Jump to content

      












Photo

Richmond halts huge houses on ALR land


  • Please log in to reply
122 replies to this topic

#41 shoeflack

shoeflack
  • Member
  • 2,861 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 12:41 PM

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

 

There is no correlation between high-density and high GDP. Again with the picking and choosing of data to make your point.

 

Monaco is the second highest density country in the world (if you include Macau); Luxembourg is number 62. Here are some countries between them: Bangladesh (GDP per capita of $4,204), Nauru (GDP per capita of $2,500), Rawanda (GDP per capita of $1,905), Haiti (GDP per capital of $1,784), Burundi (GDP per capita of $818), and I could go on.

 

No need to inflate your point with irrelevant and baseless stats.



#42 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 12:43 PM

I'm being silly, and just saying there is also no relation between the wealth of countries (or the safety, prosperity and freedom of the population) and the amount of farmland they have.  As a previous poster tried to say.

 

 

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.

 

 

Or at least that's what I think he was trying to say.  That areas, or regions, or countries with only high density housing were undesirable for some reason.

 

Hey, Africa has an awful lot of farmland, and very little density in many areas, maybe that's the model we should chase.

 

I said it earlier in this thread, is New York City doomed, because of their lack of food security?  They import 99.9% of their food.  Over 20 million suckers living there, about to run out of food.


<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>

#43 Cassidy

Cassidy
  • Banned
  • 2,501 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 31 March 2017 - 12:51 PM

The ALR covers only 5% of B.C.

Land covered by the ALR is considered to be the most suitable in the province for farming.

 

5% isn't really a lot to put aside, considering it represents pretty much all of the available, high quality farmland there is in B.C.

 

5% is even less to ask when one considers that the only folks who want to do away with the ALR are:

 

  1. folks who look at 10 acres of ALR land and envision building a 20,000 square foot house on it.
  2. folks who look at 10 acres of ALR land and envision building 60 single family dwellings on it.

 

Folks without any sort of agenda usually support the ALR for exactly what it is ... an effort to preserve farmland for the benefit of the citizens of B.C., now and in the future.

Thankfully, the ALR continues to do exactly what it was designed to do.



#44 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 12:53 PM

Folks without any sort of agenda usually support the ALR for exactly what it is ... an effort to preserve farmland for the benefit of the citizens of B.C., now and in the future.

Thankfully, the ALR continues to do exactly what it was designed to do.

 

How have I benefitted in my almost-50-year lifetime from the ALR being there?  And how should my children and grandchildren expect to benefit?

 

Quite frankly, I see no benefit.  I know the ALR is a fell-good thing, but that does not make it good policy.  Oh, I guess it's good for golfers at private clubs like Uplands and VGC, since those lands are ALR.  So the land is not developed for better use.


<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>

#45 shoeflack

shoeflack
  • Member
  • 2,861 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 12:53 PM

I think the point he was trying to make was that if you advocate for incremental removal of each of these plots of land, then yes, we would be in trouble. New York City isn't doomed, because there are areas around it with ample farmland to sustain its population. But if you were to remove all of that farmland, then they would be doomed.

 

In the same way that you over-exaggerate your arguments, I believe that Jason was doing the same thing.

 

If everywhere is high-density housing, then there is no land left to grow food on, in which case that density no longer matters, because we'd all be dead.



#46 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 01:01 PM

^ EVERYWHERE can not be high density housing though.  We can house the entire world population in Alberta at the same kind of city density we are used to here.  That leaves the rest of the planet for agriculture.

 

 

 

 

For example, if we lived at the density that people live in Manhattan, the entire global population could fit in New Zealand:

 

https://www.fastcomp...how_rev_content

 

or...

 

screenshot-www.fastcompany.com-2017-03-31-14-03-36.png

 

 

 


<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>

#47 shoeflack

shoeflack
  • Member
  • 2,861 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 01:04 PM

^ EVERYWHERE can not be high density housing though.  We can house the entire world population in Alberta at the same kind of city density we are used to here.  That leaves the rest of the planet for agriculture.

 

 

 

https://www.fastcomp...how_rev_content

 

You don't say. Thus the over-exaggerated argument. Just like how you know very well that New York City isn't doomed.



#48 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 01:05 PM

And if NY City is not doomed, neither is Victoria, Vancouver, the Island, or Richmond if the ALR ceases to exist today.  If all agriculture ceases in BC today, we are not doomed either.

 

That's my argument.  


<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>

#49 shoeflack

shoeflack
  • Member
  • 2,861 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 01:11 PM

And if NY City is not doomed, neither is Victoria, Vancouver, the Island, or Richmond if the ALR ceases to exist today.  If all agriculture ceases in BC today, we are not doomed either.

 

That's my argument.  

 

Classic VHF over-exaggerated argument. If all agriculture in BC ceased to exist today, we would be doomed. Are you aware of how many jobs that equates to? How much GDP?

 

If ALR is such bad policy, why was it held in such high regard when Ontario passed their Greenbelt legislation to protect farmland and greenspaces from development around the Golden Horseshoe?

 

What is your proposal to defend agricultural land in BC?



#50 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,268 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 31 March 2017 - 01:22 PM

I think it is important to note that the issue at hand in Richmond is not the ALC per se, since we can't control that. It's land zoned for agriculture in our Zoning Bylaw and OCP. Not all ALC land is zoned for agriculture, since the ALC allows some non-farm uses (like golf courses, which is ridiculous IMO)

The ALC and the Province give guidelines for municipal bylaws, but allow each individual municipality to set their own regulations. For instance, the BC guideline for house size is 5,000 sq ft max.

