Mega-density development versus prime farmland
Bulletin: In Prince Edward Island, the Upton Farm Preservation Network has reached an agreement with Canada Lands Company.
This blog about saving the Garden City Lands, Richmond, BC, explores the issue in depth. The Garden City Lands Coalition site introduces the issue.
Earlier in 2009, the Garden City Lands panel of the Agricultural Land Commission REJECTED the application to remove the Lands from the ALR. Here’s the decision. The struggle to save Lands is still far from over.
I sent the following this morning as a Garden City Lands Coalition Society message to the president of Canada Lands Company, cc-ing the usual parties and more.
Dear Mark Laroche, President and CEO, Canada Lands Company:
You will soon receive a couriered petition from the Garden City Lands Coalition Society. The 1,962 signatories want to keep the Garden City Lands green for community benefit. The petition requests the assistance of the Government of Canada, and we have chosen to send it directly to you because our members have reported that such requests typically get forwarded to you. We hope that this will lead to mutually beneficial results.
After a period of distrust that was not without reason, there has been a surge of awareness here that Canada Lands Company may be genuinely committed to ensuring local community benefit from the disposal of federal crown land. (The good news from Upton Farm on Prince Edward Island has spread.) We would like to obtain that benefit and to ensure that Canada Lands Company receives credit for it.
Since our society exists to save the Garden City Lands, we take care to be in tune with the related sense of community needs. In brief, the lands are seen as Richmond’s Stanley Park, as a linchpin of B.C.’s Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), and as a carbon sink that is functionally useful and symbolically vital. The community includes the citizens of Richmond but goes well beyond that. People from all around B.C. and northern Washington are interested, and there is involvement especially from citizens of the neighbouring parts of Metro Vancouver.
We gather that your company and/or the Musqueam Indian Band have sought renegotiation of at least one understanding in the Garden City Property Memorandum of Understanding (the MOU) that cannot be met. We are pleased that your company seems committed to following the MOU’s “Contingencies” process: renegotiation, dispute resolution, and, if all else fails, cooperation in making whatever arrangements are necessary to restore the four parties to the position that each was in prior to entering into the MOU.
As you probably know, the MOU divides the Garden City Lands into two halves: the Development Lands (widely thought of as the CLC-Musqueam lands) and the Public Lands (widely thought of as the City of Richmond lands). There is still essentially no impediment to the intended Public Lands uses, but the MOU-specified uses for the Development Lands, which have never been permissible, may never become permissible, and that is certainly cause for renegotiation. We ask Canada Lands, as the party entrusted with the land title, to proactively ensure the negotiation of ALR-permitted uses for the property that are consistent with the community’s needs.
We recognize that in Richmond, as in Charlottetown with Upton Farm, Canada Lands Company should be made whole, recovering its purchase price and expenses, and presumably the same would apply to the Musqueam and City parties if they do not end up with an ownership interest. While minor adjustments will be needed for that purpose, we suggest that any sale price for the Development Lands be basically at the ALR land value, as it already is for the Public Lands. As long as Canada Lands Company ensures (perhaps by means of an unequivocally worded covenant registered against the title) that the property will be limited to ALR-permissible uses forever, the land value is presumably the same, or at least essentially the same, as the fair market value stated in the MOU.
You may wonder why we would get into suggestions about price. Our goal in that is to eliminate the odious kind of land speculation that had unfortunately slipped into the transfer of the Garden City Lands from the federal crown. Parties had become land speculators trying to use their immense power to destroy a community-treasured green space, valued throughout living memory as the people’s lands, for urban sprawl that Smart Growth BC has definitively identified as NOT Smart Growth. From the standpoint of protecting land capable of producing food, any speculative profit from the Garden City Lands would send out the wrong signal. A similar point could be made about protecting peatland serving as an active carbon sink, which is what the lands also happen to be.
Two years ago, the significance of the Garden City Lands was magnified a hundredfold when it became a linchpin of the ALR. That aspect came to public attention when developers’ association head Philip Hochstein wrote “Space Invaders,” an anti-ALR guest column in BC Business magazine (July 2007). Another analogy is that the Garden City Lands became a cleverly chosen battleground where the ALR was pitted against rampant development of agricultural land. The only reason the Garden City Property ALR-exclusion applications might have succeeded was the power of the applicants, and less-powerful speculators were no doubt watching and waiting to demand equal treatment, perhaps fatally weakening the ALR. We are asking you now to turn the tables in a way that strengthens the ALR.
By striving to meet true community need in the disposal of the Garden City Lands, Canada Lands Company will be saving not only a Richmond treasure in the form of the particular 136 acres of peatland green space in Richmond City Centre but also, to at least some extent, a British Columbia treasure in the form of the B.C. Agricultural Land Reserve. For certain, that is corporate social responsibility!
Sincerely,
Jim Wright
President, Garden City Lands Coalition Society
Renegotiations about the future of the Garden City Lands in Richmond, B.C., are close to completion. This is a crucial period. We have urged supporters to act by contacting Canada Lands Company and other parties. The following 943 words are the best we can do to provide thorough current background. Please take five minutes to think about it and then write ASAP. At this stage, contacting Canada Lands by email is generally best.
