The planned Spring 2012 adoption of Coldstream's Agricultural Plan raises questions that need to be asked.
Especially under this Mayor and Council.
The Agricultural Advisory Committee is frequently referred to.
So, who sits on that appointed committee?
Their plan states: voting members providing both agricultural representation (5 – 10 members engaged in farming) and community representation (maximum 2 members of the community who are not actively farming).
Appointed members are: (reps at large): Chris Brown, Paul Christie, Beth Marks (realtor?); (reps farming): Dr. Lois Philp, Albert Gawne, Jamie Kidston, Philip Pretty, Marnie Skobalski. In addition, councillor Maria Besso, one BC Agriculture rep, one rep from Environmental committee, one UBCO rep, one rep from Agri-tourism, one local bureaucrat, (the last three having non-voting seats on the committee).
Right off the bat, it looks like the "maximum 2 members of the community" has been exceeded with the first three listed individuals, compounded by just squeaking in at the "minimum 5 members engaged in farming", despite Jamie Kidston having recently divested himself of his orchard.
People this blog author has spoken to have said: "Why own land at all, if Council comes along and arbitrarily increases the minimum parcel size as it relates to subdivision, and not only on Agricultural Land Reserve (protected for agriculture) land by rezoning?"
Why indeed!
A landowner's primary goal was likely a family's one--or two--generation investment plan, and included sharing the land among their children.
Home is no longer your castle if this Council has their way.
And there's more.
According to the Ag Plan, "Council’s objective(s) ... to preserve the rural and agricultural character of Coldstream to the greatest extent possible, and, retain the viability of agricultural uses and agricultural land."
...to the greatest extent possible?
a dangerous phrase to put before this Mayor and Council.
They'll begin to believe that Coldstream is Carrot Valley in California!
Let's consider what the committee set as their short-term goals:
- providing orchards with a cost effective way to annually dispose of tree pruning material that minimizes open-air burning ... potential options, including rental or purchase of a chipper that would be available to farmers at reduced rates.
- opportunities for community dialogue on ways to enhance and preserve local agriculture. The hosting of community workshops or think tank sessions, for example, may help to connect growers of local vegetables with potential local processors and sales opportunities (e.g. Friesen’s Restaurant and Market or the Farmers Market). Community input could also be obtained on opportunities for future farm related uses for the old Fire Hall (e.g. farmers market and/or community kitchen or processing facility).
- the establishment of a community trail association that would work to support new partnerships for trail expansion on private and public lands that minimize impacts on agriculture. Preferably, trail network development should compliment agricultural activities (e.g. walking trails integrated with winery tours).
- develop strategies to recruit experienced producers to the area to locate and operate in Coldstream.
- ... provide leadership in the organization of events that will promote agriculture and agricultural history (e.g. Coldstream Days, Agriculture Week, Farm Success Awards, Farm Tours).
- Work with the School District, Okanagan College and UBC Okanagan to explore strategies to improve local education and awareness of agriculture and food systems.
- Work with local government and provincial agencies to advocate for a local abattoir (a delicate word for slaughterhouse).
- Review zoning regulations for agricultural setbacks. As part of the plan process it has been noted that the current regulations are targeted to more intensive agricultural opportunities and could be adapted for “lighter” agricultural operation such as small hobby farms that are compatible with neighbouring agricultural uses.
- Provincial legislation tightly governs land use within provincial parks; however, it is possible that grazing can benefit the forest ecosystem by reducing the accumulation of vegetation that is susceptible to wildfires. Discussions with BC Parks are encouraged to explore opportunities within the Park legislation. Kalamalka Park is also a focal point for local recreation activities as most adjacent lands are privately owned or leased and unavailable for public use. There may be opportunities for BC Parks to partner with surrounding property owners regarding the management of public access to trails on lands
outside the park.
- Respond to referrals on water servicing issues as they relate to agriculture.
- Maintain relations with urban residents, promoting both sides as “good neighbours”.
- Promoting programs that support urban agricultural strategies such as: community gardens, urban hen policies and edible landscapes.
- Assist with the development of an inventory of municipal lands with the objective of identifying potential sites for either urban agriculture (e.g.community gardens) or vacant land that may be available for agricultural leases.
A revealing quote was attributed to Councillor Maria Besso in The Morning Star on May 30th, 2012: "If taxpayers want me to make informed decisions, they should be happy I am there (at committee meetings)."
"Happy she's there?" intones Kia incredulously, adding "to make INFORMED decisions?"
If the Ag Plan is proof of Councillor Besso's informed decision-making, heaven help us all.
Coldstream acreage owners now prefer someone uninformed, who evidences an ability to learn.
It's obviously too late for that.
