Richmond’s Garden City Lands

This post is by Richmond School Board Trustee Carol Day, who has also served as events coordinator for the Garden City Lands Coalition. It expands on the recent “Sabre rattling” post in this blog. Also, the Richmond Review has a concise letter by Shane McMillan on the same topic.

Musqueam Indian Band lawyer Jim Reynolds is quoted at length in a recent Richmond Review article, “City obligated to back Garden City development.” The Garden City Lands are not going to come out of the ALR, and it is time for Reynolds to get over it. Now is the time for the City to renegotiate with the Musqueam and the Canada Lands Company.

Mr. Jim Reynolds states that “Musqueam intends to keeps its word, and expects no less of Richmond and each of the individual councillors. They approved the MOU, and they’re expected to keep their word.” The City has kept its word, recommending and applying for ALR exclusion and twice extending the ALR exclusion deadline in the purchase agreement. The Councilors have a duty to represent the people of Richmond, and the people of Richmond have spoken loud and clear. They want the Garden City lands to remain in the ALR.

Maybe it is time for Mr. Reynolds to read the MOU, and l direct him to section 1(19). It states that “The city will have a right of first offer in the event that Musqueam and the CLC decide not to implement its plans of land development, but instead to sell any of the Joint Venture lands prior to servicing, or Musqueam decides not to implement its plans of land development, but instead to sell any of the Musqueam lands prior to servicing.”

The lack of ALR exclusion ultimately makes the Garden City Lands unavailable for development, so, as the MOU states clearly, Richmond has the right of first offer.

Regarding litigation, the MOU states in section 2(1) “If the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute themselves, they may seek the assistance of Bob Plecas to mediate, in which case the costs of the mediation will be shared equally by the parties participating in the mediation.” So there is an agreement in place to move forward with the MOU and find a reasonable compromise with all parties involved. Mr. Jim Reynolds states “It would be unfortunate if three or four years later now we may be heading back into litigation.” He also says “but l’ll leave them and their lawyers to work that one through.” Why are the Musqueam putting their faith in a lawyer when in fact a mediator would be a better alternative at this point?

At least one condition in the MOU has failed because the Garden City Lands have not been removed from the ALR, so the time has come for the Musqueam, Canada Lands company and the City of Richmond to work out a new arrangement. The MOU states in section 1(5) that “CLC will pay the federal Crown $5 million dollars of the $9.54 million dollars and will provide a promissory note in the amount of $ 4.54 million dollars.” A price has been set for the lands, and that is a great place for the parties to start at. The Musqueam will end up with a large cash settlement that, in these economically troubled times, will be very fair. The Canada lands Company will have an opportuniy to dispose of the lands for the benefit of the citizens of Richmond and the Musqueam.

If in the end the Musqueam and Canada Lands Company do not want to enter into mediation or negotiation, then the MOU further states in section 1(22) that “the parties will cooperate in making whatever arrangements are necessary to restore each party to the position that it was in prior to entering into this MOU.” I feel this is a lost opportunity for the Musqueam, but if that is what they want then we the people of Richmond will move forward to acquire all the Garden City lands from the federal government.

We are able to move forward because both MP John Cummins and MP Alice Wong have stated publicly that they will work with the federal government to facilitate for Richmond to acquire the Garden City Lands. But even if this process takes 20 years, that is better than 13,000 more people living on this priceless bog and destroying it forever. Patience is the key in turbulent times, and the people of Richmond would rather wait for the right outcome than a bad one.

Alice Wong is not Superman. Nor is John Cummins. They’re just members of parliament who try to serve their constituents, not save our Metropolis (Richmond) amidst sniper fire from city hall.

But, judging from last Thursday’s Review, our mayor wants our MPs to help get a better Garden City lands agreement for Richmond despite his recent letter to the federal government.