As the Garden City Lands agreements played out, the role of Canada Lands Company as project manager for the ALR-exclusion application tarnished the image of that federal land disposal company. There was considerable evidence of manipulation of the citizens and council. An impression also grew that the company planned to ignore the provisions in the MOU, the basic agreement, about (a) renegotiation of understandings that could not be met, (b) dispute resolution, and (c) the restoration of each of the four original parties to the position it was in prior to entering the MOU.
In the company’s defence, there is also reason to think that senior City of Richmond representatives were “in cahoots” with it. Nevertheless, the company’s mandate involves providing benefit to the local community, not to city politicians and civil servants. Especially after seeing how the company’s performance improved dramatically in the parallel issue of Upton Farm in Prince Edward Island, we still have some faith in Canada Lands Company.
The Garden City Lands renegotiations taking place now were needed because an MOU understanding that half the property (called the Development Lands) would be rezoned for high-density construction cannot be met, since the land is in the ALR. It has been there since the ALR was created, yet the MOU presumptuously took for granted that Canada Lands could get it excluded. Both exclusion attempts failed because the applications showed no grounds for exclusion.
It is important to note that the understanding that limits the uses of the other half of the property (the Public Lands, often called the City lands), should still be in place. Furthermore, the City has a covenant on the property title that protects its ability to acquire the Public Lands for $4.77 million (plus certain expenses). It is therefore reasonable to assume that the Public Lands half of the property will remain green for community benefit unless the City of Richmond is inept.
The issue, then, is the renegotiation of the uses for the Development Lands.
As you know, Canada Lands holds the title to the whole property. However, according to the MOU, the Musqueam Indian Band is entitled to an unregistered 50% beneficial interest in the property and has the option of being compensated in land, which would be one quarter of the entire property (50% of the Develoopment Lands).
The entire property is already in the ALR, with no credible prospect of ever being removed, but we are asking Canada Lands to safeguard the land forever by ensuring that any sale of the Development Lands, as well as the Public Lands, is on the express condition that the property will remain green for community benefit. Although our concern is with the goal, not mechanisms for safeguarding it, there is at least one obvious possible mechanism, a covenant registered by Canada Lands against the title(s) of the eventual purchaser(s) that guarantees the entire property will be used only for ALR-permitted purposes for community benefit in perpetuity.
With regard to price, from an ALR-protection standpoint it is best that the asking price for the Development Lands (as for the Public Lands) be the amount that will enable Canada Lands Company to be “made whole,” i.e., to recover its costs. (The obvious approach is to set the price at the fair market value stated in the MOU, plus the reasonable expenses.)
In contrast, one trial balloon argues that the company and/or the band should receive far more per acre because they expected to get more. We strongly object. It would set a precedent that land speculators that acquire an interest in ALR land in the hope of ALR-exclusion and rezoning are entitled to the price they would have received if the land had been excluded and rezoned. (The precedent would be cited, for example, if government at any level wanted to obtain such land, even for ALR-permitted purposes.) The precedent would be harmful to the future of agricultural land in British Columbia and of the ALR itself. Furthermore, nothing in the MOU says that any party should make large profits from land speculation, so enabling such profits is not implicit in the goal of achieving the spirit of the MOU to the extent possible in the changed circumstances.
From the perspective of the goals of the Garden City Lands Coalition, there is no particular configuration of final ownership that is necessarily best. The best final situation could, for example, be ownership by a land conservancy or a federal department such as Agriculture and Agri-Foods Canada. As it stands now, though, the City of Richmond has the inside track for a number of reasons, including these two:
It has an enforceable right to buy half the property sooner or later, and that is also clearly the intent that was stated by the federal Crown when announcing the MOU in 2005.
It also has a right of first offer if Canada Lands Company and the Musqueam ever declare as a partnership that the other half is for sale. Along with that, there is a right of first offer to just the Musqueam part, which would be up to a quarter of the whole property, if the Musqueam have ever first taken the step of replacing their beneficial interest with ownership of up to a quarter of the property.
As far as we can determine, bait of possible willingness to sell has been dangled in front of the City of Richmond for about a month. There does not seem to have been any formal declaration that the partnership and/or the Musqueam acting alone have decided not to develop their part of the property and instead to sell it.
At the moment, we are at a loss to comprehend why the City is apparently considering making an offer when there does not yet appear to have been renegotiation of alternative ways for Canada Lands Company, along with the band, to develop the Development Lands. The only given in that regard is that the uses will have to be ALR-permissible. It is surely ideal to have as many of the parties as possible participating in ensuring that the Garden City Lands have a green future for community benefit for all time.
(But we still love you, City of Richmond! )
(Especially when you’re your best self.)
Richmond school trustee Carol Day recently letter to the Richmond News published, and we’ve heard a lot of favourable comments about it. Carol wrote:
The Garden City lands are still in jeopardy as talks continue between Canada Lands Company, the Musqueam and the City of Richmond. These three parties will ultimately decide the future of these lands in the next two or three weeks. You are a stakeholder too, and you can help by writing to those parties and letting them know your wishes.
