Archive for July, 2009

Community to Canada Lands I

In a Richmond News letter of July 3, 2009, and in other ways, I urged citizens to ask Canada Lands Company, the federal land disposer, to keep the Garden City lands green forever. Soon, a stream of people—exactly fifty at last count—had let the Garden City Lands Coalition know (usually via cc) that they’d acted. Excellent!

Save-Garden-City

As well, the coalition put together a Canada Lands Company edition of Save Garden City, our 200-page in-depth analysis of the issue, including the community’s 1,962-name petition. In the July 10–20 period, we sent a July 10 introductory message and a July 15 note to let Canada Lands know it was coming, couriered the highly organized binder (17 tabbed dividers!) to Canada Lands president Mark Laroche, and added a concise follow-up letter and a further letter after hearing from him.

Neither Save Garden City nor the petition has been acknowledged. Nevertheless, Canada Lands now knows how to meet its community-benefit mandate when renegotiating the Garden City Lands agreement. That might include using a land trust and/or covenant to ensure that the 136 acres of Richmond green space will stay in BC’s Agricultural Land Reserve and be used only in ALR-permissible ways.

Justly, the ironclad ALR-use constraint should limit the property price (if there’s a suitable purchaser) to an ALR-land price, which is what Canada Lands paid the federal government for it.

Equally justly, that would allow no ill-gotten profit from the unseemly raid on the land reserve by parties who should have known better. In turn, that would help protect the future of the ALR.

Leave a Comment

Climate action news release

The Garden City Lands is a way for the community to take local action on some of the most important issues of our time. One of them is climate action. We can take action locally to achieve impact provincially, federally, and globally by saving our best-known carbon sink, the Lulu Island Bog. There is both functional and symbolic value to conserving and enhancing the Garden City Lands, an integral part of the main surviving remnant of that bog.

Garden City Lands Coalition director Carol Southgate put a great deal of effort into approach to boosting the province’s climate action efforts through peatland preservation. Since the minister responsible for climate action is also a Richmond MLA, she anticipated a productive partnership. After trying for several weeks, she eventually managed to meet with him, but the results were disappointing. The coalition directors met that evening and issued the following press release in response.


News release, Richmond, July 23, 2009

Hon. John Yap, BC’s Minister of State for Climate Action, is “reluctant to make any public statement” about conserving and enhancing a high-profile carbon sink, Richmond’s Garden City Lands.

Canada Lands Company, the federal land disposer, holds the title to the property and is currently renegotiating its future with the City of Richmond and the Musqueam Indian Band. In February 2009, the previous plans to develop the property were halted by the Agricultural Land Commission’s refusal to exclude it from the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR).

Garden City Lands Coalition director Carol Southgate met with Minister Yap, who is also the MLA for Richmond Steveston, at his constituency office on Thursday, July 23. They agreed on the importance of peatland and discussed the climate-action role of the Garden City lands. Southgate described how the lands, an integral part of the main remnant of the Lulu Island Bog, have largely retained their peatland function as a carbon sink that reduces greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Arzeena Hamir, a Richmond food security activist who is also a director of the coalition, made a written submission. It explained how organic urban agriculture, a proposed use, would enhance the lands’ value as a carbon sink. Hamir cited research showing that local organic food systems could “mitigate nearly thirty percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and save one-sixth of global energy use.”

Garden City Lands Coalition president Jim Wright also participated in the meeting. He referred to Minister Yap’s Climate Change web page, http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/climate/. It states that the two main fronts are adaptation and mitigation, “reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and enhancing carbon sinks . . . that remove carbon dioxide and other GHGs from the atmosphere.”

When asked whether he supported conserving and enhancing the Garden City Lands carbon sink, Minister Yap said that he could not comment until he had heard from the other side.  Wright pointed out that there is no other side, since almost no one would publicly oppose a proven kind of climate action. He said that the minister’s clear support would help because some who appear to favour climate action actually work against it. Mr. Yap said, “I would not be able to go forward on this.”

Leave a Comment

Coalition to Canada Lands II

I sent the following on July 16, 2009, as a Garden City Lands Coalition Society message to the president of Canada Lands Company, cc-ing the usual parties and more, as I had done a few days earlier. (That message is an earlier post in this blog.)

