Jump to content

      












Photo

Richmond halts huge houses on ALR land


  • Please log in to reply
122 replies to this topic

#21 Cassidy

Cassidy
  • Banned
  • 2,501 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 30 March 2017 - 02:03 PM

As a resident of B.C., I'm not prepared to accept that "for cultural reasons", I should be "OK" with turning ALR land into parcels of land that do nothing more than accommodate 15,000 square foot houses with 15 bedrooms.

The ALR has a purpose, and I fully support that purpose.

 

The ALR is now, and always has been terribly inconvenient for wealthy folks who want to do what they want to do with the property they've purchased - and they don't want the ALR (or anybody else) to interfere with their plans.

In effect, that's exactly what the ALR is for - to stop people from doing whatever they want with (and to) B.C.'s farmland, and to do so regardless of race or ethnicity.


  • nerka likes this

#22 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 30 March 2017 - 02:05 PM

Exactly. Nobody was farming that land before the house was built. And a $3M house gets built with good salaries.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#23 Cassidy

Cassidy
  • Banned
  • 2,501 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 30 March 2017 - 02:14 PM

I guess one then has to delve into the concept that is core to the reason the ALR exists in B.C., that concept being that the ALR is to retain farmland for the good of the citizens of British Columbia, and to effectively do so for all time (or at least until legislation is passed amending a specific region or parcel of land).

 

Whether anybody was farming land in the ALR before the construction of a monster house has nothing to do with the core intent of the ALR.



#24 Cassidy

Cassidy
  • Banned
  • 2,501 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 30 March 2017 - 02:17 PM

....but I sense folks are being somewhat contrarian and obtuse on the actual topic underlying the issue of improper use of ALR land ... so I'll withdraw and let others make their views known.

 

I should have bowed out when "race" and "culture" were introduce into the fundamentals of a topic that has nothing to do with either :)



#25 nerka

nerka
  • Member
  • 1,234 posts

Posted 30 March 2017 - 02:55 PM

In effect, that's exactly what the ALR is for - to stop people from doing whatever they want with (and to) B.C.'s farmland, and to do so regardless of race or ethnicity.

Exactly!

 

There are ways to take land out of the ALR and of course any of our elected provincial governments could change the ALR if they believe (like some folks on here) that the ALR is such a terrible, useless thing.

 

In the meantime it is totally reasonable for cities to regulate against uses that are totally contrary to the intent of the ALR.



#26 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 5,742 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 30 March 2017 - 02:57 PM

How dare these rich elitists do this on ALR. Dont thye know farmers arent supposed to live in nice houses!

 

https://www.realtor....outh-Jingle-Pot

 

https://www.realtor....Columbia-V0H1V2

 

https://www.realtor....Columbia-V1V2G6

 

https://farmsinbc.co...6-street-surrey



#27 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,276 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 30 March 2017 - 03:05 PM

And yet nobody has mentioned the cultural aspect of large houses on ALR. For lots of East Indian and other Asian families they want to live together in large compound style properties. Having 10-15 bedrooms would be ideal for lots of families. 

 

That is the exact reason that a cap on house size was not put in place the first few times this was brought up as an issue. Now, the voices calling for a cap are louder and more numerous than the voices decrying one, so Council is moving forward this time.


  • rjag likes this

#28 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,276 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 30 March 2017 - 03:08 PM

Well then you hardly need our advice :) Lots of power in the community charter to tackle this in a number of different ways.

 

Only City of Vancouver has a Charter, Richmond is bound by the Local Government Act. But yes, we do have the ability under both the LGA and Agricultural Land Commission Act to place certain limits and restrictions on development.

 

Edit: I read quickly and thought you were talking about the Vancouver Charter, not the Community Charter Act. This is what happens when you take your law classes out of province  ;) 


Edited by Jackerbie, 30 March 2017 - 03:12 PM.


#29 dasmo

dasmo
  • Member
  • 5,191 posts

Posted 30 March 2017 - 03:21 PM

These are not being built for extended families. They are being built as a form of Bitcoin....

