Archive for April, 2009

Awareness, identity, and the Lands

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.

Leave a Comment

MLA candidates – May 5 update

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.

Leave a Comment

A quick Upton visit

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 Howald, Canada Lands’ Senior Vice President, Real Estate, 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.”

Leave a Comment

Happy Earth Day to you! Happy Earth Day to . . .

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.

Leave a Comment

To Mark Laroche – from Carol Southgate


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.

 

Mark B. Laroche, President and CEO
Canada Lands Company
Dear Mr. Laroche:

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

Leave a Comment

Jessica Lai’s simplicity solution

Jessica Lai’s “Guest shot” column, published online and in the April 9 Richmond Review newspaper, provides insight into the difficulty of understanding the Garden City Lands issue.

Her simple advice combines idealism with common sense. If I’ve grasped the gist, it comes down to this:

If Canada Lands Company, the party that has had the greatest control for the past four years, acts on its stated principles, it will be doing what is best for the community. It will then be able to win public support while telling the truth in a straightforward way. Individual citizens and the whole community will be empowered.

There is a human-resources rule of thumb that past performance is the best predictor of future performance, and in that context it remains a huge challenge to somehow get Canada Lands Company to put its high-sounding principles into practice, with lasting good results for the Garden City Lands. That said, Jessica Lai has brought the goal a little closer.

Leave a Comment

A simple recap?

People often mention that the Garden City Lands issue is complicated. It is time to try again to simplify it. How is the following attempt at a current summary? All constructive advice is welcome, either in a comment below this blog post or via email to the Coalition. (Apparently we have a shy readership, since they mainly go the email route, but informative blog comments are nice to get too.)

The Garden City Lands, Richmond, BC, are a 55-hectare (136-acre) green space on the east side of the City Centre area. About 2 km south of the Oak Street Bridge, the lands stretch from Alderbridge Way to Westminster Highway and from Garden City Road to No. 4 Road.

Although it looks placid, the green space is the centre of a values clash: development for vast immediate profit versus conservation with environmental and food-security aims for long-term community value.

In 2005, the federal government entrusted the property to the federal land disposer, Canada Lands Company, for uses described in a memorandum of agreement (MOU).

Under that agreement, the company and the Musqueam Indian Band planned to split the profits from rezoning of at least half the property for high-density construction. The City of Richmond hoped to get the rest, which would have been scattered throughout the lands.

The property has been in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) ever since the ALR was established over thirty-five years ago to protect BC’s scarce farmland, which was being lost to uses that increased short-term worth at the expense of long-term food security.

The ALR has been continuously both widely supported and widely threatened. The desirability of food security has been obvious enough, but the prospect of windfall profits from changing farmland into residential and commercial land was a powerful motivator to chip away at the reserve.

In 2006, the Agricultural Land Commission rejected Canada Lands Company’s first application to remove the property from the ALR. The commission said that it is fertile farmland and the applicant had not even shown community needs for the land.

The company, band, and city then began a second application to remove the property from the ALR, this time a massive 16-month undertaking with the city as the nominal applicant, as it would have greater credibility with the commission. The company (Canada Lands) retained full control as project manager for the application.

In 2007, citizens reported that the project’s phone “survey” about the reapplication with 508 residents made false statements, manipulating opinion under the guise of gathering it. That was evidently an eye-opener that prompted rapid growth in public awareness about the issue.

Community groups brought forward alternative plans such as the Richmond Sustainable Food Systems Park, a proposed agricultural park that would facilitate urban agriculture education, feed the needy, and give city dwellers space to grow food, enjoy trails around a reservoir lake, and come together in a tranquil setting. Some envisioned it as an idyllic place for tai chi.

In early 2008, citizens and groups who wanted to keep the space green for community values formed the Garden City Lands Coalition Society to facilitate effective action.

In February 2008, citizens reported that the ALR-removal project’s open houses and a related survey were misleading the public about the reapplication. In particular, the stated premise of a survey question that solicited approval was that the proposed development would be “Smart Growth.” In a subsequent letter to Richmond council, the executive director of Smart Growth BC explained why it would definitely not be Smart Growth.

In March 2008, citizens addressed Richmond council in a six-day public hearing, with a strong majority urging council not to put forward the reapplication to the Agricultural Land Commission.

When the reapplication went ahead anyway, almost two thousand citizens signed a petition to the Agricultural Land Commission asking it to keep the Garden City Lands in the ARL.

Citizens also sent almost two hundred detailed submissions to the Agricultural Land Commission, with well over ninety percent opposed, principally arguing that community needs would be better met with the property kept in the ALR, not removed and also making the case that the proposed development would cause a major loss for food security and the environment.

Political support for saving the Garden City Lands has progressively grown, with clear support from the Richmond East MLA from the beginning, landslide victories for supportive MP candidates in both Richmond ridings in October 2008 (with a landslide defeat for one pro-development incumbent MP), and then an election-aided Richmond council shift to a pro-conservation majority at the end of 2008.

