Richmond’s Garden City Lands

“Food aid grows in California’s agricultural heart,” says the heading of a Wall Street Journal article. The caption for a video clip in the article summarizes like this:

California’s Central Valley normally serves as the nation’s food basket. But amid a severe drought in the region, so many farmers have lost their jobs, they are being forced to line up for food handouts and other assistance.

The video ends by saying that the farmers can only hope that there’s much-needed rain and snow this winter. Imagine what it will be like if those hopes get dashed. Here in BC, the need for local food will become more evident, but suffering through a shortage is a heavy price for learning what should already be obvious.

If it is used well, the Garden City Lands can have a big local-food effect in ways that are discussed in various places in this blog and on the Garden City Lands Coalition website. It is hard to understand why some people still find this hard to understand.

Prologue: For those who envision a community-changing future for the Garden City Lands, there is much to learn from Terra Nova, especially since Richmond recently received an award for Terra Nova Rural Park. It is located at the west end of Westminster Highway near Sturgeon Bank and shown on this Garden City Lands Coalition website page.

This account starts with the way the City of Richmond collaborates with the community, a key aspect of both stories.
_________________________

Sometimes it seems that Richmond, ever in search of a slogan, could adopt an old Rodney Dangerfield catchphrase: “I don’t get no respect.” In letters to the editor, the Olympic Oval is “a great big white elephant,” while the city’s snow-removal system is “Wait till spring.” And, stymied by the city’s ability to not act, public-spirited citizens like the Richmond Responsible Dog Owners’ Group (RRDOG) lose hope.

Truly, though, the City of Richmond has a brighter side. It’s exemplified by Terra Nova Rural Park, which recently won the Union of BC Municipalities award for “Leadership & Innovation in Environmental Excellence.” That crowns a quarter-century of community tenacity, our epic struggle to conserve Terra Nova for best uses.

In the mid-1980s, the Save Richmond Farmland Society and Richmond community mobilized to save Terra Nova, the green area in the northwest corner of Lulu Island. But the citizens were ignored by too many Richmond council members for too long. In the 1990 election, the citizens threw them out. In salvage mode, the new council used three years of planning and land swaps to make a large Terra Nova park area possible.

Still, it was an era when the only visions reaching council were developers’ visions, and the Save Richmond Farmland Society set out to fill the void. In March 1994, the society addressed council and provided council members and city staff with an illustrated 35-page booklet, Investing in our future: A city park at Terra Nova. It was a preview of today’s Terra Nova Rural Park and Terra Nova Natural Area.

With the 1996 election, there was a referendum to allow the city to borrow $28.5 million to acquire Terra Nova lands. The Save Richmond Farmland Society delivered 21,000 English and Chinese flyers to selected areas and organizations. With 58 percent, the yes vote won.

After listening again to the public at information sessions, the city decided, as expected, that Terra Nova parkland would be used for a mix of heritage park, habitat, and agriculture. Staff ably took it from there.

There’s much to like in the outcomes so far. In the Terra Nova Rural Park, for example, the Richmond Fruit Tree Sharing Project farm and Tzu Chi Foundation garden feed the needy, the Terra Nova Schoolyard enables kids to grow their own food, and a healing garden sprang to life this year through miracles of generosity.

Thousands take part. From spring to fall, kids, community gardeners, and volunteers tend the fertile soil. Companies provide support. Visitors delight in the scene. It’s an oasis of harmony.

Much more is happening, like the construction of trails and boardwalks, the conversion of the red barn to a gathering place, and the restoring of a heritage home, an ancient slough, and a crabapple ridge.

A wonderful aspect is the role of city parks staff. They have come to a place of community vision and nurtured it. They have thought far ahead, facilitated success, and steadily got things done.

Since councils and staff have teamed so well with our incredible community, Richmond richly deserves its award. Terra Nova is indeed a model of leadership and innovation in environmental excellence for BC municipalities. In ours, we can emulate our Terra Nova success with more cycles of vision, teamwork, and results, all in a culture of respect. 

_________________________

Epilogue: It’s job done, the Save Richmond Farmland Society has donated its remaining funds to the Garden City Lands Coalition Society. Combined with a previous $500 donation, that brought the total to $700, generous help that is much appreciated.