In response, people are asking “What should I say when I write them?” and “Where do I reach them?” I’ll offer a few thoughts here.
First, we most need to get through to Canada Lands Company. They hold the title to the Garden City Lands, and they have a mandate to provide community benefit when disposing of surplus federal lands like that. They don’t seem to understand the strength of the community feeling about keeping the Garden City Lands green, so the main point of your letter might be to let them know why it is important to keep the lands green and also to persuade them to find ways to make that possible. Write to:
Mark Laroche
President and CEO
Canada Lands Company
1 University Ave., Suite 1200
Toronto, ON M5J 2P1
mlaroche@clc.ca
Second, we need to get through to Richmond council that we need them to work together to ensure that the Garden City Lands remain green for community benefit. The biggest obstacle to a good result from the current renegotiations under the Garden City Lands memorandum of understanding is that three council members and some senior City staff are still fighting lost battles. Your challenging task is to persuade them all to work together. (Note, by the way, that we don’t necessarily need them to purchase all of the Garden City lands. It is possible for the lands to remain green in any of several ways that don’t require City ownership. Write to:
Mayor and Council
City of Richmond
6911 No. 3 Road
Richmond, BC V6Y 2C1
mayorandcouncillors@richmond.ca
Third, there’s a challenge that is very demanding but also potentially very rewarding. There are clearly some members of the Musqueam First Nation (legally the “Musqueam Indian Band”) that care a great deal about the environment, but they are not the most powerful members. It will be wonderful if the band will adjust its course enough to work with other parties to keep the Garden City lands green for community benefit. If the Musqueam act with that kind of goodwill, there will be a rapid increase in public respect for them and genuine reconciliation, which would be amazingly wonderful. If you are ready to give that a try, write to:
Chief Earnest Campbell and Band Council
Musqueam Indian Band
6735 Salish Drive
Vancouver, B.C. V6N 4C4
In your messages to those parties, it is typically useful to cc our members of parliament, who can help if the people show they want their help, and also the Garden City Lands Coalition. If you are writing the MPs at their Ottawa addresses, there is no postage required. Here are the addresses to cc:
John Cummins, MP
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
cummij@parl.gc.ca
Alice Wong, MP
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
WongA1@parl.gc.ca
On top of that, please cc the Garden City Lands Coalition and the Minister Responsible for Canada Lands Company, Rob Merrifield.
Garden City Lands Coalition
8300 Osgoode Drive
Richmond, BC V7A 4P1
GardenCityLands@Shaw.ca
Hon. Rob Merrifield
Minister of State, Transport
Place de Ville, Tower C, 29th Floor
330 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5
Merrifield.R@parl.gc.ca
Renegotiation within the basic Garden City Lands agreement has begun. As far as we can learn, it was held up by some of the usual sabre-rattling from the lawyer for the Musqueam Indian Band. In any case, reliable sources say the process began in earnest in a meeting at Richmond City Hall on Thursday, June 18.
The intent appears to be to complete the renegotiation within a few weeks. Inevitably there are ways in which the Garden City Lands Coalition and other supporters of saving the lands as green space can provide useful input. No doubt this will be a topic at the annual general meeting of the coalition as an incorporated society, which is discussed in the post below this one.
Some renegotiation of arrangements between three of the parties to the basic Garden City Lands agreement (the “MOU”) is needed because Agricultural Land Commission decisions have made it impossible for City staff to recommend rezoning for mega-density development on the “Development Lands” half of the property (an understanding expressed in MOU section 1.19). That means that a joint venture between Canada Lands Company CLC Limited and the Musqueam Indian Band must limit its development of the Development Lands to alternative uses permitted by the commission, with City staff facilitating zoning as need be.
Under the circumstances, Canada Lands is evidently interested in selling the Development Lands to the City and splitting the profits with the Musqueam. At minimum, the City is in a very strong position to obtain the other half, called the “Public Lands” at its fair market value, stated in the agreement as $4.77 million. That is consistent with the spirit of the agreement, and the City has clout in the form of the No Development Covenant. That assumes, however, that it starts making use of its naturally good position, which it has historically not done.
With the current make-up of Richmond council, City ownership of the Garden City Lands could be another step toward a green future for the lands. However, the same end result could be achieved without City ownership.
At Terra Nova, the northwest tip of Lulu Island, the City of Richmond got things wrong two decades ago but then recovered to some extent before it was too late. The good result was the Terra Nova Rural Park, along with the Terra Nova Natural Area. The park is in a spectacular location, and the City is doing a spectacular job of cooperating with the citizens there. With the Garden City Lands, the City of Richmond was on an even worse course than the initial Terra Nova one, but we hope that the turn-around will continue, with an end result that will be even better.
In that context, we’re excited that the 2009 annual general meeting (AGM) of the Garden City Lands Coalition Society on Monday, June 22, will be at The Barn at Terra Nova Rural Park. It’s a great setting for celebrating and learning. For more, please go to the Barn-AGM page on the Garden City Lands website. If you support the goals of the society, we hope to see you, as a member of the society, at The Barn.
When you reach this sign at 2631 Westminster, you’re there!
Update added late on May 22: When last seen, the Scotch invaders were retreating.