In February 2009, the Agricultural Land Commission rejected the reapplication to remove the Garden City Lands from the ALR. The commission confirmed the property’s agricultural potential and did not comment at all on the applicant’s lengthy community-need arguments, implicitly indicating they had no merit.

Since Canada Lands Company had argued that the property is not suitable for agriculture because parts were debilitated by federal uses, the commission essentially said that the owner should rehabilitate them.

The effect is that the high-density development is not permitted, so that aspect of the basic agreement cannot be met.

Under that Garden City Lands agreement (the MOU), Canada Lands Company, the Musqueam Indian Band, and the City of Richmond are expected to renegotiate conditions that cannot be met.

If the renegotiation is not successful, the company and band can terminate the agreement, but only after the four parties, which include the federal government, first cooperate to restore each to the position it was in before entering the agreement. The federal government’s position was that it owned the lands.

Since the company, as a land disposer, will not want to be the Garden City Lands caretaker longer than it has to, the property’s status will change in one way or another. The Garden City Lands Coalition is continuing to work to ensure that the property will remain green with ecological and food-security uses for community benefit. 

Citizens can help by finding ways to positively influence Canada Lands Company, the City of Richmond, the Musqueam Indian Band, the federal government, and the provincial government.

Public awareness is increasing that the company has a mandate to ensure optimal benefit for local communities in all its dealings and “enhance the quality of life in local communities” and that it proclaims values of transparency and corporate social responsibility.

Since there is a wide perception of a gap between the company’s professed values and actual conduct with the Garden City Lands, advocates of keeping the lands green for community benefit are increasingly calling for the company to act with and for the community.

 

Comments (2)

“Coffin hotel”—Sing Tao version

Local Traditional Chinese newspaper Sing Tao picked up the Richmond News’s “Coffin hotel to be built on Garden City lands” April Fool’s joke and published it as news in this article in Sunday’s issue. The following is from a free online automatic translation program, which no doubt does not do justice to the Sing Tao original.

Very popular in Tokyo, Japan, to provide for the tired nap or rest room for the “coffin” hotel, will soon be possible in the city of Richmond appears. The size of these hotel rooms, usually only if the size of a single bed, so the coffin was called a capsule hotel.

Richmond area, according to newspaper reports, have an size of 4000 to rest above the high-density space hotel, in the Garden City Lands reserves of vacant agricultural land.

The report also pointed out that a gaming company called Dakota Gaming Corp., a private consortium, has purchased the site of 136 acres of land and development projects are being developed. The company is currently in the United States and Canada, Newfoundland, operating more than casinos and hotels.

Related projects have been wrongly sent to a former land-use planning officials and had early exposure. According to the reports the amount of land transactions has not been pre-approved by the federal government.

Richmond City Councilman Harold Steves said that he did not know there is the development plan, also ask whether the reporter joked. Dakota Group said the planned top-level hotels will be opened up as a greenhouse plant, so in line with the restrictions on land for agricultural purposes.

Notes: Our previous post on the “Coffin hotel” topic appears just below the “Learning from Detroit” post. The Richmond News has now removed the original article from its website.

Leave a Comment

Learning from Detroit—“Motor City” of all places!

We were copied on a brief message to city council today bringing attention to “World’s largest urban farm planned for Detroit.” It’s food for thought.

In some ways, the Detroit plan seems parallel to the urban agriculture proposals for the Garden City Lands. Evidently “Hantz Farms is working directly with Michigan State University to add its expertise on agricultural and soil sciences and consulting with the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, a national leader in community-based food systems.” That’s similar to the Richmond concept involving Kwantlen Polytechnic University and other organizations that willingly share their expertise and commitment to public service.

It’s thought-provoking that Detroit’s Hantz Farms is a business venture by a successful financial services company. Along with values for local food-security and quality of life, the company is emphasizing the economic value for Detroit and implicitly aiming for business success. While the Garden City Lands proposals have potential for the local economy, especially through agri-tourism, it has typically been viewed as a bonus. Here in British Columbia, where we are so conscious of the ecological, food-security, and social values, perhaps the economic values of urban agriculture on the Garden City Lands are worth a further look.

Leave a Comment

“Coffin hotel”

The April 1 Richmond News devoted the front page to an “affordable housing” article, “Coffin hotel to be built on Garden City lands.” The content about bodies was dicey, but the story was clever, funny, and appropriate for the occasion, April Fools’ Day.

Judging from outraged reactions that reached me, many citizens took the article seriously, though, and it’s no wonder they did. After all, much of what Canada Lands Company tried to do with the Garden City Lands was like a macabre April Fool’s joke that dragged on for years and may not be over. Fittingly, the 2005 basic agreement was signed just before April Fool’s Day.

One factor that made the coffin hotel plan seem less believable was Richmond council’s shift in late 2008 toward a majority with backbone on the Garden City Lands issue. Still, two or three council members would vote for almost anything if Canada Lands Company told them they had to, and that’s no joke.

Leave a Comment