The article sites a 40,000 square-foot home.... No one would be put out if it was limited to 10,000 sqft.... 



#30 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 5,742 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 30 March 2017 - 06:28 PM

These are not being built for extended families. They are being built as a form of Bitcoin....

The article sites a 40,000 square-foot home.... No one would be put out if it was limited to 10,000 sqft.... 

 

Michael Buble is building a 27,000 ft house in Burnaby, http://www.cknw.com/...ome-in-burnaby/

Its not in ALR but across from an elementary school....



#31 Benn

Benn
  • Member
  • 74 posts

Posted 30 March 2017 - 10:45 PM

Well done Richmond for trying to find the right balance. The benefits of reserving agricultural land for the future are obvious. On the off chance we still have some semblance of our current society in a couple hundred years, it might be nice to still have the option of eating locally grown, natural food rather than bioreactor grown algae or whatever.

#32 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 05:37 AM

Well done Richmond for trying to find the right balance. The benefits of reserving agricultural land for the future are obvious. On the off chance we still have some semblance of our current society in a couple hundred years, it might be nice to still have the option of eating locally grown, natural food rather than bioreactor grown algae or whatever.

 

So is New York City doing it wrong?  Is Oak Bay doing it wrong, after all they have that ALR land that's currently a golf course, should they be farming that instead?  Do you feel that everyone in New York and Oak Bay will perish when the apocalypse comes?

 

If you believe that, why are we not stocking fresh water in huge water tanks in each neighbourhood, for "water security"?  We'll die from thirst 10x quicker than starvation, after all.  Or drugs, where are we stockpiling prescription medicine that 50% of the population needs?  

 

This whole "food security" myth is completely misguided thinking.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#33 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 5,742 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 31 March 2017 - 06:57 AM

Isn't Southlands the playground for the rich horsey set in the ALR? Is that alright? Have you seen the size of the horse barns there?
  • VicHockeyFan likes this

#34 Benn

Benn
  • Member
  • 74 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 07:10 AM

VHF is trolling part of your job description as an admin? Might be time for a self evaluation https://en.m.wikiped.../Internet_troll
  • Matt R. likes this

#35 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 07:14 AM

VHF is trolling part of your job description as an admin? Might be time for a self evaluation https://en.m.wikiped.../Internet_troll

 

I'm not trolling, I'm pointing out the absolute hypocrisy of the "food security" thinking.  It's not logical.  It's preparing for a hypothetical that the world has never seen, in our thousands of years of civilization.

 

Instead of simply calling me a troll, try to answer my questions about "drinking water security" and "pharmaceuticals security".  See, the food security types have no answer to that.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#36 dasmo

dasmo
  • Member
  • 5,191 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 08:09 AM

Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got til its gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot....

#37 nerka

nerka
  • Member
  • 1,234 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 12:02 PM

Instead of simply calling me a troll, try to answer my questions about "drinking water security" and "pharmaceuticals security".  See, the food security types have no answer to that.

Huge efforts and dollars are in fact invested to ensure "drinking water security" including the establishment of multiple reservoirs with excess (under normal conditions) storage capacity.  Not only are reservoirs established but some BC communities (Vancouver and Victoria) exclude most economic activities from the reservoir watersheds in an effort to maintain water quality. Not to mention emergency plans to distribute drinking water in the event of an actual crisis or interruption to water supply.

 

That said water and agricultural land is a crappy comparison. One is an endlessly renewable resource that is delivered in relative abundance to most BC locations. The other is a fixed resource.  Once land is permanently alienated from agricultural use it is difficult (though by no means impossible) to convert it back if that was ever desired. The Agricultural Land Reserve is about conserving a scarce resource, nothing more, nothing less. Ultimately whether that resource is worth conserving is a value judgement. Food security is only one factor in the equation of whether it is worth preserving. A lot of British Columbians think it is worth conserving given that the ALR has stayed relatively popular and has never been substantively repealed (though weakened with some tweaks).