Ecology has a lot to do with balance. On International Biodiversity Day, May 22, 2009, Michael Wolfe will draw on his skills as a conservation biologist, educator, and Garden City Lands expert to guide humans who care about the ecological balance of the lands.
This year, the theme of International Biodiversity Day is invasive alien species. One could think of it as Invasive Species Day, and we do.
Humans have had a lot to do with Garden City Lands invasive species like Himalayan blackberry and Scotch heather. Richmond humans even buy Scotch heather for their gardens, but the seeds that find their way to the bog do a lot of harm to native species by crowding them out. Michael will help the human visitors to distinguish harmful invaders from natives.
Unlike most invaders, humans can help restore the balance. In a symbolic but useful way, the Michael-led humans will do that. Fortunately, the bog is pretty good at resisting the Himalayen blackberry, so it won’t be necessary to root out thorny brambles. Fortunately also, humans can vanquish the relentlessly invading Scotch heather with their bare hands, although gloves such as old work gloves are recommended.
On Invasive Species Day, eco-touring humans can pace themselves as they see fit, and the battle with the Scotch invaders will take no more than a third of the ninety-minute tour time. Still, the human action will be a step in the right direction, and the lands will be a little more ecologically balanced at the end.
The Invasive Species eco-tour of the Garden City Lands starts at 6 p.m. on Friday, May 22. Please read more about it and join in.
“Garden City lands not in green zone,” Alan Campbell’s well-written article in the Richmond News, has brought light to a topic that needed it. Allow me to add three candles.
First, strengthening Metro Vancouver’s Green/Agricultural Zone will be good for Richmond. With agricultural-zone solidarity at the city, metro, and provincial (ALR) levels, Richmond may even stand a fighting chance against federal raids on our farmland.
Second, it is the Agricultural Land Commission, not just Coun. Harold Steves or I, that has repeatedly affirmed the Garden City Lands to be prime farmland. That is a silver lining of the ALR-exclusion attempts.
Third, it is Canada Lands Company, the federal land disposer, that is entrusted with the title to the lands, although it would have split the rezoning profits with the Musqueam Indian Band. The article foresees money going from Richmond to the Musqueam, but I think Canada Lands would receive it and compensate the Musqueam.
However, the recession and the ALR decisions have left the fair market value of the Garden City Lands at around the $9.54 million the company is paying the federal government. There’s no profit to split. The parties could still gain a lot from the lands, but it would be gained in goodwill and a good shared future.
Bulletin added on May 20: This matter has been deferred to the next Planning Committee meeting (in June).
On Wednesday, May 20, at 4 p.m., Richmond Council’s Planning Committee is considering whether to pass on to the Agricultural Land Commission some applications to exclude No. 4 Road properties from the ALR. There’s also an application to exclude a small area on Triangle Road for church use. Here’s the Planning Meeting info.
I think it’s good to clean up these matters as a step toward harmonizing/rationalizing the agricultural zoning system so that the city, metro, and provincial guardians of agricultural land all speak with one voice. Among other things, that would enable them to stand half a chance when coming up against the federal government.
Beyond that, one part of me wants the applications to go forward to the Agricultural Land Commission so that the property owners can get fairer treatment than they have been receiving from the city. Another part of me naturally wants to avoid the slippery slope of agricultural-land concessions.
What is striking in the staff reports is the double standards. For instance, staff is talking about how the No. 4 Road lots could be suitable for urban agriculture, even though they claimed that the Garden City Lands were not suitable for agriculture. Whereas the Garden City Lands are over 136 acres, the No. 4 Road lots in the current applications are all smaller than half an acre, and one is less than a fifth of an acre. They are so small that the ALR regulations don’t even apply to them (even though they are within the ALR boundary). Yet staff’s recommendation to city council, prepared under Canada Lands Company direction, was for the City of Richmond to apply to the Agricultural Land Commission to exclude the Garden City Lands from the ALR. And, in contrast, the staff recommendation to city council now is to prevent even the No. 4 Road applicant with a 0.18 acre lot from asking the commission to exclude it from the ALR.
While sympathetic, I can’t support the No. 4 Road applications for exclusion from the ALR. However, I do support better treatment for all owners of small agricultural properties. The ALR-exclusion application for the Garden City Lands repeatedly showed disrespect toward even the people who make their living as growers on relatively small farms. The vague agricultural endowment fund idea in the application even repeatedly distinguished them from “bona fide farmers.” That application was directed by and for Canada Lands Company, but the City of Richmond let itself be the figurehead applicant and provided a lot of staff time. Citizens of Richmond and all communities can surely expect better from the tax-paid people who have brought on this state of affairs.
The three posts below this one describe a May 11, 2009, Richmond council meeting about Richmond’s input to Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy. Four Garden City Lands Coalition members made short presentations. My mind is now back on the topic because there’s a Regional Growth Strategy public consultation tonight. (It’s at the Richmond Cultural Centre, as shown in the public consultation calendar.)
