarifies his support

Directors of the Garden City Lands Coalition meet with Richmond’s federal MPs and provincial MLAs when the MPs/MLAs are interested. (So far that’s been one to three people representing the coalition at a time.) Until recently, we have not met with nominated MP/MLA candidates. On Thursday, however, we met with Joe Peschisolido at his request.

Some relevant background of Joe Peschisolido is that he was the MP for the Richmond riding from 2002 to 2004 but was not a candidate in the 2004 election after Raymond Chan, a previous MP for that riding, defeated him for the Liberal nomination. This year, when Conservative Alice Wong is the MP for the Richmond riding, Mr. Peschisolido turned the tables on Raymond Chan by winning the nomination to be the Liberal candidate in the next election.

After spending over two hours discussing the Garden City Lands issue with Joe Peschisolido, we left with a positive, encouraged feeling. He had previous familiarity with the Garden City Lands from working with the Jean Chretien government to make the property available for Richmond in a 2003 deal. We were told that the deal would have kept eighty percent of the lands green, with the rest (the northwest part) going to a convention centre and with the Musqueam Indian Band getting some money from the convention centre. In the Peschisolido account, Mayor Malcolm Brodie had been about to announce the agreement, but it had fallen apart at 3 a.m. on the day of the press conference when the Musqueam pulled out of the deal.

The Garden City Lands MOU that is currently in the renegotiation phase is an agreement that Raymond Chan took credit for. We went through the MOU with Joe Peschisolido, who had never seen it, and highlighted key points for him, especially the contingency process (including renegotiation, dispute resolution, and restoration of each party to its pre-MOU position). We also explained some aspects of the situation that make it more difficult for the MPs to help the Richmond community than ought to be the case.

Joe Peschisolido expressed the view that the Garden City Lands are still essentially federal lands and that the federal government can take the property back at any time if it has the will to do so. That is a stronger position than the one we have been asking our MPs to take, which is that the federal government should be ready to act decisively to take back the property from Canada Lands Company (CLC) if the Musqueam and/or CLC express any intent to terminate the MOU. Like us, Mr. Peschisolido believes that the federal government should do that for a program need that is for the benefit of the Richmond community.

Mr. Peschisolido said that the development of the lands should be limited to ALR-permissible ones. That would include infrastructure such as parking space and any required buildings. He shares the popular vision of the lands as “Richmond’s Stanley Park.”

Mr. Peschisolido, who supported Michael Ignatieff in both his leadership campaigns, conveyed the impression that he would certainly get the needed federal action if elected in an Ignatieff government and that he would also get results if elected in opposition.

As of the end of the meeting, the Garden City Lands Coalition includes Joe Peschisolido, not only as a Friend of Garden City but also as a new dues-paying member. We gather that his car is now sporting a “Save Garden City” bumper sticker.

True food security?

I kept laughing out loud when reading “Protecting the ALR isn’t about food security,” an op-ed column in the October 20 Vancouver Sun. It read like a parody of absurd arguments against local food security and the Agricultural Land Reserve, complete with a photo of the Garden City Lands. Then I googled and found that the writer, Steve Lornie, is the president of an actual construction management company. The article seems to be an actual attempt to refute a column by Peter Ladner, a Business in Vancouver founder and former NPA councillor, along with everyone else aiming for local food security,  “the left who attack free markets.”

Here’s my 99-word comment:

While against “an obsessive focus on food security,” Steve Lornie agrees with food-security advocate Peter Ladner that the world’s supply of available food is only a tenth of what it was about twenty years ago. That’s good, says Lornie: “just-in-time inventory” with “low-cost delivery.” For true food security, it seems, we simply need a Toyota-like world along with world free trade, more reliance on “the struggling farmers of the Third World,” and presumably world peace. When we’ve paved the Agricultural Land Reserve and have no local food, we can get a quick, cheap, secure supply from Somalia and Chad.

Update, Oct. 26: My comment has appeared as a letter in the Vancouver Sun today, along with three other letters that rebutted the Steve Lornie anti-ALR column. the Sun had previously published two letters that also rebutted the column. That’s six letters that support the ALR and zero that oppose it, and the Sun would have balanced the views if there had been any well-expressed letters on the other side. What that says about public opinion on the ALR issue is certainly encouraging.