122 replies to this topic

[shoeflack]

That's the secret to any VHF argument, nerka. Absolute randomness pulled out of thin air in any effort to defend whatever you've just said.

[VicHockeyFan]

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

 

My point is, Alberta has a larger agriculture industry than we have, yet they have no similar policy.   So those that say our policy protects farming, I'm really not sure it does.

 

In Oak Bay, as I stated, it protects golfing at two private clubs though.

[nerka]

Bottom line:

 

The ALR was implemented to protect BC farmland from being converted to uses that exclude agriculture. It was also built with a safety valve so land could be taken out of the ALR.  In it's 40+ years it has been very effective policy at achieving those aims.

 

If you support the aim of preserving most farmland then you will probably think it is good policy.  If you think that we would be better off freely converting farmland to any other use that landowners desire then you are going to think it is bad policy.

 

It is inarguable that it has been quite effective at achieving its stated aims.

[nerka]

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

 

Switzerland, one of the richest countries in the world, has restrictions on agricultural land that make the ALR look like a free for all. So from an economic perspective we should be able to agree that placing high value on preserving farmland does not exclude having a thriving economy 

[VicHockeyFan]

Bottom line:

 

The ALR was implemented to protect BC farmland from being converted to uses that exclude agriculture. It was also built with a safety valve so land could be taken out of the ALR.  In it's 40+ years it has been very effective policy at achieving those aims.

 

If you support the aim of preserving most farmland then you will probably think it is good policy.  If you think that we would be better off freely converting farmland to any other use that landowners desire then you are going to think it is bad policy.

 

It is inarguable that it has been quite effective at achieving its stated aims.

 

AGREED.

[shoeflack]

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

 

You may want to familiarize yourself with the Alberta Land Stewardship Act and the ongoing Land-Use Framework.

 

Certainly not equivalent to ALR, but gives more authority to the province in land use matters.

[VicHockeyFan]

Switzerland, one of the richest countries in the world, has restrictions on agricultural land that make the ALR look like a free for all. So from an economic perspective we should be able to agree that placing high value on preserving farmland does not exclude having a thriving economy 

 

Well, Switzerland has more than double the population of BC, it's 1/20 the size (so it's the size or our entire ALR), and its population density is thus 40x ours.  So it's a very tough comparison, at least compared to me comparing us and Alberta.

[nerka]

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.

 

Nope

 

What I was saying is that the ALR is about conserving farm land, a limited resource. Whether you support that conservation is a value judgement and you could support the ALR for reasons that have zilch to do with food security.

[VicHockeyFan]

...and you could support the ALR for reasons that have zilch to do with food security.

 

Right, and I suppose many do.  People like to see cows in large fields etc.  Heck, I like to see cows in large fields.  Now, I might miss them being right there off the highway in Tswassen, but I'm quite comfortable with those cow fields instead being in Ashcroft or Abbotsford, rather than metro Richmond.

[nerka]

Well, Switzerland has more than double the population of BC, it's 1/20 the size (so it's the size or our entire ALR), and its population density is thus 40x ours.  So it's a very tough comparison, at least compared to me comparing us and Alberta.

Think of it like this. A tiny country like Switzerland can preserve a significant fraction of its land for agricultural without dire impacts on the economy. Why would we expect any dire negative impacts from protecting a modest 5% of our huge province for agriculture?

[Cassidy]

The ALR is about making sure we never have to deal with the concept of not being able to grow food in our own province.

 

Do you honestly believe that, were the United States not able to grow food in geographical locations other than the Great Plains, there wouldn't have been a much more serious consequence as a result of the Dust Bowl and Depression?

 

If each geographical area in (for example) North America maintains their own ability to grow plenty of food, we'll (all of us) be better off by not having all our metaphorical eggs in the same basket should any natural or human disaster befall say - the last geographical location in North America that was growing food to feed us all.

 

In many ways though, this is somewhat of a ridiculous argument - as the ALR is entrenched legislation with a defined purpose, and if you disagree with that purpose it's no different than disagreeing with any law you feel doesn't reflect your own personal views!!

[VicHockeyFan]

Do you honestly believe that, were the United States not able to grow food in geographical locations other than the Great Plains, there wouldn't have been a much more serious consequence as a result of the Dust Bowl and Depression?

 

 

I think that was a different time.  Supply chains and logistics were not like they are now, heck the US did not have an interstate highway network yet.

[VicHockeyFan]

If each geographical area in (for example) North America maintains their own ability to grow plenty of food, we'll (all of us) be better off by not having all our metaphorical eggs in the same basket should any natural or human disaster befall say - the last geographical location in North America that was growing food to feed us all.

 

 

If you believe this, why does that not extend to energy, and oil and gas production and refining, and banking and telecommunications etc.?

 

Why are you comfortable having all of that done so many miles away from us?  If that gets cut off to us, we are in almost as much trouble as if food gets cut.

[VicHockeyFan]

In many ways though, this is somewhat of a ridiculous argument - as the ALR is entrenched legislation with a defined purpose, and if you disagree with that purpose it's no different than disagreeing with any law you feel doesn't reflect your own personal views!!

 

Right, in some ways.  But I'm trying to argue here that the ALR is silly policy.  That it has little sound social or economic basis.  Not just that I'm simply opposed to it.  I'm also trying to say why I am, and why I think others might also be, if they peel back a few layers and investigate it closely.

[Cassidy]

Not sure how an interstate highway or a supply chain would help you if there was nowhere left in North America growing food?

 

At some point, common sense has to be somewhat ubiquitous in that we would all agree that maintaining agricultural diversity throughout North America is a desirable undertaking in order to ensure that we maintain maximum ability to feed ourselves in any natural or human disaster ... or even just in general!

[Cassidy]

If you believe this, why does that not extend to energy, and oil and gas production and refining, and banking and telecommunications etc.?

I guess because human survival begins with food and water - and only if you "survive" do you wind up caring about money, telephones, computers, gas, etc.

 

If you've got no food, you're dead - and your examples above become somewhat moot.

[VicHockeyFan]

...all agree that maintaining agricultural diversity throughout North America is a desirable undertaking in order to ensure that we maintain maximum ability to feed ourselves in any natural or human disaster ... or even just in general!

 

Sure, and we could let the free market do that.  We do not need an ALR to do that.

[VicHockeyFan]

If you've got no food, you're dead - and your examples above become somewhat moot.

 

As I've said here over and over and over, we can all go a few weeks with no food.  More than enough time to get things in order.  But if we have no money (banking system down), no gas for our cars or trucks (bringing the food, to go back) and no way to tell people we are in trouble (no communications), civil order will break down far faster than if we were just short some food.

[Cassidy]

But if we have no place to grow food because everybody got rid of their ALR's (or equivalent), then that two weeks turns into two+ years and now we're all actors in "The Road" and eating each other!

[Mike K.]

During a period of social disorder and food supply shortages there would be a run on farms and anything growing taken. If we ever get to a point where our survival depends on Central Saanich farms ...get as far away from Central Saanich and its food supply as possible.