A common thread in what the Coalition members proposed at the council meeting was the goal of strengthening the protection of agricultural land in Metro Vancouver. The Regional Growth Strategy draft already proposes harmonizing agricultural land protection, and we supported that. For ideal harmonizing, all land that is agricultural under city zoning and/or the provincial Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) should also be designated as agricultural on Metro Vancouver’s economic areas map.
The harmonized protection of agricultural land protection would still have a limitation that the federal government can legally ignore it, but the united front of the individual Metro city plus Metro Vancouver plus the provincial ALR would be a tremendous help in getting the federal government to heed the interests of Richmond in protecting land that has agricultural potential.
By the way, Mayor Malcolm Brodie, with a different view, expressed his opposition to designating land as agricultural in the Regional Growth Strategy because he wanted autonomy for Richmond in land use decisions. That would strengthen the power of Richmond mayors, but it would weaken the power of Richmond.
My biggest concern arose from comments by Coun. Evelina Halsey-Brandt. She specifically opposed designating the Garden City Lands as agricultural in Metro Vancouver’s economic areas map because she did not want to limit the ways the city can use the land if the city obtains it. Actually, almost all the green-space uses that citizens have proposed are possible within the ALR, so I was at first at a loss to understand her perceived problem.
On further thought, I’ve realized that the councillor must want to try again to get to get the lands out of the ALR for construction. That would put the citizens through another long struggle.
My concern is that the apparent intention will artificially cause the land value to skyrocket. Since the Agricultural Land Commission’s decision of February 2009, it has been very clear that the Garden City Lands are firmly in the ALR and therefore have ALR land value. That’s relevant because Richmond is beginning to negotiate to obtain the whole Garden City Lands property. The councillor (along with any others expressing similar views) could cause the price to go beyond the ALR-land land value to a price that citizens would want not want the city to pay.
Even as it is, some citizens say they will oppose any payment beyond the nominal price of one dollar, since the Garden City Lands have always been the people’s lands. I think, though, that most would support paying the ALR value, which would be the “fair market value” of $9.54 million stated in the Garden City lands agreement that is the basis for the current negotiations.
If things keep going down the wrong path, in time we could be back to another version of the dreadful purchase agreement that expired at the end of December 2008. The prospect of high-density urban sprawl on the lands would again rear its ugly head. The odds are high that new Pave Garden City efforts would be eventually be stopped, but the citizens of Richmond and all the supportive people beyond Richmond should not be put through the wringer again. Enough already!
This is a follow-up to the “Surprise council meeting . . .” post. Here’s what happened.
Citizens De Whelan, Jessica Lai, Olga Tkatcheva, and I all made brief presentations to council on the agenda item related to the City’s input on Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy. In different ways, we all advocated that the City of Richmond firmly support Strategy 2.3, “Protect the region’s supply of agricultural land and encourage its use for food production.”
In response to my presentation and others, Coun. Bill McNulty moved that the City request Metro Vancouver to include the Garden City Lands and the adjacent Department of National Defence Lands in the proposed new version of the Green Zone. In the new version, they would be in an agricultural zone. Mayor Brodie and the couple of Pave Garden City councillors managed to derail the motion so that it was replaced with one that lets Metro Vancouver know that certain matters, including that one, will require further study. Although that is not ideal, it is far better than what would have happened if those presenters and attentive council members had not acted. It is likely that the Garden City Lands would have gone into the new Regional Growth Strategy as “urban” — a bad result.
What happened today is typical of what needs to happen, with small steps forward where the alternative would have been a step backward. Bigger steps forward are nice too, but “slow and steady” is fine too.
Good work, presenters, a number of councillors, and the citizens who came to the meeting to lend their support.
For those who would like a clearer sense of the issue, I’m providing my brief presentation as a separate post.
This post is essentially my five-minute presentation at the surprise council meeting of May 11, 2009, as promised in the “Results of surprise . . .” post.
Mayor and Councillors,
I suggest that the lands in the proposed agricultural zone in the Regional Growth Strategy should include all lands that are either zoned agricultural by Richmond or part of the Agricultural Land Reserve unless council makes specific decisions to exclude some of them before passing on its input to Metro Vancouver.
I will use the Garden City Lands as an example because it is the most glaring omission from the agricultural areas in Map 4.
The Garden City Lands are zoned AG1, Agricultural, by the City of Richmond, so I suggest that it is natural for Richmond to ensure that the property is included as agricultural in the Regional Growth Strategy. If there’s a good reason why the property should not be included, then I believe it should be up to our elected council to rezone the property as something other than AG1 or 2, Agricultural. I am asking that this be a council decision, not something that slips past, buried in an 85-page staff report.
And there are further reasons why the Garden City Lands should be designated as agricultural in the Regional Growth Strategy. They are in the ALR, and they are fertile farmland. The property has always remained in the Agricultural Land Reserve despite intense challenges to that status from powerful speculators, including the fattest application the Agricultural Land Commission has ever seen. In response, the commission has repeatedly affirmed that the Garden City Lands are prime farmland and belong in the reserve. It has repeatedly stated that the lands are capable of agriculture and suitable for agriculture. There is probably no parcel of land in Metro Vancouver that has been more emphatically shown to belong in the current Green Zone and the proposed agricultural zone.