I kept laughing out loud when reading “Protecting the ALR isn’t about food security,” an op-ed column in the October 20 Vancouver Sun. It read like a parody of absurd arguments against local food security and the Agricultural Land Reserve, complete with a photo of the Garden City Lands. Then I googled and found that the writer, Steve Lornie, is the president of an actual construction management company. The article seems to be an actual attempt to refute a column by Peter Ladner, a Business in Vancouver founder and former NPA councillor, along with everyone else aiming for local food security,  “the left who attack free markets.”

Here’s my 99-word comment:

While against “an obsessive focus on food security,” Steve Lornie agrees with food-security advocate Peter Ladner that the world’s supply of available food is only a tenth of what it was about twenty years ago. That’s good, says Lornie: “just-in-time inventory” with “low-cost delivery.” For true food security, it seems, we simply need a Toyota-like world along with world free trade, more reliance on “the struggling farmers of the Third World,” and presumably world peace. When we’ve paved the Agricultural Land Reserve and have no local food, we can get a quick, cheap, secure supply from Somalia and Chad.

Update, Oct. 26: My comment has appeared as a letter in the Vancouver Sun today, along with three other letters that rebutted the Steve Lornie anti-ALR column. the Sun had previously published two letters that also rebutted the column. That’s six letters that support the ALR and zero that oppose it, and the Sun would have balanced the views if there had been any well-expressed letters on the other side. What that says about public opinion on the ALR issue is certainly encouraging.

A letter under the headline “Peschisolido is wrong about Wong and the Garden City lands” appeared in the September 25 issue of the Richmond Review. The writer is Carol Southgate, a director of the Garden City Lands Coaliton Society. Carol is also a local grower with a small farm, and she is a member of the Richmond Agricultural Advisory Committee.

It is hard to know what to make of the Garden City Lands comments that Carol used as a springboard for her letter. They are comments attributed to Joe Peschisolido, a former MP who has been selected as the Liberal candidate for the riding of Richmond in the next federal election. Certainly the Garden City Lands deal that he helped arrange was better than the later one that Raymond Chan, who succeeded him as MP, helped to arrange. However, the MOU that remains from the Chan efforts is still a legal agreement and can actually work out well for Richmond if the renegotiation that should occur within the agreement is conducted well by the City with good support from our federal politicians of all parties. Appropriate support from Mr. Peschisolido would be welcome and could be admirable.

It seems that Richmond council is considering time limits on public hearings. Whether that’s a good idea or not, the Garden City Lands Public Hearing in March 2008 should not be used to support the idea. If that hearing is any indication, the current system is helping democracy just fine. The Richmond Review has published my letter on the issue under the heading “Public wasn’t the problem with Garden City lands public hearing.”

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.)

Renegotiation within the basic Garden City Lands agreement has begun. As far as we can learn, it was held up by some of the usual sabre-rattling from the lawyer for the Musqueam Indian Band. In any case, reliable sources say the process began in earnest in a meeting at Richmond City Hall on Thursday, June 18.

The intent appears to be to complete the renegotiation within a few weeks. Inevitably there are ways in which the Garden City Lands Coalition and other supporters of saving the lands as green space can provide useful input. No doubt this will be a topic at the annual general meeting of the coalition as an incorporated society, which is discussed in the post below this one.

Background

Some renegotiation of arrangements between three of the parties to the basic Garden City Lands agreement (the “MOU”) is needed because Agricultural Land Commission decisions have made it impossible for City staff to recommend rezoning for mega-density development on the “Development Lands” half of the property (an understanding expressed in MOU section 1.19). That means that a joint venture between Canada Lands Company CLC Limited and the Musqueam Indian Band must limit its development of the Development Lands to alternative uses permitted by the commission, with City staff facilitating zoning as need be.

Under the circumstances, Canada Lands is evidently interested in selling the Development Lands to the City and splitting the profits with the Musqueam. At minimum, the City is in a very strong position to obtain the other half, called the “Public Lands” at its fair market value, stated in the agreement as $4.77 million. That is consistent with the spirit of the agreement, and the City has clout in the form of the No Development Covenant. That assumes, however, that it starts making use of its naturally good position, which it has historically not done.

