Richmond’s Garden City Lands

A letter from Agricultural Land Commissioner Erik Karlsen to a reader of this blog is illuminating. Before you read the following comments, you may wish to download Mr. Karlsen’s letter in Word so that you can refer to it.

In particular, it is clear that there is no reasonably foreseeable circumstance in which the Garden City Lands will stop being subject to ALR protection from development unless the City of Richmond somehow persuades the Agricultural Land Commission to exclude the property.

The sliver of uncertainty stems from the possibility that the Band would somehow find an alternative way to obtain possession of part or all of the Lands, even though CLC is supposed to give the City the right of first refusal during the life of the agreements, which should continue after the commission’s decision. After that, the Band would have to somehow obtain reserve status for its new property. Reserve status would be very hard to get, and it would not be desirable for the Band for any obvious reason. If the purpose would be to make things difficult for Richmond, the federal government would presumably not grant it —and the Band would presumably not even seek it for such a purpose.

In any case, the far-fetched reserve issue is irrelevant to the question of whether the Garden City Lands should or should not be excluded from the ALR. Under the existing agreements, both of which include the Band, the Band has the right to obtain one quarter of the property, rather than to just split the profits (with CLC) from the rezoning of the Development Lands. In theory, the Band could then seek reserve status for that land. Whether the Band were to obtain Garden City Lands property like that or through renegotiation of the existing agreements or somehow in some other way, its chances of getting the land recognized as a reserve would be the same: slim to none.

Essentially, Mr. Karlsen’s letter is further evidence that the Garden City Lands will almost certainly remain green and in the ALR if the Agricultural Land Commission turns down the current application to exclude the Lands.

At the website of John Cummins, MP for Delta-Richmond East, John Cummins has posted a letter that he recently sent to the president of Canada Lands Company Limited about the Garden City Lands. In the letter, Mr. Cummins correctly points out an inconsistency related to the kind of interest that the Musqueam hold in the property. He refers to statements that were made at the public hearings and reported in the Richmond Review.

The Musqueam lawyer, with support from a representative of Canada Lands Company and/or its wholly owned subsidiary, Canada Lands Company CLC, appeared to state that the Musqueam are half owners of the property. In contrast, the “MOU,” an agreement signed by a representative of the Canadian government that led to the transfer of the land from the federal government to CLC, expresses the Musqueam interest quite differently.

Perhaps the president of Canada Lands Company will be able to explain adequately, although it’s hard to imagine how. In the meantime, the appearance is that there are two main possiblities. Either:

• Canada Lands Company and/or CLC are misrepresenting the Musqueam’s interest, or
• CLC has disposed of the property in a way that was inconsistent with the conditions under which the federal government transferred the property to CLC.

As things currently appear, in either case the ramifications are serious.

That’s the main point, and the following is a sort of footnote. Canada Lands Company is a crown corporation, whereas its wholly owned subsidiary CLC is a real-estate flipping company that technically is not a crown corporation. However, the representatives of the companies blur the distinction. For example, on the final day of the hearings, Randy Fasan of CLC introduced himself as being from Canada Lands Company. Both that typical behaviour and common sense dictate that CLC should be acting with the same openness and integrity as a crown corporation.

Many citizens spoke eloquently at the Garden City Lands public hearings. One of them was Shane McMillan. After completing a degree in communications at Simon Fraser University, Shane is studying horticulture at Kwantlen University College. He had previously spoken to Richmond Council in support of Kwantlen’s urban agriculture education concept, which would be a very appropriate use for the Garden City Lands. In this presentation, available here in PDF, Shane spoke simply as an informed citizen.

 At the Garden City Lands public hearings, I made an early presentation that was intended to be a Garden City Lands Coalition rebuttal of the main points in the development consortium’s application. It’s over 7,500 words long, so you may prefer this short version, which is an executive summaryplus one or two additional points:

1.     The advice of Richmond-hired aboriginal law expert Keith Clark supported what Councillor Steves has said for months. Mr. Clark called Musqueam land title claims on the Garden City Lands a “red herring.”

2.     The Garden City Lands development would not even provide enough parkland for its own population. Purchasing parkland to make up for the shortfall would cost the people of Richmond over 150 million dollars.

3.     Having the Garden City Lands as 136 acres of park would eventually save the city from having to buy that amount of City Centre parkland at City Centre land prices, which are at least $5 million an acre. That would save the people of Richmond well over 600 million dollars.

4.     The agricultural park proposed by those who want to keep the lands in the ALR would be highly congruent with all five themes of the excellent new B.C. Agriculture Plan, with a huge benefit for agriculture. (And that’s just one of the major benefits for Richmond’s citizens and tourists.)

5.     The proposed mega-density development on farmland is not Smart Growth.

6.     If there is a decision to not exclude the Garden City lands from the ALR, Richmond should insist on keeping to the renegotiation process that is provided in the agreements and not allow anyone to tear up the agreements.

7.     In renegotiation during the life of the agreement of purchase and sale, Richmond has the right of first refusal to buy the property. Richmond will be able to use that right if CLC, along with the Musqueam, acts with community social responsibility or good faith or if it reciprocates the immense goodwill that the City has shown toward it.

8.     If the City does not believe that both those parties will act in that way when crunch time comes, then it needs to stop and step back, with the help of lawyers at Mr. Clark’s level, and rethink how to proceed with or without a partner it can’t trust.

In case that’s not enough for you, here’s a PDF of the full Jim Wright submission to the Garden City Lands Public Hearing.