Dear Mark Laroche, President and CEO, Canada Lands Company:

This morning you will receive the couriered Save Garden City, a thorough presentation about the Garden City Lands and legacy benefit to the community. We have expedited its completion and delivery to you because we anticipate that the renegotiations of the Garden City Property Memorandum of Understanding will proceed in earnest soon.

Save Garden City is about two hundred pages long, with the 1,962-name petition accounting for almost half of that. The presentation is somewhat large, but we have designed it with care for convenient use; for example, it is organized with seventeen tabbed dividers. If you prefer an online version, you can find it at www.gardencitylands.ca/clc.html. While Save Garden City includes nothing labeled “executive summary,” the initial letter to you and the “please read first” preface will serve that purpose.

 We gather from some of our members who have written to you recently that they are more encouraged by your replies than other members were in earlier months. That progression is what we anticipated, especially after the Upton Farm win-win outcome in Charlottetown, but we are still pleased about it. Thank you!

 We look forward to hearing more from you.

 Sincerely,
Jim Wright
President, Garden City Lands Coalition Society 

Dear Mark Laroche, President and CEO, Canada Lands Company:

 

This morning you will receive the couriered Save Garden City, a thorough presentation about the Garden City Lands and legacy benefit to the community. We have expedited its completion and delivery to you because we anticipate that the renegotiations of the Garden City Property Memorandum of Understanding will proceed in earnest soon.

 

Save Garden City is about two hundred pages long, with the 1,962-name petition accounting for almost half of that. The presentation is somewhat large, but we have designed it with care for convenient use; for example, it is organized with seventeen tabbed dividers. If you prefer an online version, you can find it at www.gardencitylands.ca/clc.html. While Save Garden City includes nothing labeled “executive summary,” the initial letter to you and the “please read first” preface will serve that purpose.

 

We gather from some of our members who have written to you recently that they are more encouraged by your replies than other members were in earlier months. That progression is what we anticipated, especially after the Upton Farm win-win outcome in Charlottetown, but we are still pleased about it. Thank you!

 

We look forward to hearing more from you.

 

Sincerely,
Jim Wright
President, Garden City Lands Coalition Society

Leave a Comment

Barn-raising AGM

Thanks to Michael Wolfe, the minutes of the Garden City Lands Coalition Society’s 2009 annual general meeting are now available.

The minutes tell part of the story, but you really had to be there to fully appreciate it. The Barn at Terra Nova Rural Park was an inspired choice of venue (thanks, Mary Gazetas!). The participation was very good in numbers and phenomenal in interaction. People arrived early for set-up and registration and stayed late for clean-up (thanks Shane McMillan, Bruno Vernier, Jessica Lai, Carol Day, Olga Tkatcheva, Gordon Kibble, and many others), the refreshments were plentiful (thanks, Suzanna Wright), and the Rural Park intro and tour were magical (thanks Arzeena Hamir).

A highlight was the Save Richmond Farmland Society presentation near the end. Marion Smith, Pat Montgomery, and Penny Charlebois of the Save Richmond Farmland Society led a discussion about the Save Terra Nova efforts two decades earlier. There in The Barn, we felt as though we were succeeding on the shoulders of those pioneers, especially since we were gathered on land they had helped save, now called Terra Nova Rural Park. As if that wasn’[t enough, they concluded by presenting a cheque for $500 from their society to the Garden City Lands Coalition Society.

There are about thirty people who should be thanked, so a lot have been left out, but you get the idea. After an experience like that, it’s easy to see how  the Save Garden City campaign retains so much vitality.

Leave a Comment

Coalition to Canada Lands I

I sent the following this morning as a Garden City Lands Coalition Society message to the president of Canada Lands Company, cc-ing the usual parties and more.

Dear Mark Laroche, President and CEO, Canada Lands Company:

You will soon receive a couriered petition from the Garden City Lands Coalition Society. The 1,962 signatories want to keep the Garden City Lands green for community benefit. The petition requests the assistance of the Government of Canada, and we have chosen to send it directly to you because our members have reported that such requests typically get forwarded to you. We hope that this will lead to mutually beneficial results.

After a period of distrust that was not without reason, there has been a surge of awareness here that Canada Lands Company may be genuinely committed to ensuring local community benefit from the disposal of federal crown land. (The good news from Upton Farm on Prince Edward Island has spread.) We would like to obtain that benefit and to ensure that Canada Lands Company receives credit for it.

