Besso Proves the ALC Doesn't Need Help

Coldstream Councillor Maria Besso--in an email to the Coldstream Ratepayers' Association (which was formed in opposition to the development of Coldstream Meadows' retirement community by Jack Borden)--made an urgent plea for the group's support during the last day that Comments were allowed for the new Coldstream Agricultural Plan.

Members of Council noticeably bristled when I referred to the group's origins during my comments Monday night.  
And rightly so...because the CRA (not to be confused with the Canada Revenue Agency, although through this Council's recent bylaws, money-grubbing parallels do exist) is alive and well on Coldstream Council, and continues to work behind Coldstream's supposedly open political scene.

Apart from being proof that the Ag Open House may merely have been a required formality to be transparent--and acreage owners' comments were likely to be relegated to the "we knew you'd say that" bin--perhaps Councillor Besso is helping the Occupy Movement maintain a foothold in Coldstream.  Yes, they also bristled at my comment of that.
 

But it is obvious that even after the Open House and evident opposition to the proposed changes in the Agricultural Plan that some members of Council continue to ignore what the farming community is saying.  The statistics are a fair assessment, but Councillor Besso's interpretation and application of these facts goes against what the farming community is saying.  It's not what the farming community has asked for.  Her statement proves there is no need to change the parcel size to a minimum of 25 acres as the Agricultural Land Commission--with very few exceptions--have not allowed any subdivisions within the ALR.

Decide for yourself from these forwarded emails:

"From: Maria Besso [mailto:mariabesso@shaw.ca]
Sent: March-29-12 12:36 AM
To: Coldstreamer
Cc: Doug Dirk; Jim Garlick; Pat Cochrane; Peter McClean; Richard Enns; Mike Stamhuis; Keri-Ann Austin; Michelle Austin; Craig Broderick
Subject: Re: Urgent message to CRA members

Perhaps it would be useful to inform the readers that  the ALR land in Coldstream is already very heavily parcelized.  

57 % of Coldstream's land base is within the ALR. The total land base in Coldstream is 6,429 ha.

According to Map 2.1 of the July 2009 Coldstream Agricultural Plan, there are 824 parcels in Coldstream that are all or partially in the ALR, of those 824 parcels, 640 of them are already less than 4 hectares ( ie 77.6 % of the parcels are NOT sub dividable because they are already under 4ha.) 

* note that under the present RU-2, it would imply that the minimum parcel size you could subdivide to would be 2 hectares, since you could not subdivide anything smaller than 4hectares to arrive at parcels 2 ha or bigger, then all the parcels that are already less than 4 ha are non-subdividable (unless they are excluded from the ALR, or qualify for a homesite severance.) 

The reality of owning property in the ALR ( regardless of the implied zoning under the Official Community Plan OCP)  is that all subdivision must be approved by the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) .  In the last 10 years in Coldstream there have been 17 applications for subdivision in the ALR ( apart from ALR exclusions or non-farm use, or Homesite severances ) of these 17 applications to subdivide - all were refused by the ALC.  So wether(sic) you designate your minimum lot size as 2 ha or 10 ha, if your land is in the ALR, the ALC, for all practical purposes, does NOT approve ANY subdivision. 

So designating all the ALR land in Coldstream as RU-10 changes nothing for 77.6% of the parcels. Wether(sic) they are called RU-2 or RU-10,  they remain the same size that they are, and they are clearly not able to be subdivided.  The perceived change comes for the owners of the remaining 184 parcels (22.33% of the parcels), these parcels are over 4ha.  

We have already established that the ALC practice is NOT to approve subdivision in the ALR regardless of the minimum parcel size stipulated in a Community's OCP.

So in changing the zoning to RU-10 in our OCP we are simply bringing the Community zoning in line with the reality of the rules of the ALC, and the desire to maintain land in the ALR in the Province of British Columbia, rather than see it cut up into smaller and smaller chunks.  In Coldstream there are only 32 parcels totally or partially in the ALR that are larger than 20 ha., so theoretically they may still be sub-dividable into minimum 10 ha. parcels but that is unlikely because it would also require ALC approval.  That portion only represents 3.9% of the ALR parcels in Coldstream and the Agricultural Advisory Committee felt that there would not be significantly higher advantage to increase the minimum lot size to 30hectares ( as recommended by the MInistry of Agriculture) because it would be perceived as too harsh. So therefore the 10 ha minimum parcel size is a compromise, but it does not change the reality of ALC policy and historical decisions. 