Strategy 2.3 in the Regional Growth Strategy is to “protect the region’s supply of agricultural land and encourage its use for food production,” and I encourage council to firmly support it and not go along with toothless lip service. On a more specific level, I’m suggesting that council specify that the Garden City Lands must be added to the region’s agricultural zone.
One final point. The Garden City Lands were evidently left out of the existing Green Zone. No one seems to remember how that happened. In any case, the Agricultural Land Commission’s decisions have surely shown that the property does belong in the Green Zone. I suggest that council consider asking Metro Vancouver to include the Garden City Lands in the Green Zone immediately. That will ensure that the property gets included in the proposed regional agricultural zone if it goes ahead, and it will also ensure that Metro Vancouver will treat the Garden City Lands properly even if the Regional Growth Strategy gets stalled.
A surprise meeting of the General Purposes Committee of Richmond Council has just been called for 4 p.m. on Monday, May 11, in the Anderson Room at Richmond City Hall, 6911 No. 3 Road (2nd floor).
The mayor and city staff will try to get their ideas about Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) past council when citizens, the media, and perhaps even councillors are looking the other way because of Tuesday’s provincial election and electoral-system vote.
The suspect ideas in the staff report are related to the Green Zone, which the Regional Growth Strategy is dividing into “conservation/recreation” and “agricultural” zones. The staff recommendations on PDF pages 4 and 7 of the agenda, which includes the February 2009 draft of the strategy, would evade the strategy’s proposal that would strengthen the protection of agricultural lands
A particular concern is that the Garden City Lands are not shown as “Agricultural” zone in the Economic Areas map (Map 4, PDF page 41). As you can see from a Google map of the Garden City Lands, they are west of the Green Zone boundary that appears in Map 4. That boundary is at No. 4 Road, but the lands go west from No. 4 to Garden City. (That is because the peat bog extends west toward Garden City in that area. When forming the peat bog, nature did not choose to work in straight lines and rectangles.)
I believe that Richmond should be supporting the strategy, not weakening it, and that should certainly involve putting the Garden City Lands in the Green Zone now and in the “agricultural” zone later.
The Garden City Lands have always been in the Agricultural Land Reserve, right from when the ALR was founded over thirty-five years ago. There have been intense challenges to that status from very powerful speculators, including a massive application that was the largest the Agricultural Land Commission has ever dealt with. In response, the commission has repeatedly affirmed that the Garden City Lands are prime farmland and belong in the reserve. It has repeatedly stated that the lands are capable of agriculture and suitable for agriculture. There is probably no parcel of land in Metro Vancouver that has been more emphatically shown to belong in the current Green Zone and the proposed agricultural zone.
I encourage people to come to the meeting at 4 p.m. on Monday, May 11, and speak on the “Save Garden City” side of the issue (for up to five minutes) and/or provide moral support to the citizens and council members who do.
The Coalition is likely to present the Garden City Lands petition again soon. We have already presented it, with good effect, to the Agricultural Land Commission and the Government of Canada. However, it may soon be useful to send it to Canada Lands Company, which is the government’s land disposal arm, and to other decision-makers in the federal government.
So far we have a total of about 1,950 signatories (including over 1,100 online). Let’s at least bring the total up over 2,000 for a start.
The petition says this:
We, the undersigned, request that the Garden City Lands, Richmond, B.C., remain green in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) for agricultural and ecological uses and park uses that may be permitted within the ALR.
We also request that the Government of Canada 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.
If you haven’t already signed the petition online or on paper, please visit it online and “sign.” Signing just involves your name and city (not your street address), along with your email address for verification.
Your email address will never appear publicly, but choose the “available to petition author” option if you are a supporter who wants to receive the Garden City News, an email newsletter that is typically sent out twice a month.
As an earlier post describes, some Richmond candidates in British Columbia’s May 12, 2009, election have already acted to help save the Garden City Lands. There are now various ways our MLAs can help ensure a green future for the lands for community benefit. That is true even though the province is not a party* to the basic Garden City Lands agreement, the memorandum of understanding known as “the MOU.” The BC government and MLAs can:
1. Keep the Agricultural Land Commission strong and faithful to its purpose.
2. Urge the Musqueam Indian Band to partner in keeping the Garden City Lands green for the benefit of the community where the lands are located, moving forward together with the Richmond community in the spirit of the 2008 Musqueam Reconciliation Agreement.
3. Urge Canada Lands Company to ensure that any transfer of the Garden City Lands (whether to the City of Richmond, a federal department, or any other party) occurs for local community benefit for permitted uses under the province’s Agricultural Land Commission Act.
4. Provide provincial collaboration in Garden City Lands uses that naturally involve the province, e.g., Kwantlen Polytechnic University urban agriculture education, agriculture, and affordable housing (as discussed in “15. Homelessness + GCL”).
5. Urge the federal government to support transfer of the lands to a suitable party, such as the City of Richmond or a land conservancy, for ALR-permitted purposes at a suitable price, most likely the fair market value stated in the MOU, although some citizens are adament that it should be one dollar. (For legal assurance that the intent is honoured, a covenant on the title would make sense.)
Other ideas? Please suggest them via a comment or email.
