143 replies to this topic

[On the Level]

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.

That was the stumbling block the last time Colwood and Langford looked at combining services.  I highly doubt the union would entertain some sort of a competition for service/cost.

[jonny]

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.

 

Well, those are very small plots of land as far as farms go. Most farms are more the ‘hobby farm’ size. If you added up all the farm land on the whole peninsula, it would probably add up to like two or three medium sized Saskatchewan grain farms!

 

It imagine it’s decent farmland, but if there really was the need for that much locally grown produce, I imagine there would be many more greenhouses than there presently are to expand the range of plants that can be grown.  

 

I think the answer also lies in that there just isn’t the demand for that much local produce and there aren’t enough farmers around who are either passionate about growing produce in a “micro farm” or can make enough of an income off of a few acres to earn a livelihood.

 

I think something is wrong with our local land management policies when you can barely buy a modest family home in Broadmead for less than a million dollars yet a couple of kilometers away there are empty fields growing nothing but hay where it is illegal to build housing on. I love that we can buy local produce, but shake my head when I see all those vacant fields growing nothing but grass. The strategy should be revisited.

[3isenough]

When those so called vacant fields growing nothing but grass... are baling that hay and it's all presold for nothing less than $12/$13 per bale, some of those farms are baling 3 crops in one season, a thousand bales+ per crop. Nothing to laugh at and fairly smart land management. Hay is in short supply and being trucked in from the prairies and Washington state, the interior or as far away as California to the tune of $18'ish a bale.

Edited by 3isenough, 10 January 2017 - 11:04 AM.

[jonny]

Housing is in short supply too. Is hay more important than housing? It's much easier to import hay.

[Danma]

Once you build housing on land, you will never get that land back for farming. If we're gonna build houses on undeveloped land, I would suggest we focus on building on land that is less viable for agriculture first.

 

I agree that there could be additional incentives provided to improve local yield of agriculture, to make better use of the land we do have.

[UrbanRail]

I think it comes down to efficient use of land. Do we try to protect greenspace and potential farmland for future generations or do we just develop every square metre of land for urban development and then realize down the road that we should have saved undeveloped land.

 

Building more single family homes with garages takes up a lot of space, when we could build more row/townhomes that are more efficient at land space.

 

Remember the deer issue we are having in this region. This is due in part to development in areas that were habitat to these creatures. The more we spread out and take up more habitat, the more we see wildlife in urban areas.

[jonny]

Well, we're never going to develop every square meter of Vancouver Island. There is always going to be tons of greenspace.

 

I don't think anybody is even advocating that we develop all ALR land. It sounds wonderful to save farmland for future generations. Very catchy. But if that land is never used to produce much food, was that a good choice? We made that decision in the 70's. Well, the future generations are here, and we're still not eating much food made on the Saanich Peninsula.

 

People always ask "Why are houses so expensive in BC?" or "How are young people going to afford to live here?". To answer those questions meaningfully requires a look at how we use land.

 

Anyway, to me it comes down to either we accept all of the implications of further extensive development in the Westshore or we take a hard look at the land on the Saanich Peninsula. People want houses with garages more than they want townhomes. That's just reality. Continued development of the Westshore means cutting down more trees, more traffic, more congestion and continued expansion of the TCH at great taxpayer expense.

 

You're not going to convince everybody that moving into a condo is the way to go. We'll be lucky if half of our region's population growth ends up residing in multi-family housing units. That means thousands of more SFHs, which we are currently only allowing to be built in the Westshore.

 

Going forward, I see Langford becoming more of a heavyweight regional player like Surrey has become in the LM. Surrey is on track to become the largest municipality in BC.

Edited by jonny, 10 January 2017 - 12:33 PM.

[UrbanRail]

Housing is in short supply too. Is hay more important than housing? It's much easier to import hay.

It may be in short supply, but that doesn't mean we should develop every piece of field in existence that we think is "useless".

[On the Level]

I think it comes down to efficient use of land. Do we try to protect greenspace and potential farmland for future generations or do we just develop every square metre of land for urban development and then realize down the road that we should have saved undeveloped land.

Building more single family homes with garages takes up a lot of space, when we could build more row/townhomes that are more efficient at land space.

Remember the deer issue we are having in this region. This is due in part to development in areas that were habitat to these creatures. The more we spread out and take up more habitat, the more we see wildlife in urban areas.

We grow most of our own food on a small sized city lot. That wouldn't happen in a townhome. I'd like to know who has a larger carbon footprint; my driving a car but growing/canning most of my food or Helps and Issit riding around on their bicycles to buy produce shipped up from Mexico and California.

As far as the deer go....Vancouver Island is 32,134 square kilometers in size, most of it wilderness. Victoria could expand out past Jordon River without much of a percentage change in available greenspace for deer.

[jonny]

It may be in short supply, but that doesn't mean we should develop every piece of field in existence that we think is "useless".

The only person talking about getting rid of all the fields is you.

Edited by jonny, 10 January 2017 - 12:59 PM.

[UrbanRail]

Well, we're never going to develop every square meter of Vancouver Island. There is always going to be tons of greenspace.

 

I don't think anybody is even advocating that we develop all ALR land. It sounds wonderful to save farmland for future generations. Very catchy. But if that land is never used to produce much food, was that a good choice? We made that decision in the 70's. Well, the future generations are here, and we're still not eating much food made on the Saanich Peninsula.