The sad reality is that Coldstream's ALR has already been subdivided into small chunks, it just may not appear that way because many of those smaller chunks may be farmed together as one larger entity. For example; the Coldstream Ranch is made up of 129 parcels, and 47% of these parcels ( 61) are already subdivided into chunks that are less than 4hectares in size.

We have just witnessed the sale of Jamie Kidston's orchard, it had appeared to everyone as one farm, but it was actually made up of 4parcels ( that were subdivided long ago), three were sold off to separate owners, and they risk becoming Country Estates. Fortunately, for now, the new owners have agreed to keep farming the land as one orchard and pool their resources, hopefully this will set a good example and keep farming viable for those owners. 

Gyula please feel free to post this as I hope it will serve to better explain the reasoning behind the changes to zoning proposed in the new Coldstream Agricultural Plan.

Thanks, 

Maria Besso"

and...

"From: Roxanne Ronan

Date: 28/03/2012 3:49:34 PM

To: coldstreamer

Subject: Re: Urgent message to CRA members

This is a misrepresentation.  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.  Please try to present a more unbiased way of soliciting support.  The 99% will thank you."

and...

"From: coldstreamer

Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 2:47 PM

To: coldstreamer

Subject: Urgent message to CRA members

Hi Urgent Message To the CRA membership: If you are in support of Coldstream Council's Zoning Bylaw Amendment (to preserve ALR land) which specifies that future subdivision of ALR land be limited to a minimum parcel size of 10 hectares, please go to Municipal Hall and fill out the appropriate form, or go to Coldstream's Website: http://www.districtofcoldstream.ca/notices/comment_sheet.php And fill out the form online and email it back to Council.  The deadline for doing this is today (Mar. 28). Since this is such short notice, please respond at least by supporting the item entitled New Rural 10 (RU.10) Zone – lot area 2ha to 10ha, as it sends the message that you support this council in its endeavours to honour the OCP and protect and preserve our agricultural lands. Thank you for your support. Steve Heeren, Acting President, Coldstream Ratepayers Association" (Steve Heeren was the moderator at the All Candidates' Meetings during November's civic elections in Coldstream). Honouring the OCP?  You mean the Official Community Plan that this Mayor and Council have changed to support the Agricultural parcel changes?  Yup, that one. "The World According To Besso," offers Kia. Or at least, Coldstream According to Besso.

Math vs. District of Coldstream

Michael Tindall's excellent letter to the editor, published today in the Morning Star.


"So, there's a deficit in Coldstream of $284,000 due to decreased revenues and increased expenses.
The district is floating a 6.59 per cent tax hike to remedy the situation.


But wait a minute, light industrial development on the old glass plant site would increase tax revenues nicely yet the district leaves it empty.


As for expenses, let's remember the district 'oversight' regarding HST on the grid road ($151,310 deficit), the 'shortfall' regarding Park Lane paving ($39,096 deficit), the 'unexpected challenges' on Kidston Road ($37,739 deficit), the 'additional asphalt shortfall' on Kalamalka Road ($14,173), and the 'unexpected flagging charges' for the Kalamalka Road beach ramp ($10,316).


Add them up and these oversights account for $252,634,  or  89 per cent of the projected deficit.


A thinking person might deduce that Coldstream taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill not so much for increased costs or reduced revenues.


Hopefully other Coldstream residents do the math and make their views known to Council.
Michael Tindall".


Michael's letter is timely indeed, considering Monday night's Council meeting had in attendance the BDO Auditor, who affirmed the district's Financial Statement for the year ended December 31, 2011.  

"In our opinion, these financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the District of Coldstream as at December 31, 2011 and the results of its operations and cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards,"  states BDO.

Good though, that BDO's post-audit letter includes the phrase "...but not for the purposes of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control."