 

Does the ALR prevent some economic activity? Absolutely. That is a trade-off we make for conserving that land for agricultural uses. The ALR is not unique in that respect. Almost all land zoning forecloses some economic activity. We put up with these restrictions because we believe that perhaps they improve well-being in aggregate.

 

As for pharmaceutical security. In the short term there is no threat and hence no benefit from massive stockpiles of these perishable goods. In the medium to long term, "pharmaceutical security" depends on whether Canada maintains a robust scientific, technological, industrial, and manufacturing capability. In other words the question is not whether we currently make all our own pharmaceuticals, but whether we could retool our economy to do so if world circumstances forced us to do so.


  • tedward likes this

#38 Jason-L

Jason-L
  • Member
  • 1,257 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 12:14 PM

I often feel like VHF is the perfect example of why we need ALRs... because he keeps advocating we don't need this one or that one, but taken in total, we'd have -no- agricultural land, just high density housing.



#39 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 12:16 PM

But here is what "food security" fanatics say:

 

http://www.homegrow.ca/node/37

 

The state of the world is unstable in many ways - environmental, climate change, resource shortages, financial crisis and wars. Confronted with any given variable or combination thereof, we will still need to eat or we will face the same fate as thousands in third world countries who die daily from lack of food.

 

It is always worth repeating that Vancouver Island imports 95% of its food supply. A catastrophe will empty store shelves in three days. An earthquake or rise in sea level can render the airport and ferries unusable. Then what?

 

Interest in gardening will peak because it will no longer be a hobby or therapy, but a matter of survival, but will come too late to ward off starvation for those with nothing growing - a recipe for disaster. This is not fear mongering just as New Orleans preparing for hurricanes is not fear mongering.

 

We can always hope nothing happens in our lifetime to disturb the status quo, but every day that looks less likely, so an adequate food supply has to be part of any community emergency planning.

 

 

Many people don’t know that BC, a world renowned hot spot of marine and biological diversity with some of the best growing conditions in Canada, is food insecure. In fact, it’s the most food insecure province in the country, with the highest use of food box programs in Canada. Even the rocky provinces of New Brunswick and Newfoundland are more food secure.

 

http://www.countryli...s farmland.html

 

Currently on Vancouver Island we produce only about 4% of the food we consume.  There are only 3 days' worth of fresh food on the Island to feed its populace in the non-summer months. With rising fuel costs, climate change and the constant threat of recession, it is imperative that Islanders look to their local farmers and start supporting their initiatives.  

 

 

http://longviewfarms...D_SECURITY.html

 

 

 

So I think what you are saying, nerka, is that food security is about long-term shortages, not the 3-day disruption from say, an earthquake.  You refer to longer-term disruption, like global war I guess.

 

If global war is the concern, then certainly we need to get Vancouver Island to 100% food secure, not 4%.  And YES, we need to produce all our pharmaceuticals.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#40 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 12:16 PM

I often feel like VHF is the perfect example of why we need ALRs... because he keeps advocating we don't need this one or that one, but taken in total, we'd have -no- agricultural land, just high density housing.

 

Right, like Luxembourg or Monaco, the places with the highest GDP in the world.  Or Oak Bay.  

 

How is Oak Bay going to survive long-term strife while WW3 wages around us for several years?  When the Island only produces 4% of our food, certainly Colwood, and View Royal residents are not going to let food trucks through to the rich in Oak Bay,  they will block the highway and empty the trucks there for their own residents.

 

You may laugh at the above statement, but that's the only possible type of chaos that will halt the supply lines that get food to us now.  So by buying into the food security argument, you are pretty much saying that some type of world war is a very real possibility in the near future.

 

Because now nerka has said that it's not about earthquake disruption of our water.  So it must be a longer-term thing.  And lets face it, if we plant seeds now, the crops might be ready in 5 months, so it's at least that long-term a thing we are planning for by having all this agricultural land at the ready.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users