143 replies to this topic

[On the Level]

Langford and Colwood 

 

 

Thirty years ago:  Should an upcoming incorporation vote for Langford and Colwood succeed, a task force set up to facilitate the change plans to recommend to B.C. Minister of Municipal Affairs Bill Ritchie that the new municipality be called Goldstream.

 

http://www.bclocalne...tml?mobile=true

 

 

2011 - Langford, though, isn’t going to bend over backward to stitch back together municipalities that splintered off in the 1980s and early 1990s. Langford’s mayor at that city’s all-candidates meeting pointed out property taxes for Langford would rise under most amalgamation scenarios.

 

But the amalgamation talk does drive the idea for greater integration of West Shore services, and without individual municipalities losing their identities.

 

The West Shore shares a unified and well-liked police force and Colwood and Langford share some IT services. And as Colwood and Langford politicians like to trumpet, the cities saved money under a joint official community plan process.

 

Expanding on that co-opertion will only be good for worried Colwood taxpayers.

http://www.bclocalne.../133499008.html

[Mike K.]

Goldstream is a solid 4 on the 10 point name scale. Langford being a 1.

[On the Level]

What about just "Westshore"?

[UDeMan]

people in Greater Victoria have a strange sense of distance.

 

I live 8 km from downtown and on a major bus route, and people think it's in the boonies.

 

and I would say that traffic has increased everywhere, not just to the westshore.   

try driving from downtown to gordon head during rush hour, it might take you 30-40 minutes.

[Mike K.]

Colgoldsin Royal?

[dasmo]

What Mike said. As it should be. Victoria needs to take those height caps off if they want to compete. ASAP (in certain areas of course).

[On the Level]

Colgoldsin Royal?

Sanitoria?

 

We need new names for the Westshore, Victoria and the rest of the CRD.....  Sounds like a VV competition     

[jonny]

The communities are very different and have different ideals. I don't think either community understands the other very well. They also have different/competing interests.

I agree the TCH needs a major upgrade, but Victoria isn't going to want anything to do with it. If anything, upgrading the TCH goes against the CoV platform of living beside where you work, and I am sure they would do everything in their power to block it.

Those living in the Westshore don't really care or believe in the CoV platform and in their view, they have a lot to prove their way of life is better (new firehalls, new libraries, new recreation centres, new schools, new parks, etc etc etc).

The two are polar opposites.

I don't disagree with most of your post, but the TCH is a federal/provincial highway that has nothing to do with the CoV.

[On the Level]

I don't disagree with most of your post, but the TCH is a federal/provincial highway that has nothing to do with the CoV.

Thank god!  I think the pat bay is the same....preventing the CoV from mucking it up too much.

[LJ]

I like the name Westshore.

[dasmo]

Westshore is more than Langford.

[LJ]

Yes it is.

[3isenough]

Currently it is, for the most part. The ALR and urban containment is provincial legislation that could be changed. Laws are rewritten all the time.

In theory it sounds simple, but it's the province you're talking about... Something that SHOULD be simple, simply isn't.

[jonny]

In theory it sounds simple, but it's the province you're talking about... Something that SHOULD be simple, simply isn't.

 

Oh, I agree. I don't think this is a political hot potato that will be touched. BUT, I don't think the average British Columbian even knows the ALR exists, never mind what the implications are here in 2017.

 

The ALR has done a wonderful job at protecting farmland, but it was established in 1973. Was the sustained population growth we have seen, and will likely continue to see, envisaged in 1973? Our population has more than doubled since then and we have seen a massive urbanization movement.

 

I think the ALR is an example of overregulation causing harsher-than-intended knock on consequences. As an example, we will continue to see deforestation in the Westshore as SFHs are built. Meanwhile, "farmland" in Saanich will be maintained that is, more often than not, used for low value agricultural purposes.

Edited by jonny, 09 January 2017 - 10:48 AM.

[3isenough]

I agree. More know about the ALR than know about the Urban Containment Boundary. Bear in mind this info is from 2008, but I don't think much has changed since this report (possibly only the Alberg property on Mt Doug X has been removed, I'm not 100% on that.) Their mindset hasn't changed at all, that's for certain.