Federal ministers were told that “This landmark agreement and the benefits that will flow to the Musqueam people, the citizens of Richmond and the Canadian taxpayers has been under constant threat by rumours and statements about the federal government’s position with regard to the future of these lands.”

MPs Wong and Cummins had sent Richmond council a solidarity letter that somehow became a threat. Supposedly the MPs want to “undo the agreement.” In reality, their intent to facilitate plans to secure the lands is best achieved within the basic agreement.

The ministers’ response confirmed that nothing inappropriate had happened.

Despite its irrelevance, the mayor’s letter sent the senior government a warning to keep its help to itself. Many citizens invested their votes in two MPs who had heeded the call to save the lands, but their commitment, our asset, has been devalued.

The winning approach is shown by Charlottetown, where non-partisan teamwork among the citizens, the local MP, and the three levels of government is saving Upton Farm, their Garden City lands.

Now more than ever, the need to work together should be clear here too. Canada Lands Company, which was supposed to get the lands out of the Agricultural Land Reserve, has failed. It is time to give thanks and move on.

Our city council must plan a renegotiating strategy, select the best negotiators, and get top-notch lawyers in place. Like cooperation with our MPs, that process can be easily undermined.

At the Garden City lands public hearings in March, excellent city-hired lawyer Keith Clarke urged council to base decisions on “the best interests of the Richmond people.”  Despite setbacks, council has got better at that.

I believe, perhaps naively, that every member of city council wants what’s best for the community. For some, that would mean shifting commitment from a lost goal to the people’s goal.

Working with and for the citizens, our council and MPs can still save the lands and bolster our city’s values. We may yet have superheroes.

________________

Notes

This post is related to the final paragraph in the “Council votes . . .” article in the Dec. 11, 2008, Richmond Review.

The mayor’s letter is on page 21 of the Dec. 8, 2008, staff report to Richmond Council’s general purposes committee. The letter from MPs John Cummins and Alice Wong is right before it. The response from ministers Vic Toews and Rob Merryfield is right after it.

This afternoon, two knowledgeable people separately asked me what I make of the recent sabre rattling by Jim Reynolds, the capable and tenacious lawyer for the Musqueam Indian Band.  It occurred on the front page of Wednesday’s Richmond News (Dec. 10, 2008) and on page 3 of Saturday’s Richmond Review (Dec. 13).

The context is that the next step in the Garden City Lands’ agreements is renegotiating* between the Canada Lands Company CLC, the Band, and the City of Richmond.

My view is that Mr. Reynolds is mainly taking a strong bargaining position. His initial position is that the City of Richmond should help his clients to get everything and that the City should go along with getting nothing for its citizens. That may seem preposterous, but it’s a smart approach to try in view of how the Band and CLC have consistently got their way. In that light, it’s easy to envision a City negotiator responding with something like this: “Yes, sir! And what else can we do for you?”

Harold Steves has also expressed an initial bargaining position, but his is not far-fetched. He has told the media that the City should get half the lands for $4.77 million, a highly defensible position. Beyond that, he wants to offer an additional $4.77 million for the rest and recognizes that the City might perhaps be forced to compromise on that.

__________________

* This is a long footnote about the renegotiating step. CLC, the Band, and the City now all recognize that it is time to renegotiate under the MOU. Specifically, it is under Section 1(22), which states:

Musqueam, CLC and the City will meet to discuss the renegotiation of any understandings, arrangements or agreements between them with respect to the Garden City Property in order to give effect to the spirit of this MOU, to the extent possible, in the changed circumstances.

The phrases “to the extent possible” and “in the changed circumstances” are key. I should address the renegotiation-arbitration-restoration process more fully at some point in a separate post.

A Richmond Review article titled “Steves finally has his day” expresses some sensible ideas about renegotiating under the Garden City Lands memorandum of understanding (MOU) to obtain all 136 acres of the Lands for agricultural and ecological uses for the benefit of the Richmond community.