 

People always ask "Why are houses so expensive in BC?" or "How are young people going to afford to live here?". To answer those questions meaningfully requires a look at how we use land.

 

Anyway, to me it comes down to either we accept all of the implications of further extensive development in the Westshore or we take a hard look at the land on the Saanich Peninsula. People want houses with garages more than they want townhomes. That's just reality. Continued development of the Westshore means cutting down more trees, more traffic, more congestion and continued expansion of the TCH at great taxpayer expense.

 

You're not going to convince everybody that moving into a condo is the way to go. We'll be lucky if half of our region's population growth ends up residing in multi-family housing units. That means thousands of more SFHs, which we are currently only allowing to be built in the Westshore.

 

Going forward, I see Langford becoming more of a heavyweight regional player like Surrey has become in the LM. Surrey is on track to become the largest municipality in BC.

The  Westshore will continue to be the primary development area for years to come

[On the Level]

The Westshore will continue to be the primary development area for years to come

Yup....on track for the 47% of the CRD population by 2026. Wonder what year it will end up having more votes that all other municipalities combined?

[UrbanRail]

Yup....on track for the 47% of the CRD population by 2026. Wonder what year it will end up having more votes that all other municipalities combined?

Yeah its a pretty big increase, as development increases, there could be a greater demand for transit and cycling services within and connecting to the Westshore.

[3isenough]

Housing is in short supply too. Is hay more important than housing? It's much easier to import hay.

I think the answer would be for Saanich to take a good hard realistic look at the current ALR/Urban Containment Boundary and allow those properties not viable for farming (smaller parcels, rocky soil, mountainous terrain etc) to develop. For instance, we have an acre in Saanich, just north of Elk Lake that is ALR and outside of the Urban Containment Boundary so no go for any type of subdividing but realistically could be redeveloped as a site for town homes or 3 or 4 nice sized lots or 5 or 6 higher density sized lots. 15 minutes to town, ocean views, close to Elk Lake etc so why shouldn't it be in an area that would be developed? It's useless as ALR. Go north about 5 minutes into the lusher farmland and larger parcels, and that should be maintained as such. The soil is much richer, the land much flatter and more conducive to growing crops (be it hay, vegetables or what have you). There is a demand for local meat which in turn means a demand for local hay not to mention the Vancouver Island Horse Community (I believe VI may have one of the largest horse populations or capita in Canada) is a very large hay consumer. The VI horse community is also a large employer and brings money into various communities on the island. The peninsula has many horse facilities that service the whole CRD.

[Mike K.]

One of the issues I have with developing former ALR land (when the rare opportunity presents itself) is it's almost exclusively the absolute lowest density possible. It's like we take a golden opportunity to do something with a strategic location within the urban core or near major infrastructure, etc., and use its to its absolute lowest potential while bemoaning that development every step of the way. It's bonkers.

[jonny]

Yup....on track for the 47% of the CRD population by 2026. Wonder what year it will end up having more votes that all other municipalities combined?

 

Where do you get 47% from? This says more like 26%.

 

https://www.crd.bc.c...6-.pdf?sfvrsn=0

 

 

 

I think the answer would be for Saanich to take a good hard realistic look at the current ALR/Urban Containment Boundary and allow those properties not viable for farming (smaller parcels, rocky soil, mountainous terrain etc) to develop. For instance, we have an acre in Saanich, just north of Elk Lake that is ALR and outside of the Urban Containment Boundary so no go for any type of subdividing but realistically could be redeveloped as a site for town homes or 3 or 4 nice sized lots or 5 or 6 higher density sized lots. 15 minutes to town, ocean views, close to Elk Lake etc so why shouldn't it be in an area that would be developed? It's useless as ALR. Go north about 5 minutes into the lusher farmland and larger parcels, and that should be maintained as such. The soil is much richer, the land much flatter and more conducive to growing crops (be it hay, vegetables or what have you). There is a demand for local meat which in turn means a demand for local hay not to mention the Vancouver Island Horse Community (I believe VI may have one of the largest horse populations or capita in Canada) is a very large hay consumer. The VI horse community is also a large employer and brings money into various communities on the island. The peninsula has many horse facilities that service the whole CRD.

 

Look, I’m not against hay or horses or meat or vegetables. I just think it’s dumb to have the bulk of your population growth moving to an area that already experiences significant transportation challenges and has substantial geographical, financial and political impediments to transportation improvements.

[On the Level]

Where do you get 47% from? This says more like 26%.

 

https://www.crd.bc.c...6-.pdf?sfvrsn=0

 

I stand corrected..thanks.  47% as compared to the core (Esquimalt, Oak Bay, Saanich, Victoria).....not the CRD. If it does continue to grow at the current percentage (doubtful) it would need another 25 years to equal the core and 30+ for the CRD.  It's still a big shift.

[jonny]

It’s a huge shift when you consider how congested the TCH is already!

[nagel]

It’s a huge shift when you consider how congested the TCH is already!

Langford and Colwood themselves will be massively congested given these growth rates.  It will be interesting to see what the proposed solutions are.

[jonny]

As I have said, we need to brace ourselves for perpetual construction on the TCH.