Richmond’s Garden City Lands

In all the discussion about the Garden City Lands, some participants have lost their bearings. They have lost their focus on the purpose of the federal government when it entrusted the land title to a crown corporation. That becomes clear when we refer to the press release from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, which was in charge of the Lands. This was the purpose:

to divest the Garden City property in accordance with the MOU while realizing market value for the Crown and ensuring the site will be in good hands to plan its future on behalf of local needs and interests (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, NR-PR-05-016E, March 18, 2005)

It entrusted the property to a crown corporation, Canada Lands Company CLC, which should still ensure that the site will be in good hands to plan its future on behalf of local needs and interests. Whether the Lands are within the ALR or excluded from it, the duty of CLC remains the same. The only difference is that the market value that the government will expect will be lower if the Lands remain within the ALR.

Near the end, the press release provides a summary of the deal under the MOU (the memorandum of understanding, the initial agreement, which still applies):

The MOU provides that the property will be transferred to the CLC for $9.54 million and will be divided 50 percent to Richmond and 50 per cent to a joint venture project involving the Musqueam Indian Band and the CLC as equal partners.

Enough said.

In a meeting that ended on October 1, a special panel of B.C.’s Agricultural Land Commission considered the application to remove the Garden City Lands from the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). When the decision is announced, it will mark the end of a stage in the issue.

     For anyone who looks ahead, though, the next stage has already begun. It’s time for citizens to act together in that next stage. And that’s true whether one has been for or against the application.

Let’s begin with a little historical reflection. In 2005, the federal government and its land disposer, Canada Lands Company, somehow hog-tied the City of Richmond with two Garden City lands agreements. Some politicians then said they had no choice but to help get our prime City Centre farmland out of the ALR for high-density development. However, the Agricultural Land Commission will free us if it rejects the application.

To be ready, we must know our strengths. The “MOU,” the basic agreement, provides for renegotiation to achieve the intents in altered circumstances. And the purchase agreement gives Richmond the right of first refusal to buy the lands. As well, we deserve goodwill from Canada Lands and the fourth party, the Musqueam Indian Band. Richmond’s partners have received nothing but goodwill from the City.

To succeed, we need the City, along with the federal government, to renegotiate firmly for Richmond to obtain the lands at ALR value.

If that doesn’t work out, we must insist that the four parties cooperate to restore each party to the position it was in before entering the agreements. That’s what the MOU says to do, and the parties should show enough goodwill to do it without legal weaseling. The effect would be federal ownership, with the prospect of federal program needs that meet our community needs.

Unfortunately, not all the parties have earned much trust. Canada Lands has a mandate “to produce . . . optimal value for local communities,” but it has fallen short. It must do better for the Richmond community.

For our part, we need to call on our politicians to act with vision and courage. We’ve had leadership from MP John Cummins at the federal level, Hon. Linda Reid at the provincial level, and Coun. Harold Steves at the city level, and others have joined in. Keep it up!

In 2005, the federal government entrusted title to the Garden City Lands to Canada Lands Company and its subidiary. Canada Lands’ policy page states the mandate of both:

The mandate of Canada Lands Company Limited (CLCL), a non-agent federal Crown corporation is to ensure the commercially oriented, orderly disposition of surplus strategic real properties, optimizing financial and community value, and the holding of certain properties. It accomplishes this by purchasing strategic surplus properties from federal departments and agencies at fair market value, then improving, managing or selling them in order to produce the optimal benefit for the company’s shareholder, the Government of Canada, and local communities. (emphasis added)

It is questionable whether Canada Lands has been worthy of the great trust it was given. Considerable evidence suggests that it has not acted for the net benefit of the local community with the Garden City Lands so far. However, the Agricultural Land Commission will soon give Canada Lands a second chance if the panel considering the application to exclude the Lands from the ALR turns it down. The panel will be addressing the application when it meets at the end of September, and it will probably announce the decision soon afterward.

In the new situation that will arise with that decision, Canada Lands will still need to observe its contractual duties to the Musqueam Indian Band, which has a beneficial interest in the Lands in order to get funds from them. This time, however, Canada Lands could also make a far more consistent effort to work for the benefit of the local community.

If Canada Lands does not immediately begin following the “local community” part of its mandate, it will be time to warn the federal government and every community across Canada about the discrepancy between Canada Lands’ mandate and its actions.

Popular visions for the future of the Garden City Lands include community gardens, along with community farms where needy citizens help create food security. That sort of vision seems to be breaking out in North America like wildfires. Now there are community gardens multiplying in Mexico City!

The city has 20 million people. “Our goal,” says the program director,  ”is that Mexico City be self-sufficient when it comes to food.”