Coldstream Farmers' Concerns of 2011 Ignored in 2012

Roxanne Ronan's overview of the shortcomings of Coldstream's new Agriculture Plan:

"I have read the Agricultural Plan and proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendment No. 1597, 2011 in great detail.  I stand unabashedly opposed to almost every aspect of this plan.  I find the information provided to Coldstream residents by the Coldstream Ratepayers Association to be a grossly oversimplified explanation of what is a very complex topic.  It is unfortunate that this association has the ability to draw the inference that somehow you are not pro agriculture if you are against this OCP.  I am frustrated that there appears to be no forum for a rational debate on the long term implications of Zoning Bylaw Amendment No. 1597, 2011, or the fact that this Agricultural Plan flies in the face of current world environmental guidelines for the preservation of sustainable agriculture.

My views on the New Rural Ten (RU.10) Zone are as follows:

a)  In Coldstream it appears that the larger the farm parcel the more likely it is that the parcel is in forage crop (if it is farmed at all).  From a water conservation point of view, forage crop is among the most water intensive crops farmed in the Okanagan.  Irrigation of forage crops results in a large percentage of water loss due to evaporation, wind drift, leaks in pipe, and improper rotation of irrigation equipment.  Forage crops are extremely reliant on chemical fertilizers and are extremely labour intensive to farm organically.

b)  Drip irrigation systems are ideally suited to the Okanagan climate and function optimally on parcel sizes of one to 5 acres.  Limiting the creation of smaller parcels,  which will grow less water intensive crops,  will result inevitably in the restriction of agricultural water to all users or the cost of that water to increase to the point where crops cannot be profitable.  If the climate keeps getting drier and the population base keeps increasing you simply cannot keep irrigating forage crops using conventional irrigation methods – we will run out of water.

The David Suzuki Foundation has promoted research by Chappell and Lavalle which showed that “ small farms using alternative agricultural techniques may be two to four times more energy efficient than large conventional farms." Perhaps most interesting is that they also found studies demonstrating "that small farms almost always produce higher output levels per unit area than larger farms." Volumes of research clearly show that small-scale farming, especially using "organic" methods, is much better in terms of environmental and biodiversity impact.”  I take exception to the idea that somehow small plot farming degrades sustainability.  Sustainable agriculture rests only on a willingness to cultivate.  Large lot size has no influence on this – or can be a detriment as it is much harder to farm organically.  Even when farmed non-organically, large parcels present problems in terms of finding labour.  Owner / operators can often farm small parcels themselves.  It is almost impossible to find local labour willing to work agricultural jobs for minimum wage, leading to the importing of migrant farm workers and all of the attendant social problems that entails.

I read the Western Producer whenever I can.  The National Farmers Union of Ontario has this to say about the rising price of farmland – “

A global land-grab is underway, one in which farmland in an

increasing number of countries is rapidly passing out of the hands of local farmers and into the hands of distant elites... In coming decades, if Canadian (and global) farmland is allocated on the basis of “ability to pay,” it will

not be allocated to local farm families.”  Increasing the parcel size of ALR land puts the price of that land far above what the average Canadian can pay.  Hence my reference in my email – “This OCP makes it harder for the smaller farmer to find ALR to farm.  It does not protect farm land – just the opposite.  It just provides the wealthy a chance for estate homes.”.  Coldstream should strive to be “Rural Living at its Best” for all – not just the 1% that will soon be the only ones able to afford to live here.

In response to the new Rural Thirty (RU.30) Zone – I believe that sustainable agriculture is only achievable if the more productive farmland pieces are left for agricultural use, and human habitation is on the rocky sloped areas of the valley unsuitable for farming.  From China Today March 30, 2012 -  “In order to protect both local economic development and the country's shrinking farmland, Yunnan moved industrial construction and fast urbanization to the barren mountains, then governor and now the newly elected Party chief of Yunnan province, Qin Guangrong said. "It is the trend that construction for economic development is being moved to the hills while good arable land is being preserved to be used by the next generations,"  Seriously – how bad is it that China has a better grasp of environmental policy than we do?

