Archive for May, 2009

Scotch invaders

May 21, 2009 at 5:30 pm · Filed under Insights

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.

Scotch heather

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.

Leave a Comment

The Lands and the Green Zone

May 20, 2009 at 10:58 pm · Filed under News Analysis

“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.

Leave a Comment

No. 4 Road and double standards

May 17, 2009 at 11:26 pm · Filed under News Analysis

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.

Leave a Comment

Reflections about the May 11 meeting

May 14, 2009 at 4:01 pm · Filed under News Analysis

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!

Leave a Comment

Results of surprise council meeting

May 11, 2009 at 11:06 pm · Filed under News

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.

Leave a Comment

Presentation to surprise council meeting

May 11, 2009 at 10:00 pm · Filed under Insights

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.

Leave a Comment

Surprise council meeting, Mon., May 11, 4 p.m.

May 9, 2009 at 4:39 pm · Filed under News, News Analysis

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.

Leave a Comment

Petition—sign please—useful again!

May 7, 2009 at 9:11 pm · Filed under News

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.

Leave a Comment

How MLAs can help

May 3, 2009 at 3:31 pm · Filed under Insights

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).

Leave a Comment

STV

May 2, 2009 at 4:27 pm · Filed under Insights

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.

Leave a Comment

Danger signal from Canada Lands Company

May 1, 2009 at 1:39 pm · Filed under News Analysis

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.

 
Background

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.

 
May 5 update

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.

Leave a Comment