With the current make-up of Richmond council, City ownership of the Garden City Lands could be another step toward a green future for the lands. However, the same end result could be achieved without City ownership.

“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.

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.

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!

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

There is a good news about Wendy Holm of Bowen Island, who has been a strong Save-Garden-City supporter. Wendy, a professional agrologist with an impressive resume as a leader, writer, and humanitarian, has fearlessly stood up for agrologists who dare to give second opinions.

In dealing with the Garden City Lands issue, we have seen there were evident shortcomings in the agricultural economist’s report that the exclusion applicants paid for in order to try to influence the Agricultural Land Commission to exclude the lands from the ALR. Although any critical thinker could pick out major flaws, it helps to have the truth brought out by a professional.

Eventually, the commission was duly unimpressed when it finally considered the ALR-exclusion application. However, Richmond Council could have saved everyone a lot of trouble, time, and expense by paying attention to Wendy Holm long before that. On the first day of the public hearing in March 2008, Wendy arrived more than an hour early in order to be the first speaker, and she then sat through the applicants’ filibuster in order to speak, despite having to miss the last ferry back to Bowen Island. Eventually, at 10:30 p.m., she was able to inform the hearing, even though most councillors evidently did not really listen.

Wendy also sent a submission about the Garden City Lands to the Agricultural Land Commission. Then, in September 2008, Wendy kept the public informed with an op-ed column in the Vancouver Sun. A large number of readers responded to an opinion poll related to the column, and almost all opposed taking the Garden City Lands out of the ALR.

On another matter, for her defense of an agrologist who dared to tell the truth, Wendy was subjected to an ethics complaint to the British Columbia Institute of Agrologists, a professional association that she has previously headed. The good news is that the complaint has been “stayed,” although Wendy and other agrologists who value integrity are pursuing the issue further so that agrologists’ ability to speak the truth will not be compromised in the future.

Besides being a relief for Wendy, the recent development with the agrologists’ institute reduces the silencing pressure against BC agrologists who express second opinions in the kinds of situation where they are typically needed. As we know from the Garden City Lands experience, they certainly need to be possible when parties trying to get land out of the ALR have paid for reports from the certain agrologists who can be counted on to support exclusion.

For details, read “Farm scientist off hook in ethics complaint, issues remain.”
 

A final note re Wendy Holm and Vancity Credit Union

Wendy Holm also brings these values to her role as a director of Vancity Credit Union. She donated her 2009 Vancity Director’s Grant of $15,000 to UBC Farm to support the trial of a Havana-based urban food production and distribution system. Wendy sees Vancity taking an increasing role in supporting our region’s move along the path to global excellence in this area. She is currently seeking reelection as a Vancity director.

Update: An updated version of this post is dated April 22, 2009.

The Garden City Lands issue has had a big effect on two elections in Richmond, first at the federal level and then at the city level. On May 12, 2009, it could well influence the provincial election.

Unlike the federal and city governments, the provincial government is not a party to the basic Garden City Lands agreement, the MOU (memorandum of understanding) with conditions that are now subject to renegotiation because they cannot be met. However, there are important ways in which the provincial government can be involved. We will consider some of them in future posts.

So far I know of three candidates who have been strong Save Garden City advocates. They are Linda Reid of the BC Liberal Party and Michael Wolfe and Stephen Rees of the Green Party.

·        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 at every opportunity, 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.

This blog will not endorse any provincial election candidates, but it will aim to identify candidates who, like Michael and Linda, have shown by their past actions what they are likely to do if elected on May 12.

If there are other declared candidates who should be mentioned, you can add comments to this post or send an email on the topic.

As we have mentioned in earlier posts, there’s a situation that’s much like ours in Prince Edward Island. Their Garden City Lands is called Upton Farm.

For some readers, this post will be an update. Let’s begin with some background as a review for them and an introduction for others.

Upton Farm is on the edge of Charlottetown. When a federal department no longer needed the property, the government sold it to Canada Lands Company CLC at its fair market value so that CLC could perform its land disposal role with it. Although the property is roughly 250 acres, CLC managed to slip its development plans past Charlottetown council before the citizens knew what had hit them.