For a start, the article reflects Coun. Harold Steves views in stating that “Richmond would buy its share of the land for $4.77 million.” That is in keeping with the MOU. In describing what the MOU seeks to address, the document lists “the interest of the federal Crown that it obtain fair market value for the Garden City Property” and then expresses the total value of the property as $13.54 million, with the value of the “Public Lands” half (the City lands)naturally set at $4.77 million. That works out to around $70,000 an acre.

In keeping with provisions in the MOU, the City and Canada Lands Company CLC, along with its Musqueam Indian Band venture partner, are currently beginning renegotiations “to give effect to the spirit of the MOU, to the extent possible, in the changed circumstances.” If CLC-Musqueam reciprocates the good faith and goodwill that the City has shown, there should be no question that the City’s purchase price for half the Lands should be the stipulated $4.77 million.

With regard to the other half of the property, both CLC and the Band have indicated that they have no interest in farming the land. They could choose to leave it as it is, and that sounds fine as long as the land is properly looked after. Actually there is City-owned green space all around the perimeter, and the City could construct a trail there to enable everyone to enjoy those lands. That would be a good deal for Richmond, since CLC-Musqueam would still have to pay taxes to the City.

If CLC and the Band decide to sell any of that other half of the property, then the MOU specifically promises the City the right of first offer. The citizens would expect the City to negotiate a fair price with CLC and its venture partner, which should be at least the $4.77 “fair market value” under the MOU. In the Richmond Review article, Coun. Steves indicates, “Probably that’s the value of the other property. At least that’s where we start.”

Some people argue that the price should be $6.85 million, which is the current assessed value for property tax purposes. Others respond to that with the observation that property values are declining and are likely to continue to decline and then bottom out for several years.

There have also been suggestions about expropriating the property, which seems heavy handed as long as CLC and its joint venture partner negotiate within the MOU in the spirit of the agreements to give effect to the MOU to the extent possible in the changed circumstances. The spirit of the MOU is to provide park space for the city and to split profits (from ALR exclusion and rezoning, if possible) between CLC and the Musqueam, and both of those aims will be achieved in the changed circumstances as long as there is sufficient goodwill. Whatever the “extent possible” may be, those two partners should not lose any money as a result of the deal. In these economic times, managing to preserve their capital would be a kind of win.

It may be that the Musqueam should receive further compensation, but I suggest that the federal government should take care of that. That is one reason why it would be good for the City, CLC, and Musqueam to bring the federal government (through our MPs) to the table at the renegotiation stage, even though that party to the MOU is not required to be brought in until the final stage of the renegotiation-arbitration-restoration process.

In any case, what we do not need is councillors publicly suggesting an inflated price, as happened with a couple of councillors at the Dec. 8 meeting that brought an end to the plans for high-density development of the Lands. That pair of councillors suggested offering the price of Alexandra-area land across Alderbridge Way to the north. Because of rezoning, the per-acre value of that land would be something like $3 million an acre, and it makes absolutely no sense to offer that amount for ALR land.

Those comments may have caused unreasonable expectations that would be very much to the detriment of the Richmond taxpayers and could ultimately prevent Richmond from obtaining the Lands. Nevertheless, Coun. Steves and other “Save Garden City” councillors have overcome obstacles before. No doubt we are all optimistic that they will overcome that totally unnecessary one, along with the various other obstacles to ultimate success.

It’s great, of course, that six of the nine Richmond council members voted on Monday to let the Garden City lands purchase agreement expire at the end of 2008. And it’s great that the application to exclude the lands from the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) will fail too.

But the surprise that gave me hope at that meeting was Coun. Bill McNulty’s assertive action to put the city back in the hands of the council the Richmond citizens elected.

The proposals before council involved city deals with Canada Lands Company and the Musqueam Indian Band on one front and seemingly the Agricultural Land Commission on another. Incredibly, councillors had been kept in the dark that negotiations were even underway. Presumably they were conducted by city staff under a Canada Lands fellow who was the application project manager.