I have read Maria Besso’s email of March 29, 2012.  While I have no doubt that this lady is passionate about this OCP, the reality is that she appears to have not done much research on small plot agriculture.  It is also clear that she does not live next to a large scale agricultural operation.  I live on Buchanan Road – next to the large orchard and down from the gravel pit.  I should invite her for coffee sometime during cherry season when the cannons are going off every seven seconds.  Maybe if we’re lucky, a good breeze will be blowing and she can see what the Dustbowl Years really looked like. Logically, her arguments fail in the following ways:

a)  Market forces determine the optimal utilization of all economic resources.  If 77.6% of all ALR land in Coldstream is four hectares or less, this is because the residents of Coldstream have determined that these are the parcels they wish to purchase and this is the way they want to live.  The ALC obviously concurred, as otherwise many of these parcels would not exist.  The 184 owners of parcels in excess of four hectares should not have to bear the economic burden of providing pastoral views, while the majority of landowners sit on their already subdivided lots. 

b) If, as Ms. Besso states, the ALC for all practical purposes does not approve any subdivision, then Bylaw Amendment 1597, 2011 is a superfluous piece of unneeded legislation.  The ALC is funded by taxpayer dollars.  It appears to be doing the job for which it was created.  Why does this council believe it requires an additional layer of bureaucracy to enforce a provincially mandated policy which is seemingly already adequately enforced ?

c)  Ms. Besso never once explains the advantages of ten hectare parcels over two hectare parcels from an agricultural point of view.  This appears to be the heart of the matter.  Without this information, the whole exercise is moot. 

There are so many innovative ways to approach this problem.  I know you are on council – have your colleagues review some of the planning decisions from Monterey County or South Livermore Valley California for example.  In South Livermore valley for every acre and housing unit developed within a specific urban area, one acre of farm or ranch land in a designated rural area must be preserved under conservation easements and be planted in wine grapes, both at developer expense.  That’s pretty amazing.  If you are going to go totalitarian – try that.  This OCP will affect residents of Coldstream for years to come.  I would appreciate some intelligent debate prior to the third reading – we are a democracy after all.

Hopefully this gives you an idea of why I responded to the Coldstream Ratepayers Association mail out.

Roxanne Ronan"

"Are we a democracy?" asks Kia, or is that past tense?"

If you're a Coldstream acreage owner, you may doubt that we are a democracy.

Details on Coldstream Council's changes to the 2009 Agricultural Plan are here:  http://www.districtofcoldstream.ca/notices/120314_agricultural_plan.php

Thank you for your thoughtful letter, Roxanne!  

Coldstream's Mayor and Council Should Be Ashamed

Printing here what I wasn't allowed to continue saying at the Council meeting tonight:

"I wish to say how disappointed I am with this Mayor and most of Council, and how you're handling things in Coldstream.

Residents are routinely over-governed, perhaps for no other reason than to hide the fact they're being under-served.

As to which item on the Agenda I'm speaking to, it could be said all of it.

With few exceptions, you are proving that you are your own little special interest group, having begun as opposition to Coldstream Meadows years ago.

To state that the "wealthy must give back" (and yes, that was said, and no, I'm not wealthy), is the Occupy Movement alive and well and entrenched in Coldstream's own government.   It's your job to serve everyone, yet you serve only the minority that helps further your own agenda, which is narrow-minded at best.

You've bought into NIMBYism with RU 10 and RU 30, and locked the gate to Coldstream.

We have six months of winter, yet you appear to believe our Valley will one day feed the world.

Maybe you're hoping for rice paddies to start up.

Under the guise of "supporting agriculture", it took you two meetings to figure out that one farm sign might not be enough for hard-to-find farm gates.

So now there's a bylaw allowing three farm signs.

Do you people even live in the real world? 

You're the masters of paperwork, with myriad ridiculous bylaws that prove you've spent too much money and you're broke.

Bylaw 1535 the Subdivision and Servicing Bylaw is proof of that, sending renovations underground or to a complete standstill.

Now you're wondering where to get the funds to annually maintain the new park's wetlands walkway.

Wait until Selkirk residents find out they cannot take their kids and dogs to the new park but they have to contribute via taxes to its maintenance.

Yet another example of a bylaw that isn't worth the paper it's written on is the Noise Bylaw, which rears its ugly head tonight.

Despite having one -- and formerly two -- lawyers on Council, didn't any of you even get an inkling how utterly subjective your noise bylaw is?

And subjective means unquantifiable, with loose terms such as "tends to disturb".

Your noise bylaw is not legal without decibel parameters that can be read by a decibel reader, which you also don't have.

And Imagine including "movement" in a noise bylaw!

So if you get a complaint that a resident was startled by, say, the movement caused by a field trip of students past his windows, the Bylaw officer is going to be sent out to investigate that?  Maybe levy a fine?  Ridiculous!  Yet that's what subjective bylaws create.   Nonsense.

I'm all for the Lavington festival in August.

But you've stated that they are to have amplifiers facing East, so that music travels AWAY from residents' homes.

This...with a physics teacher as mayor!  Does anybody on Council even understand Physics?  Apparently not."