___________
* Note: The parties to the MOU are the federal and Richmond governments, Canada Lands Company, and the Musqueam Indian Band. The MOU is currently at the stage where there should be renegotiation of certain conditions that can no longer be met, primarily because the property has not been—and very clearly should never be—removed from the BC Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR).
The Garden City Lands Coalition as a group is not involved in the referendum on BC-STV (single-transferable vote), the new voting system recommended almost unanimously by the Citizens Assembly, 160 citizens from every part of British Columbia. However, I noticed at a public meeting on the issue at the Richmond Culture Centre that all the people there who have taken significant roles in saving the Garden City Lands were on the Yes side, even though they had connections to all three parties running Richmond candidates in the May 12 election.
Maybe the common factor, crossing both party lines and issues, was a shared commitment to the community voice being heard and represented. In any case, here’s my personal view, as expressed in a brief note that I’ve sent to a newspaper:
The campaign against BC-STV is drilling a scare word, “complicated,” into our minds.
But the reality is simple. Under BC-STV there are five chances out of six that your vote will help elect someone you want.
True, BC-STV requires more counting, which the computers will easily handle. Since it enables most votes to matter, not be wasted, that is good.
If you want a longer explanation, I recommend the YouTube video of Christy Clark’s endorsement of BC-STV on her CKNW talk show.
Mark Laroche, president of Canada Lands Company, has written to Richmond citizen Carol Southgate. Mr. Laroche essentially agrees with Carol’s statements to him about the company’s mandate, which emphasizes community benefit. However, his letter goes on to suggest that the Garden City Lands’ protection by the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) prevents the company from having a “free hand” to implement “sustainable real estate solutions.”
One evident aspect of the Laroche letter is a state of denial about the nature of the Garden City Lands property. For a start, the property is prime farmland within BC’s Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). The land has always been in the ALR, and the Agricultural Land Commission has twice confirmed that it should remain in the ALR.
Furthermore, the Laroche letter espouses Smart Growth, both by name and with the “sustainable real estate solutions” description. However, Smart Growth BC has firmly explained that removing the property from the ALR would not be Smart Growth.
Canada Lands professes principles that should put it on the “Save Garden City” side of the Garden City Lands issue. However, in practice it is still taking a “Pave Garden City” approach. I hope that citizens can somehow find a way to get the company to genuinely apply its principles to the reality that actually exists.
There is a scary side to the letter because it reveals that Canada Lands Company is still aiming to get the Garden City Lands out of the ALR. The Pave-Garden-City consortium is flying below the radar, but it still has a great deal of power, deep pockets, and the incentive of immense lucre. If the community has become complacent, that may be a fatal mistake.
Mark Laroche, president of Canada Lands Company, was responding to a response to Carol Southgate’s request to him, which consisted of a letter directly to him and a letter to the editor published in local newspapers and on this blog. With Carol’s permission, here is the Laroche letter, which had a cc to the Garden City Lands Coalition. The Laroche letter is dated April 9, 2009, and arrived on April 21.
The Smart Growth BC opinion was expressed in a letter from the executive director that she sent to Richmond council after she learned that the proposed Garden City Lands development was being falsely identified as Smart Growth.
What can be done? First of all, I’m not yet ready to give up on Canada Lands Company having a better side that it has shown so far.
Carol Southgate had a good idea in the way she approached the company. There have been other pieces about the company in the newspapers and on this blog, and I’ve received a suggestion that they consider using Carol’s way of sharing them with the company.
If that works, there will be a win-win result for Canada Lands Company and the community. If it does not work, then most likely the time will have come for another of our Garden City Lands campaigns.
Please visit our very special new page, “Earth awareness,” by guest blogger Howard Jampolsky. Well known in Richmond, Howard is a businessman, officer of the Canadian Jewish Congress (Pacific Region), and politically active citizen. In this well-informed column, Howard relates the Garden City Lands issue to Earth awareness and his own identity and encourages the reader to do likewise.
Click “16. Earth awareness” in the left menu to read Howard Jampolsky’s column in this window. Or, to read it in a new window, click this Earth awareness link.
Note: This is an updated version of an earlier post.
This blog does not endorse any provincial election candidates, but it does aim to identify candidates in the three Richmond constituencies who are likely to take “Save Garden City” action as MLAs if elected on May 12.
· Michael Wolfe, Green Party Candidate in Richmond Centre, is as much a part of the Garden City Lands as the red-winged blackbirds and bog blueberries. He has campaigned steadfastly for years, moderates a large Google Group on the issue, and is a member of the Garden City Lands Coalition leadership group, with a coordinator role that includes guiding eco-tours of the lands.
· Hon. Linda Reid, MLA for Richmond East and Minister of State for Childcare, came out in support of keeping the Garden City Lands green in a paid-ad column in the March 11, 2008, Richmond News. Her public stand was helpful for the Save Garden City campaign. The Coalition will be looking to her for further help in getting the attention and effective action of the provincial government.
· The Green Party candidate in Richmond East is Stephen Rees. Especially through his insightful blog, Stephen Rees has been a long-time advocate of saving the Garden City Lands. His expertise includes extensive deep knowledge of transportation and land uses in the Fraser delta.