Since our society exists to save the Garden City Lands, we take care to be in tune with the related sense of community needs. In brief, the lands are seen as Richmond’s Stanley Park, as a linchpin of B.C.’s Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), and as a carbon sink that is functionally useful and symbolically vital. The community includes the citizens of Richmond but goes well beyond that. People from all around B.C. and northern Washington are interested, and there is involvement especially from citizens of the neighbouring parts of Metro Vancouver.

We gather that your company and/or the Musqueam Indian Band have sought renegotiation of at least one understanding in the Garden City Property Memorandum of Understanding (the MOU) that cannot be met. We are pleased that your company seems committed to following the MOU’s “Contingencies” process: renegotiation, dispute resolution, and, if all else fails, cooperation in making whatever arrangements are necessary to restore the four parties to the position that each was in prior to entering into the MOU.

As you probably know, the MOU divides the Garden City Lands into two halves: the Development Lands (widely thought of as the CLC-Musqueam lands) and the Public Lands (widely thought of as the City of Richmond lands). There is still essentially no impediment to the intended Public Lands uses, but the MOU-specified uses for the Development Lands, which have never been permissible, may never become permissible, and that is certainly cause for renegotiation. We ask Canada Lands, as the party entrusted with the land title, to proactively ensure the negotiation of ALR-permitted uses for the property that are consistent with the community’s needs.

We recognize that in Richmond, as in Charlottetown with Upton Farm, Canada Lands Company should be made whole, recovering its purchase price and expenses, and presumably the same would apply to the Musqueam and City parties if they do not end up with an ownership interest. While minor adjustments will be needed for that purpose, we suggest that any sale price for the Development Lands be basically at the ALR land value, as it already is for the Public Lands. As long as Canada Lands Company ensures (perhaps by means of an unequivocally worded covenant registered against the title) that the property will be limited to ALR-permissible uses forever, the land value is presumably the same, or at least essentially the same, as the fair market value stated in the MOU.

You may wonder why we would get into suggestions about price. Our goal in that is to eliminate the odious kind of land speculation that had unfortunately slipped into the transfer of the Garden City Lands from the federal crown. Parties had become land speculators trying to use their immense power to destroy a community-treasured green space, valued throughout living memory as the people’s lands, for urban sprawl that Smart Growth BC has definitively identified as NOT Smart Growth. From the standpoint of protecting land capable of producing food, any speculative profit from the Garden City Lands would send out the wrong signal. A similar point could be made about protecting peatland serving as an active carbon sink, which is what the lands also happen to be.

Two years ago, the significance of the Garden City Lands was magnified a hundredfold when it became a linchpin of the ALR. That aspect came to public attention when developers’ association head Philip Hochstein wrote “Space Invaders,” an anti-ALR guest column in BC Business magazine (July 2007). Another analogy is that the Garden City Lands became a cleverly chosen battleground where the ALR was pitted against rampant development of agricultural land. The only reason the Garden City Property ALR-exclusion applications might have succeeded was the power of the applicants, and less-powerful speculators were no doubt watching and waiting to demand equal treatment, perhaps fatally weakening the ALR. We are asking you now to turn the tables in a way that strengthens the ALR.

By striving to meet true community need in the disposal of the Garden City Lands, Canada Lands Company will be saving not only a Richmond treasure in the form of the particular 136 acres of peatland green space in Richmond City Centre but also, to at least some extent, a British Columbia treasure in the form of the B.C. Agricultural Land Reserve. For certain, that is corporate social responsibility!

Sincerely,
Jim Wright
President, Garden City Lands Coalition Society

Leave a Comment

Springboard for action ASAP

Renegotiations about the future of the Garden City Lands in Richmond, B.C., are close to completion. This is a crucial period. We have urged supporters to act by contacting Canada Lands Company and other parties. The following 943 words are the best we can do to provide thorough current background. Please take five minutes to think about it and then write ASAP. At this stage, contacting Canada Lands by email is generally best.

Ancient history (March 2005 to June 2009)

As the Garden City Lands agreements played out, the role of Canada Lands Company as project manager for the ALR-exclusion application tarnished the image of that federal land disposal company. There was considerable evidence of manipulation of the citizens and council. An impression also grew that the company planned to ignore the provisions in the MOU, the basic agreement, about (a) renegotiation of understandings that could not be met, (b) dispute resolution, and (c) the restoration of each of the four original parties to the position it was in prior to entering the MOU.