At this point, Councillor Kiss stated "that's the 2 minutes," and Acting Mayor Maria Besso agreed.

 I asked why--at the meeting two weeks ago--we were told it was "Council's meeting", and not ours, and we couldn't speak further.  So we're not allowed to speak tonight either.  Doubt the newpaper will print this--they tend to shy away from the really controversial stuff--but here's the rest of it that Council, and standing room only crowd didn't hear. So here`s the rest of it:

``And your FS states the District is now starting a Drainage reserve...how on earth did the community previously ever run without you?  Well, it did run, and it ran well, all without the senior government draft bylaws that originate at annual UBCM meetings.  The biggest drainage failure is your own pet project, the new multi-use path, engineered by highly-paid consultants, and approved by your own engineer.    It failed!  And despite what Councillor Besso was quoted as saying, the event was NOT TWO IN 100year rainfall events.  That's still ahead.  For this council to state that the multi-use path is the panacea to greenhouse gases and diabetes is abject nonsense, as I doubt a sixty year old will return from shopping 7 kms away, holding a shopping bag under each handlebar.    

It dead-ends at a park, where tourists could be expected to spend money, yet this Council wouldn't allow so much as a popcorn stand there.  Like the fellow you turned down who wanted to set up a stand to sell sunglasses at the beach.

This Council wants Coldstream to be the "poster child" -- to use the Mayor's own phrase -- at annual UBCM meetings in Vancouver.

Coldstream must be the laughing stock of those meetings, as those senior bureaucrats KNOW Coldstream's tax base isn't diverse enough to support this council's plans.  And grants won't do it all, as Council has discovered.  But you'll just raise taxes, 6% this year, and who knows how much next year?  This when communities all around you are really trying to hold the line on their increases.  It's downright shameful.

Your Town Centre plans are ridiculous at best, and nobody will fund it, certainly not taxpayers.

Nor will retailers, knowing that demographics determine the viability of business locations.  Yet this Council is completely unfazed by the fact that Polson Shops remain half empty now one year later.   

Your Firearms bylaw (in its yellow zone) allows the discharge of firearms east and west of a bona fide C-5 commercial recreation facility, where customers are, naturally, outside.   Sigh.

Although there's a slight improvement, this Council's ADOPTED minutes gloss over and sanitize comments from delegations, presumably so that the historical record will show there was little or no dissention.

But you'll just blame the recording secretary for missing some things, yet it was Council who adopted the minutes, each of you knowing full well what was really said.

This Council completely ignores worthwhile projects.  You could work on a plan to protect the area's drinking water supply from contamination in the hills above Coldstream Valley, and the Ministry of Environment could help you achieve that.  Yet neither this Council nor the MoE are recommending that the water authority should own--or at the very least--be the primary stakeholder on that land.  But this Council probably doesn't even know that Capilano's drainage (Vancouver's water supply area--is owned by Vancouver, and fenced).   You're entirely silent on the subject.

While I have little accounting training, your Financial Statement has a category for "Cash Received From" called "Other" to the tune of $1.7 million in 2011, versus 2010's $2.2 million.   "Other" is kind of like "miscellaneous", a pretty big category, and yet you state you're being transparent.  Sounds like an auditor general is definitely needed for this council's creative accounting.  Presumably, Coldstream is allowed to borrow up to $90 million, to use Councillor Kiss' quote, but if Council did get that much farther in debt than you already are, residents would ride this council out of town on a rail. 

Your own employees know how disgracefully you've dealt with residents...they know what has been said during closed door meetings with certain residents. 

This Council has unfunded defined benefit pensions for its staff, who's going to pay for that?  And when?

You refuse to even consider that soil remediation at the old Mechanics' shop, adjacent to a creek, will create the need for a fund.  Or is that the $358,000 earmarked for "site improvements" there? 

This Council will simply dig deeper into our pockets when soil remediation is necessary. 

You're borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, and yet no bells appear to ring in the collective Council head.

Council is wearing out the word "sustainable", yet your spending habits are anything but.

And because of this Mayor's and Council's lack of ability to govern effectively and serve the ENTIRE population, nulli secondus "second to none", should be changed to Primum non nocere.  First, do no harm.

You need to be reminded that despite your obvious aversion to capitalism, the District of Coldstream is a business entity itself.  It's time this Mayor and Council acted more responsibly than what's been seen so far in this term as well as the previous.

Otherwise you're merely proving that common sense isn't that common any more.``

"They wouldn't let you finish speaking?" gasps Kia "they're in big trouble."

 And if this Council only knew how many in the audience agree with the above, they wouldn`t have been so arrogant, but that`s nothing new for this bunch.