'Urban Containment Boundary and Minimum Parcel Sizes
The establishment of the Urban Containment Boundary, in the late 1960’s, and subsequent increase in subdivision lot minimums outside the boundary from 0.2 hectares to 2.0 hectares and 4.0 hectares, ensured that new subdivision to create small residential lots would not encroach into Rural Saanich. The designation by the Province, of the Agricultural Land Reserve in 1974, further protected identi ed lands from subdivision without approval of the Land Commission. Council policies to not support exclusion or subdivision of land within the Agricultural Land Reserve in Rural Saanich have maintained the agricultural land base during the last thirty years.
Agricultural Land Reserve
Map 9.1 identi es the Agricultural Land Reserve in Rural Saanich. This area represents about 874 parcels and 1,117 hectares. Since its inception, only 8.6 hectares of land in Rural Saanich, in four parcels, have been excluded from the Agricultural Land Reserve. These exclusions were based on evidence that the lands in question were primarily rocky in nature and did not have agricultural potential, and that exclusion would not impact large areas of good agricultural land.'

http://www.saanich.c...ral_lap_web.pdf

*regardless, I digress.

When you speak of Langford as a core municipality, are you suggesting that Langford, Colwood and View Royal amalgamate to become one and call it as a whole, Westshore? That would make sense to me, but I'm sure the municipalities themselves wouldn't see it that way.

Edited by 3isenough, 09 January 2017 - 12:05 PM.

[On the Level]

When you speak of Langford as a core municipality, are you suggesting that Langford, Colwood and View Royal amalgamate to become one and call it as a whole, Westshore? That would make sense to me, but I'm sure the municipalities themselves wouldn't see it that way.

Being only 15 min from downtown, other cities might assume Langford as being somewhat downtown too. Those living here don't see it that way though.

I can't see Langford wanting to become part of anyone else. They would have to go union, taxes would go up, and their community wouldn't see any benefit.

[Mike K.]

It's all relevant, though. I think most people will distinguish the fact that 15km of distance in a small city like Victoria is equal to 60km of distance in a larger city. It's all about development patterns and land use.

 

For anyone who's ever been to the massive American cities, they stand on their own. Nothing in our country other than Toronto is even remotely similar to the sheer massive scale of those cities.

[LeoVictoria]

Oh, I agree. I don't think this is a political hot potato that will be touched. BUT, I don't think the average British Columbian even knows the ALR exists, never mind what the implications are here in 2017.

 

The ALR has done a wonderful job at protecting farmland, but it was established in 1973. Was the sustained population growth we have seen, and will likely continue to see, envisaged in 1973? Our population has more than doubled since then and we have seen a massive urbanization movement.

 

I think the ALR is an example of overregulation causing harsher-than-intended knock on consequences. As an example, we will continue to see deforestation in the Westshore as SFHs are built. Meanwhile, "farmland" in Saanich will be maintained that is, more often than not, used for low value agricultural purposes.

 

Agreed.  I'm all for farmland to be protected but let's be honest, the peninsula doesn't really qualify as "farmland".  Most of it is very poorly utilized for farming.   Let's open it up for development and encourage heavy farming utilization of the rest.

[lanforod]

Hmm. The peninsula may be poorly utilized as farmland, but is that because it actually is poor farmland, or just isn't used the best way it could be? I know it isn't the Fraser Valley, which is some of the best farmland in the world, but the peninsula seems to grow grass just fine. Why can't corn and other crops be grown there more? Mitchell farms seems to do fine. 

 

IMO, the problem with the ALR is when it is enforced on land that really is terrible farmland. Rocky, poor soil, heavily forested (this can be changed to farmland, but I think there is more value in forests than in farmland), etc.

Efficient farming using sheer scale, something hard to accomplish here, is the way to go these days to be financially viable. Small scale farming works for farm to table type sales. Is there a single owner on the peninsula that owns at least 1000 acres anymore - not sure if Vantreight does?

 

I think of the huge sections of rural Saanich that is all ALR or parkland, but most of it isn't farmed, its just forested. Yet, it's less than 20km from downtown Victoria. Also, the Blenkinsop valley seems like an ideal infill spot, and along Wilkinson area etc. that would be prime development area very close to, and surrounded by suburbs. If we need to be buildng more houses, that's where I'd be trying to get that out of the ALR.

It's not necessary though. I think we need a lot more density before we need to start filling in those holes. Vancouver is doing it now with the south fraser lands etc. We aren't anywhere near Vancouver's density.

[LJ]

Being only 15 min from downtown, other cities might assume Langford as being somewhat downtown too. Those living here don't see it that way though.

I can't see Langford wanting to become part of anyone else. They would have to go union, taxes would go up, and their community wouldn't see any benefit.

Why would Langford have to go union, they could just take over more and more of the existing union jobs with non union services through attrition and competition.