387 replies to this topic

[PulpVictor]

Spoke clearly enough that you got the message to save the trees.

That is the point. The trees were not save-able.

[PulpVictor]

Is that important to the issue at hand?

That's what you take away from my post? You think that public servants should not have to speak English?

[sebberry]

Let's leave the public servant discussion out of this please.

[Candarius]

then remove the land from the ALR.

Makes me think of someone picking the land up and moving it to a different municipality! Where of course it would become more or less valuable depending on the municipality you move it too :-)

[VicHockeyFan]

Could he maybe just import the Tinto Rocks and charge admission, might be better than the Galey Farms attractions.

[LJ]

I love the approach this landowner has taken.

My concern mirrors his lawyer's, however - if the ALR people remove the land from the reserve, what's to guarantee Saanich will approve the development? Then he'd be stuck in limbo, possibly without cows or chickens.

I think he needs to get Saanich's approval first, then remove the land from the ALR.

I don't believe land has to be in the ALR to farm it, as long as the municipal zoning allows it you're good to go.

[sebberry]

http://www.timescolo...ourhood-1.83539

A small herd of Angus cattle graze on Saanich farmland as the owners and the municipality lock horns over the property’s future.
Don Alberg moved the cattle onto the property at 1516 Mount Douglas Cross Rd. because it’s a use that’s permitted within the Agricultural Land Reserve.

The family’s plan is to turn the land into a feedlot where up to 150 cattle are fattened up before being shipped off to market — though they would prefer to develop the property and turn it into a subdivision with 12 to 16 lots.

[...]

[D.L.]

Map location - https://maps.google....Canada&t=h&z=16

[gumgum]

Can we change the title of this thread? Some people might thing the ALR is a silly notion, but I do not. And I know I am not alone.

[Sparky]

If you read VHF's first post on this topic, it was meant to generate discussion that in some cases it could be an outdated idea. The case in point is an excellent example.

In my mind an approach like that could stimulate discussion.

I would be reluctant to change the title. I would however suggest that you post your thoughts to repute the idea.

Let's see what he says?

[gumgum]

I understand that point that VHF had regarding the title, but it narrows the discussion toward whether or not the ALR is viable.

I am somewhat an efficiency geek. Rather than start up another thread regarding the ALR, does it not make sense to make this thread for people that hate, love, have no opinion, but want to contribute specific information regarding the ALR? A thread that open all discussion generally regarding the ALR?

If there was a thread titled "I hate Christy Clark" it would turn a lot of people away who are interested in discussion Clark's politics, but don't want to feel the need to take sides one whether or not they hate her. To participate in a thread like that automatically forces you into a rather narrow perspective. It forces people to take sides.

[VicHockeyFan]

I am somewhat an efficiency geek.

Then why would you support a silly notion like the ALR? Growing our own food around here is terribly inefficient.

Anyway, sure, I broadened the title.

[gumgum]

Thank you.

[Sparky]

[eseedhouse]

Then why would you support a silly notion like the ALR? Growing our own food around here is terribly inefficient.

Yeah, until those nice folks abroad decide they're a little short of food and decide they'd rather eat it themselves than trade it for our bits of green paper. Say California gets a really big quake. Or runs out of water (which they are now extremely close do doing). How "efficient" will it be when the food stops being shipped to us in return for our computer keystrokes?

You might be happy to eat produce from our "inefficient" farmland when your belly starts to rumble.

Of course, if there's none left, well....that might be a bit difficult.

[VicHockeyFan]

Yeah, until those nice folks abroad decide they're a little short of food and decide they'd rather eat it themselves than trade it for our bits of green paper. Say California gets a really big quake. Or runs out of water (which they are now extremely close do doing). How "efficient" will it be when the food stops being shipped to us in return for our computer keystrokes?

You might be happy to eat produce from our "inefficient" farmland when your belly starts to rumble.

Of course, if there's none left, well....that might be a bit difficult.

Well, except in cases of world war, a situation like this has never occurred in the modern world. That's the beauty of multiple supply chains and free enterprise and supply and demand dictating pricing.

California will never run out of drinking water. If their crops fail, they will be replaced by produce from Peru, at a few cents more per pound. Honestly, the set-up we have now is absolutely fool-proof, as long as the government never gets in the way of it.

[Mike K.]

Should supply chain disruptions occur any alternatives will be priced significantly higher and not a mere "few cents more per pound."

Look what happened the other week when California experienced freezing temperatures. Items like lettuce shot up from $0.99 per head to $2.50 per head (150% increase).

[VicHockeyFan]

Should supply chain disruptions occur any alternatives will be priced significantly higher and not a mere "few cents more per pound."

Look what happened the other week when California experienced freezing temperatures. Items like lettuce shot up from $0.99 per head to $2.50 per head (150% increase).

Right, so most people stopped eating lettuce, and onto something else.

For God's sake, this "food security" thing is all BS.

[Mike K.]

Yes, we should just stop eating vegetables and go on to something else.

[Benezet]

California will never run out of drinking water. If their crops fail, they will be replaced by produce from Peru, at a few cents more per pound. Honestly, the set-up we have now is absolutely fool-proof, as long as the government never gets in the way of it.

I must know.... Do you actually believe it's even remotely possible for Peru to become an agricultural superpower capable of covering a total crop failure in California? If so, what is the basis of your belief?