Government Surplus?

More accurately, surplus government.

Today's Morning Star newspaper's heading "RDNO seeks input on agriculture" was more likely to draw response of  "oh, for heaven's sake" than the regional district's attempt to obtain "input about the future of agriculture."

No matter that the District of Coldstream's agricultural plan (much of it dealing with RU10/RU20 zoning) several years ago drew the ire of many East Coldstream residents as acreages, in one fell swoop, were with the stroke of a pen going to be rezoned to allow subdivision only if minimum sizes of 25 acres and 75 acres existed.  Public hearings, public letters, public meetings...yabba yabba yabba produced a draft agricultural plan that covered five or six links and massive tomes on the DoC website.

That draft agricultural plan, by the way, is nowhere to be found on the District of Coldstream's new website...no links, nothing.  Not even if you search "agricultural plan".  It's simply gone.

But no matter.
That's about what it was worth anyway, say many landowners in East Coldstream.

So now the regional district wants public input on THEIR agricultural plan...no matter that they're located 5 minutes away from the District of Coldstream municipal hall (and physical proximity / similar soils / similar crops would typically lead one to believe that similar viewpoints might be held...ahem!)

But, no, they're doing their own bloody ag plan!
Sheesh...here we go again.

Obviously having learned from Coldstream, unelected bureaucrats and the unelected regional agricultural advisory committee have already set priorities.
Something called a foregone conclusion, ya think?

They admit they've been at it (Ag Plan was initiated) since 2013 "with input from member municipalities and the regional agricultural advisory committee".

So with that statement, they're admitting they already have public input...because that's what the member communities received from the public.

However, this make work project states:
"Based upon the input received, the draft plan focuses on seven priorities:

1.  Protecting farmland and farmers;
2.  Strengthening the local agricultural economy;
3.  Encouraging sustainable agricultural practices;
4.  Managing clean and accessible water;
5.  Ensuring farmland availability for emerging farmers;
6.  Creating supportive government policies and regulations;
7.  Raising awareness and education."

Here's a public answer to each of those 7 priorities:

1.  Don't you think they're protected enough with basically zero property taxes?
2.  Do bureaucrats really believe the agricultural economy will be strengthened by encouraging more people to farm?  i.e. more competition?  Maybe they missed the class concerning Supply and Demand.
3.  Sustainable practices for farmers?  Their motto is "there's always next year" (refer to 2.)
4.  Farms don't need clean water.  And accessible?  No problem, they pay zilch, subsidized to the rafters by the rest of us.
5.  Refer to 2.  Sure...our kids--having seen us work 14 hour days in the rain--are keen to do it too, for 3 bucks a day on average.
6.  Supportive policies and regs from gov't?  It's either policies or regulations, not both!
7.  Haven't we just about killed the word awareness by now?  People are so aware they can't close their eyes at night to sleep.  People are so aware they're sick of reading the newspaper.  People are so aware they're hiding in their homes.  Go away with the "education" schtick too.  "Inform" people if you will, but don't tell them they're idiots by having to educate them.  You're dealing with adults, for the most part, remember.

"Simply another in a long line of make-work projects to justify their existence," nods Kia.

Ya, if only.... never mind.