The City will soon begin renegotiating to obtain the lands under the basic memorandum of understanding. Coun. McNulty insisted that the elected council will determine the city’s negotiating strategy and negotiators. When the mayor tried to refer the issue to staff, Coun. McNulty stuck to his guns.

Other councillors expressed the need for change, but Coun. McNulty stood out for his frank clarity and firm resolve.

So far, Coun. Bill McNulty, you have my 2011 vote.

Does it matter for the future of the Garden City Lands if the Conservative government is replaced by a Liberal-led coalition?

My view: The political turmoil is not preferable, but the end result can be the same either way.

The waters have been partly charted for us by the Upton Farm issue, Prince Edward Island’s Garden City Lands. In Charlottetown, where Upton Farm is located, they too had to deal with Canada Lands Company CLC trying to turn farmland into a construction site. The people there took their case to politicians of all stripes at all three levels, and the politicians acted. Negotiations began that will save the farm. When the Charlottetown city council reversed itself, the PEI premier and the federal MP and cabinet ministers added their support. Canada Lands then remembered its role, which should be one of service, not lordship. (For more details about the Upton Farm issue, see “Priming Canada Lands’ green values for Richmond.”)

The relevant point right now is that Charlottetown’s member of parliament, along with all the other PEI MPs at the time, was a Liberal. The federal government that was very responsive to him was Conservative. In Richmond, we have two MPs who strongly support saving the Lands. They happen to be Conservatives, and we should expect that a Liberal-led government (if it comes about) would respond as effectively on our similar issue as the Conservative government did when the party roles were reversed in PEI.

In addition, we can reasonably expect our other local federal candidates (the ones who were not elected in October) to support the two elected ones on this issue. During the election campaign, there was broad support from the candidates for saving the Lands. Even Liberal incumbent Raymond Chan, who was in a difficult position because of his role in bringing in the initial memorandum of understanding (MOU), said that he would act to save the Lands if that is what the community wanted. All of those politicians could stand shoulder to shoulder with Mr. Cummins and Ms. Wong in getting help from Ottawa and in demanding respect and appropriate behaviour from Canada Lands. That would be powerful.

There could even be a role for Mr. Chan. While the MOU, the document he had a part in, wasn’t nearly as good for Richmond as he presumably hoped it would be, the more damaging document was the second one, the City’s purchase agreement, which is very much stacked against the City. Mr. Chan also had no way to foresee that City council would offload a lot of its responsibility to the Agricultural Land Commission and to City staff that council placed under the project leadership of a Canada Lands person (who naturally gave priority to his company’s interests and not so much the City’s). If Mr. Chan is still interested, perhaps he will help get value from what was done right in the MOU, which was the provisions for renegotiation, arbitration, and restoration to original positions.

What’s different because of the turmoil in Ottawa is that it’s become more obvious that Richmond council members should stop waiting for a miracle from Ottawa to rescue them from the pit that some of them have dug themselves into. With the City’s Garden City Lands purchase agreement about to expire, it is clearly time to renegotiate, and the obvious way to do that is within the processes laid out in the MOU. If need be, that would lead to arbitration by Bob Plecas, as stated in the MOU. Canada Lands and the Musqueam may prefer to ignore that process because they can wield more power if they don’t have to follow rules or a process, and the City has probably ignored it because Canada Lands has had so much influence over it. Unless council members who want to save the Lands insist on a change, there will be no change, and one of our best assets will be wasted.

Clearly, we need most or all council members working with Coun. Harold Steves in an informed way on this issue and helping him. We need the council members not only to step up like that but also to stand up to Canada Lands and the way it treats the City. Regardless of what Canada Lands may think, Richmond is not a flea-bitten stray dog begging for scraps from an uncaring quasi-master’s hand.

Or at least it shouldn’t be. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what our federal representatives do or what the citizens do unless Richmond council starts doing its part very well.