After the citizens caught on and collected a petition about as large as ours (around 2,000 names), the Charlottetown politicians at all levels of government backed up the citizens. CLC, which had started by brushing off the citizens as being too late, quickly changed its tune when the politicians acted with the people in that united way.

At the request of the mayor of Charlottetown, the premier of PEI, and the federal minister responsible for Prince Edward Island, CLC committed to the Upton Farm Consultation Process. Besides facilitators, the process involves the City of Charlottetown, Province of PEI, Upton Farm Preservation Network (UFPN), and CLC. They work by consensus, and there is agreement that there will be essentially no development of the lands during the process.

Although there are differences along with the similarities, there is much that we in BC can learn from PEI. For a start, we can learn the value of politicians of all factions and levels working together. In particular, that would involve responsible behaviour from our Pave Garden City city council members.

We can also learn from the goal that the parties in the PEI process agreed on: “To identify strategies to ensure that the outcomes of this process are consistent with keeping/making the Upton Farm lands green.” All of the Garden City Lands parties profess a commitment to the land/environment and/or community values, so it would seem reasonable to substitute the name of the Richmond property for the Charlottetown one to come up with an excellent ready-made goal.

In the Upton Farm Consultation Process minutes, which one can access from the Upton Farm Preservation Network blog, it is especially encouraging to see that CLC, which had begun badly, is being so reasonable and collaborative with the community, in keeping with CLC’s mandate.

For example, the minutes show that CLC has stated two financial goals: “(a) divest of the land, and (b) recoup its investment.” They are exactly what we have been pointing out as the appropriate financial goals for CLC with the Garden City Lands. In our case, they would involve CLC divesting the title to Richmond and being reimbursed the $5 million it has paid the federal government and perhaps the rest of the $9.54 million that it committed to paying under the basic Garden City Lands agreement, the MOU.

The minutes also tell us that “UFPN shared their hope that the CLC will see the Upton property as an opportunity to do something new and different and hold it up as an example for years to come.” And that’s essentially the Garden City Lands Coalition’s hope for CLC. If CLC can transform itself here too, the results will be amazing for CLC, which will be one of the big winners.

The PEI process is moving at a rather slow pace, and that’s fine. Like the UFPN and Charlottetown, we don’t mind enjoying the lands in their present state for as long as the process takes, even if it takes years. What matters is to get it right, not to get it fast.

Those are the main things I hope we can learn from our friends in PEI (and there is certainly a sense in which they are our friends, since they have expressed their support). As a matter of interest, it also continues to be fun to see how much of the vision for Upton Farm is a vision that people here have expressed for the Garden City Lands. For example, these points are all part of the Upton Farm vision:

·        Maintain the land as a piece of Island farmscape

·        Create trails for running, walking, biking

·        Maintain the land as an area for learning about nature

·        Maintain the area as a place where residents plant trees in memory of loved ones

·        Maintain as open green space accessible to the public

·        Maintain the land as a passive recreation area

The PEI vision goes further in some ways, and the BC vision goes further in others, but we are very much alike and in the big picture, we hope, in ultimate success.

A Richmond News article and editorial have provided insightful coverage of the Agricultural Land Commission decision to keep Richmond’s Garden City Lands in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). As I read, I realized it might be useful to explain why our members of parliament have a larger role now. Like so much of this issue, it’s complex.

Be aware first that there were two Garden City lands agreements: the purchase agreement, which is now “null and void,” and the basic memorandum of understanding (MOU), which still applies. Because the decision prevents mega-density development, the MOU parties must renegotiate certain MOU understandings.

There are four MOU parties. In contrast, the void purchase agreement had only three parties, which were the City of Richmond, the Musqueam Indian Band, and Canada Lands Company CLC, the federal land disposer. The fourth MOU party is the federal government, which owned the lands before entrusting them to CLC under the MOU.

The lands are already green space that benefits Richmond, but for best benefit the City could offer to buy the property at market value. CLC and the Musqueam can reject the city and terminate the MOU, but only after the parties restore each to its pre-MOU position. (This blog post highlights the key MOU provision.)

In case the lands get restored to the federal government, the role of our MPs—Alice Wong and John Cummins—is to help it be ready with uses that suit our community needs.

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.