In the company’s defence, there is also reason to think that senior City of Richmond representatives were “in cahoots” with it. Nevertheless, the company’s mandate involves providing benefit to the local community, not to city politicians and civil servants. Especially after seeing how the company’s performance improved dramatically in the parallel issue of Upton Farm in Prince Edward Island, we still have some faith in Canada Lands Company.

Trigger for the current renegotiations

The Garden City Lands renegotiations taking place now were needed because an MOU understanding that half the property (called the Development Lands) would be rezoned for high-density construction cannot be met, since the land is in the ALR. It has been there since the ALR was created, yet the MOU presumptuously took for granted that Canada Lands could get it excluded. Both exclusion attempts failed because the applications showed no grounds for exclusion.

It is important to note that the understanding that limits the uses of the other half of the property (the Public Lands, often called the City lands), should still be in place. Furthermore, the City has a covenant on the property title that protects its ability to acquire the Public Lands for $4.77 million (plus certain expenses). It is therefore reasonable to assume that the Public Lands half of the property will remain green for community benefit unless the City of Richmond is inept.

What needs to be renegotiated

The issue, then, is the renegotiation of the uses for the Development Lands.

As you know, Canada Lands holds the title to the whole property. However, according to the MOU, the Musqueam Indian Band is entitled to an unregistered 50% beneficial interest in the property and has the option of being compensated in land, which would be one quarter of the entire property (50% of the Develoopment Lands).

The entire property is already in the ALR, with no credible prospect of ever being removed, but we are asking Canada Lands to safeguard the land forever by ensuring that any sale of the Development Lands, as well as the Public Lands, is on the express condition that the property will remain green for community benefit. Although our concern is with the goal, not mechanisms for safeguarding it, there is at least one obvious possible mechanism, a covenant registered by Canada Lands against the title(s) of the eventual purchaser(s) that guarantees the entire property will be used only for ALR-permitted purposes for community benefit in perpetuity.
 

Appropriate price — from our ALR-protection standpoint

With regard to price, from an ALR-protection standpoint it is best that the asking price for the Development Lands (as for the Public Lands) be the amount that will enable Canada Lands Company to be “made whole,” i.e., to recover its costs. (The obvious approach is to set the price at the fair market value stated in the MOU, plus the reasonable expenses.)

In contrast, one trial balloon argues that the company and/or the band should receive far more per acre because they expected to get more. We strongly object. It would set a precedent that land speculators that acquire an interest in ALR land in the hope of ALR-exclusion and rezoning are entitled to the price they would have received if the land had been excluded and rezoned. (The precedent would be cited, for example, if government at any level wanted to obtain such land, even for ALR-permitted purposes.) The precedent would be harmful to the future of agricultural land in British Columbia and of the ALR itself. Furthermore, nothing in the MOU says that any party should make large profits from land speculation, so enabling such profits is not implicit in the goal of achieving the spirit of the MOU to the extent possible in the changed circumstances.

The final-ownership aspect

From the perspective of the goals of the Garden City Lands Coalition, there is no particular configuration of final ownership that is necessarily best. The best final situation could, for example, be ownership by a land conservancy or a federal department such as Agriculture and Agri-Foods Canada. As it stands now, though, the City of Richmond has the inside track for a number of reasons, including these two:

It has an enforceable right to buy half the property sooner or later, and that is also clearly the intent that was stated by the federal Crown when announcing the MOU in 2005.

It also has a right of first offer if Canada Lands Company and the Musqueam ever declare as a partnership that the other half is for sale. Along with that, there is a right of first offer to just the Musqueam part, which would be up to a quarter of the whole property, if the Musqueam have ever first taken the step of replacing their beneficial interest with ownership of up to a quarter of the property.

As far as we can determine, bait of possible willingness to sell has been dangled in front of the City of Richmond for about a month. There does not seem to have been any formal declaration that the partnership and/or the Musqueam acting alone have decided not to develop their part of the property and instead to sell it.

At the moment, we are at a loss to comprehend why the City is apparently considering making an offer when there does not yet appear to have been renegotiation of alternative ways for Canada Lands Company, along with the band, to develop the Development Lands. The only given in that regard is that the uses will have to be ALR-permissible. It is surely ideal to have as many of the parties as possible participating in ensuring that the Garden City Lands have a green future for community benefit for all time.

(But we still love you, City of Richmond! )
(Especially when you’re your best self.)

Leave a Comment