· Shawkat Hassan, the NDP candidate in Richmond East, has been active in the Garden City Lands Coalition. Among other things, his participation has included a pub night at Legends and an eco-tour of the Garden City Lands.
• In addition, it was clear from the all-candidates meeting on May 4 that Jeff Hill, Green Party candidate in Richmond Steveston, and Kam Brar, NDP candidate in Richmond Centre, are supportive of protecting the Garden City Lands.
Note: If there are other declared candidates who should be mentioned, you can add comments to this post or send an email on the topic.
We continue to monitor Upton Farm, the Prince Edward Island issue that has much in common with the Garden City Lands issue in British Columbia.
The Upton Farm Consultation Process has moved Charlottetown’s version of the Garden City Lands further ahead than ours, although their process moves slowly too.
Updates on the Upton Farm Preservation Network blog show that Canada Lands Company (CLC), which the federal government entrusted with the Upton Farm title, clearly stopped trying to make a financial killing after it became clear that the community, supported by all three levels of government, was opposed to the development that would have ruined the green space.
In the latest Upton Farm Consultation Process minutes provided, the Upton Farm Preservation Network’s Heidi Hyndman asked if CLC would consider leaving the land undeveloped if it was made whole (i.e., if CLC got its investment dollars back). Heidi received a clear answer from Bob Howard, Canada Lands’ vice president for the Atlantic Region, reiterating what CLC had said since the beginning of the consultation process:
Bob indicated that the CLC’s objectives remain the same as at the outset – to dispose of the land and to recover its costs. So yes, CLC would consider such a proposition.
The financial objective that CLC has clearly accepted in the East is what we should expect it to accept here in the West from appropriate parties committed to keeping our lands “undeveloped.”
The first appropriate party is the City of Richmond, since the basic Garden City Lands agreement promises the city the right of first offer if Canada Lands Company and the Musqueam Indian Band do not go ahead with the development that was contempated in the agreement. (And they won’t, since the development cannot occur on ALR land.)
Note: In the context, “undeveloped” means free of the residential development that CLC had attempted to use the farm for.
This post builds on an earlier one, which I encourage you to review, as it is pivotal. It is “New lessons from Upton Farm.”
Update: Thanks to eco-guide Michael Wolfe and the twenty eco-enthusiasts who participated with him, the Earth Day tour was another big success. In true Earth Day style, the group even picked up several bags of litter on its travels.
From Wednesday, April 22, to Saturday, April 25, 2009, the Garden City Lands Coalition is celebrating Earth Day.
Join the Wednesday, April 22, eco-tour of the lands at 6 p.m. Or come to the Garden City Lands Coalition booth and other Earth-friendly booths and activities on Saturday, April 25, at the Terra Nova Rural Park, 2431/2631 Westminster Highway, Richmond, BC, between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m.
Or do some relevant reading. The Garden City Lands are often associated with the values of local food, not just to reduce the greenhouse gas effects of transportation but also to garner a range of other benefits, including great kinds of community building. A recent Worldwatch article, “Is Local Food Better?”, analyzes such values in an insightful way.
By the way, the Jewish Tribune has an Earth Day issue of the Western Edition coming out on April 23, and we’ve heard it will include a column on the Garden City Lands from a Jewish perspective.
This post is a follow-up to the excellent “Optimal community value—CLC” post by guest blogger Carol Southgate. Besides publishing that message on this blog and in both Richmond newspapers, Carol sent it to Mark Laroche, the president of Canada Lands Company, with a cover letter dated March 29, 2009. At the same time, Carol forwarded the cover letter to the Garden City Lands Coalition with permission to use it at the appropriate time. We felt that we should wait before posting it in order to allow a little to allow time for a Laroche reply. No reply has been received yet, but we’ve waited long enough. Here is the cover letter, which we hope you will find as illuminating as what Carol wrote before.
Please take a new look at the way Canada Lands Company implements its mandate in its stewardship of the Garden City Lands, Richmond, BC. I explained the need to the people of Richmond in the enclosed letter that the Richmond papers published online and in print (Richmond News, March 18, and Richmond Review, March 19).
That letter focuses on the future, but for your background I will also comment on past experience. As a grower and a member of the Richmond Agricultural Advisory Committee (RAAC), I did not find that Canada Lands’ project management of the application to exclude the Garden City Lands from the BC Agricultural Land Reserve was beneficial to the community. In brief, these are just two of many possible examples:
· An Agricultural Endowment Fund idea featured in the application, though never endorsed by the RAAC, would have divisively set “bona fide farmers” (large conventional growers with little understanding of urban agriculture) against smaller growers, leading to the loss of a lot more farmland and harming local food security.
· No sensitivity has been shown to the property being largely peatland, which requires much different management strategies than any other type of land.
Your corporate plan says, “Through fulfilling its mandate, CLCL takes pride in strengthening the many communities in which it operates across Canada . . . and attempts to enhance the quality of life in local communities.” Your company still has a great opportunity to make that sentiment a reality in Richmond, and I wish you success. Please think about what I am suggesting and let me know what you come up with. I very much look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
[Signed]
Carol Southgate