Edited by Jackerbie, 31 March 2017 - 01:22 PM.


#51 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 01:39 PM

Classic VHF over-exaggerated argument. If all agriculture in BC ceased to exist today, we would be doomed. Are you aware of how many jobs that equates to? How much GDP?

 

You guys are talking about doom as in all of us starving to death.  I'm not talking doomed as in the economy.  And it's minor anyway.  Hardly doom when the #14 industry goes away.  And 14 is grouped with fishing and forestry.  It might be #30 on its own. 

 

 

http://credbc.ca/rol...or-bcs-economy/

 

 

 

 

 

Screen-Shot-2014-03-12-at-11.05.48-AM.pn


<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>

#52 Cassidy

Cassidy
  • Banned
  • 2,501 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 31 March 2017 - 01:44 PM

The bottom line is that this is about millionaires building big houses on farmland, on land that they have no intention of ever farming, and land that legislation dictates is to be reserved as farmland for the betterment of B.C. as a whole.

 

Whether you agree with it or not, it is the law where we happen to live.

 

And "no", if we lost all ability to grow food in B.C. because all the farmland was taken over by monster houses and subdivisions, it wouldn't be the end of civilization ... but we'd not be able to grow food where we live ... and that's never a good thing - and usually has somewhat dire consequences further down the road.



#53 shoeflack

shoeflack
  • Member
  • 2,861 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 01:47 PM

For the record, I have not once stated that we would starve to death. I'm just playing the role of referee to the notoriously unchecked VHF stats.

 

And you would have to be crazy to suggest that the BC agriculture industry disappearing would be minor. That industry plays a big role in those 13 above it. That's a lot less food for those #3 retailers to sell. Or projects for those #4 construction workers to build. Or money for those #1 bankers to manage.

 

Don't be ridiculous VHF.



#54 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 01:48 PM

 to be reserved as farmland for the betterment of B.C. as a whole.

 

I asked earlier, how does that make BC better?


<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>

#55 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 01:50 PM

and usually has somewhat dire consequences further down the road.

 

And I've asked time and time again, please point me to where an ALR-type policy has prevented dire circumstances, anywhere in the first world.  Or at least point me to where having an ALR would have prevented dire circumstances.  Show me just one example anywhere in the entire history of the 1st world.

 

All you folks have is absolutely illogical hypotheticals.  And on that basis, I think it's poor policy.


<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>

#56 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 01:53 PM

And you would have to be crazy to suggest that the BC agriculture industry disappearing would be minor. That industry plays a big role in those 13 above it. That's a lot less food for those #3 retailers to sell. Or projects for those #4 construction workers to build. Or money for those #1 bankers to manage.

 

To go back to New York metropolitan area, that has zero agriculture.  They still have food stores, construction workers, money managers.  In fact with zero agriculture, they still manage to have 20,000,000 bodies still working away on something every day.


<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>

#57 shoeflack

shoeflack
  • Member
  • 2,861 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 01:54 PM

And I've asked time and time again, please point me to where an ALR-type policy has prevented dire circumstances, anywhere in the first world.  Or at least point me to where having an ALR would have prevented dire circumstances.  Show me just one example anywhere in the entire history of the 1st world.

 

All you folks have is absolutely illogical hypotheticals.  And on that basis, I think it's poor policy.

 

Isn't the whole point of preventative policy making, as opposed to reactive policy making, to prevent us from being able to prove such things. How would one prove that an ALR-type policy prevented dire circumstances, if the only way to confirm that prevention would be to travel to an alternate universe where that policy did not exist and see how the scenario played out?



#58 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 01:55 PM

Isn't the whole point of preventative policy making, as opposed to reactive policy making, to prevent us from being able to prove such things. How would one prove that an ALR-type policy prevented dire circumstances, if the only way to confirm that prevention would be to travel to an alternate universe where that policy did not exist and see how the scenario played out?

 

Why does Alberta have no ALR if it's such a great policy?

 

And look, to take your argument, then it would also be good policy to manufacture our own truck and tractor parts here and certainly refine all our own gasoline.  But nobody worries about our "energy security" or car-part security on a micro-basis like Richmond is looking out for farmland.


<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>

#59 shoeflack

shoeflack
  • Member
  • 2,861 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 02:00 PM

To go back to New York metropolitan area, that has zero agriculture.  They still have food stores, construction workers, money managers.  In fact with zero agriculture, they still manage to have 20,000,000 bodies still working away on something every day.

 

First of all, New York City does not have zero agriculture.

 

"10 Urban Farming Projects in New York City"

"NYC Food by the Numbers: Urban Agriculture"

 

Second, how many of those jobs are agriculture related though? You're telling me that not one of those major banks has any sort of interest in the agriculture business? Not a single New York City restaurant or grocery store is selling New York state produce?

 

You're saying the impact of the total annihilation of the BC agriculture industry would be minimal. I'm saying that is total BS.



#60 nerka

nerka
  • Member
  • 1,234 posts

Posted 31 March 2017 - 02:01 PM

Why does Alberta have no ALR if it's such a great policy?

 

How is that even an argument?  Alberta having or not having something is not a measure for the greatness of a policy.


  • tedward and shoeflack like this

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