Not to belabor a point but trail networks on private land (to watch people work their farms or cut their lawns?) reinforces the fact that the Paterson's building permit fiasco was not a one-time event. Perhaps it was the gold standard for this council to try to extort private land on the back of a building permit. Imagine where the "private land as public path" on a permit would go if it hadn't been so publicly exposed? So there is no confusion, it is not legal to take land from people. It is also considered passive trespass (the police term, because I called and asked) to stare at people and encroach on them in this way on their property. In some circles this is considered harassment. I hazard a guess the next "path" (how quaint, a 13 foot swath of asphalt) is planned unbeknownst to you, in your yard as well as mine. How does this group of people decide that they can take private land? Where's the mechanism? Well, creating bylaws I guess - ones that don't fully explain how they are going to accomplish this lofty goal. I don't see it in the Constitution which incidentally was "developed" (my favourite word) to stop governments from abusing their power. Maybe Mr. Enn's comment at the Agricultural Open House this year, "you don't own land in Coldstream, council owns all the land in Coldstream" sums it up. This group of previously private citizens believe they own your land. Sign me up for Council! I can increase my holdings!!! And, if this is true, then pony up a path for me on your land Mr. Enns. I want to see you farm. And, Mr. Garlick, you should be the first to donate to show leadership. Its this attitude of entitlement that connects everything council does. Land, chickens, garages, the works. (What is the deal with the chickens? Vancouver has allowed for chickens in the city for years!! On a city lot no less. It isn't new, it isn't uniquely "agricultural." Imagine, a bunch of city folks down there who previously had never had chickens have figured it out! I'm pretty sure that Vancouver didn't get a think tank of agricultural specialists to strike a meeting and strategically plan. It appears, sad to say, that the electorate is here to serve the wants and wishes of the council versus the other way around, and some of the decisions made by this council show they are not fully informed, but have an abundance of nerve. Thanks for publishing this, Coldstream Corner, because people would not know otherwise. Unless, like me they spent almost a year attending council meetings.
ReplyDeleteBlog Author: The only thing I don't agree with you, Judy, is your phrase: "a think tank of agricultural specialists". That's downright ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteThese people are NOT agricultural specialists. I've FORGOTTEN more about farming than this mayor, councillors, and ag committee members have learned about farming.
Unlike most of them, I have intensively farmed! 1,100 McIntosh and Spartan apple trees were planted by husband and myself in the early 1980's on this land. We refused to join the BC Tree Fruits association because--like government--their administration was top-heavy and wasted money. Seldom was there decent money left to pay farmers. We started a packing house with packing equipment (bin dump, washer, waxer, dryer, sorting table equipment came from Ontario), and we even bought fruit from other independent local orchardists who also were sick of the local BC Tree Fruits scam of not paying orchardists what their crops were worth. We were Federally inspected, and twice a week shipped 4,000 twelve-pound boxes (with our Mac-Mitchell logo) via H&R semi-trailers to wholesale customers as far east as Saskatchewan. Packing line culls went straight into our commercial juicing operation, which was refrigerated in stainless steel tanks. We sold apple juice, measured by computer into 4-litre containers, to local customers at our farm gate. We even did custom juicing two days a week of people's apples.
Why did we quit farming after 14+ years and chainsaw all the trees?
For almost the same reason as current "farm rezoning" issues...there were things we simply could not control that were affecting our business. What were they?
1. we heard from a large wholesale customer in the Prairies that BC Tree Fruits had basically threatened wholesale customers...something to the effect of "if you want apples from BC Tree Fruits (CO2-stored) in, say, February or May next year, you'd better buy from BC Tree Fruits in September and October too (the two months our independent packing house operated).
2. a nice East Indian family who pruned trees and picked fruit for us for several years became the second reason we were quitting...How so? Well, at one year end, I was handed a note on which four or five names, complete with social insurance numbers, and total earnings were scrawled. When I asked who the "extra" people were, I was told "the total earnings are correct, just make T-4s out from this list". Huh? There were only a few names I recognized, so this was obviously a scam probably to gain unemployment insurance for the participants. But if I didn't comply, there'd be no-one to prune 1,100 trees next winter, nor pick 400,000 pounds of apples. So I issued the T-4s according to the information on the scrawled note.
Then I bought my husband a chainsaw and suggested he start cutting the 1,100 trees down...all of them, which he did. We sold the packing house equipment and the forklift, etc.
A couple of years later, I made a presentation in Vernon to the provincial Agricultural steering committee that were touring the province. I forget who the minister was then...but I waited for everyone else to speak and then, at last call, I stood up and began my presentation with the comment: "We've just cut down 1,100 apple trees in Coldstream and I'll tell you why..." and I proceeded to tell them the above two reasons.
The steering committee chair took me aside afterwards and asked if I would come to Penticton on Friday night and make the same presentation. Since the presentations had been recorded--and would form a permanent record in Hansard--I declined.
Killing my farm operation (approx. 1995-1997) was really the only power I felt remained in my hands.
Fast forward to 2012...acreage owners in Coldstream have stated virtually the same thing with this Mayor and Council's rezoning of Coldstream acreages.
For anyone interested in the legality of "using" or "taking" private land, take a look at the CHBC News website from last night's (June 5th, 2012) regarding the public use of a private road by UBC Okanagan. The residents of Curtis Road took UBCO to court because the road is private and belongs to the residents, UBCO only has an easement. The judge agreed as per the following quote from CHBC News: The Easement grants only a private right of way, and the respondent (UBCO) has no right thereunder to hold out to any person that the right of way is other than a private right of way on private land nor to allow any person to use the right of way in a manner inconsistent with the private right of way,” the court ruling said.
ReplyDeleteRead it on Global News: CHBC Okanagan | Court rules road to UBC-O is private
This should remind local governments and all of us that there is still such a thing as private land ownership and the public does not have an entitlement to use private land.
Kia....In reference to the college lands adjacent to the highway being poisoned by "years of leaded gas emissions settling on the land"........what does that say for all of the existing agriculture by highways throughout the province? Am I to now ask at what distance my fruit or vegetables were grown from the highway and the prevailing wind direction? I think you are stretching your criticisms to the ridiculous!
ReplyDeleteActually, Kia has a point. The leaching from concrete and asphalt is a serious business and I've been told never to plant food near driveways, sidewalks and roads because of it. Ridiculous, not really. It would be nice if it was.
ReplyDelete