Phew...that let's BDO off the hook.
So that leaves only the District of Coldstream playing the smoke-n-mirrors game.


"I like games," offers Kia.

Coldstream's residents are certainly getting used to games from this Mayor and Council.

But Math always wins...it's just a matter of time.

Ken Dahlen's presentation to Coldstream Council March 26/12

Ken Dahlen's comments:

"Topic:  Coldstream Subdivision and Development Bylaw

 

As you are all aware I have attended several council meetings in regards to this bylaw: To date I have not heard any public support to this change you are about to vote on tonight.

I would like to be clear once again on my concerns:

1. Standard building permits were never to have the subdivision and development bylaw applied to them.

2. The approving officer does not have the right to ask or demand road upgrades, gifting, drainage upgrades as a condition of a standard building permit that meets all regulations.

3. You now say you can change the bylaws on our land we own without our consent! You also say you can charge what ever you want for these new regulations again without our consent.

4. Please let me ask this question: If I wanted to change the rules on my bylaws that apply to my property how would this work? I know I would have to make an application to The District of Coldstream, then post a sign on my property and inform all affected property owners in my area. But you don't have to do this? This is not right. So do we have two sets or rules? This is not fair!

5. You have now identified 15 different roads that will now be subject to a drainage charge when a building permit is applied too. So how do people know or do they just find out when they come for a building permit? Should they not be now called (R-1a) because they are special?

6. I find this very offensive that you feel you can change the rules on land we own without our consent! This is not the Canada I know and love.

7. So in the end lets just take the pig out of the dress and call it what it really is! You need money and you need new tax revenue. This should not be placed on the backs of 15 roads in our community. This is a community issue and should be identified on a OCP and budgeted for appropriately. Possibly we can only do 5 road repairs a year but let's have a plan and do this right. This way it is open, transparent and honest! The roads, drainage, curbs and gutters are to be maintained by the District's annual budgets on a on-going basis.

8. I am not sure you are aware that in Friday's paper Vernon has now dropped from 20th in Canada to 175th and major issues identified are affordable housing, lack of jobs, and low household incomes. I am only one company and I have informed you in the past I have lost well over a million dollars of work that has been frustrated at the Building permit stage by excessive demands! I am only one company and the loss of these jobs would employ several people and increase our tax base

9. I would ask this council to be aware they need to help the community and support it, versus  making new bylaws or laws that get in the way. The only Answer I have to date is for some reason you have a plan to run us over a cliff.

10. In closing I want to be clear that you have said to the tax payers the following:

You can change bylaws without our approval

You can charge what you want for the new drainage fee and change the price at any time without the taxpayer's approval.

I also assume you can add to this list and change this from drainage to bike paths, or curb and gutter again without our approval.

So in the end you own the land and we don't!

Sorry to say we own the land and we are Coldstream, you were voted in, but not to take our rights away and treat us like mushrooms.

Last meeting in Lavinton you only had time to listen to 5 or 6 people, and you cut off anyone else that wanted to express concern on this bylaw. If you are not going to allow more people to speak please look at the crowd and understand clearly we do not want any new bylaw that will add cost to a standard building permit! 

No to the Bylaw."

"...and Council voted YES to the Bylaw," offers Kia.

Yes.

Unanimous.

 

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.

Kiss Drops Water Bombshell

Last night's Committee-of-the-Whole meeting at Coldstream municipal hall started innocuously enough, but ended with a bang.

First, the stuff that was on the agenda:

Wetland Walkway Project
Trina Koch of Society for the Protection of Kalamalka Lake (SPrKL)--who last year received an award for her group's work on Coldstream Creek--explained the two phases of wetland protection for the District's newest (almost owned) Park west of the Regional District building between Selkirk Drive and Highway 6.

Trintec's (adjacent mall) development permit stipulated an environmental impact assessment of the wetland and, as Trina advised, a (one) Great Basin Spadefoot toad was present (not clear whether he was seen, or merely heard), triggering a requirement for wetland compensation by the Trintec developer. 

Phase I sees $6,425 in funding from TD Friends of the Environment, and provides planning, Ministry of Environment permits and volunteer work for weeding of Canadian Thistle and Common Burdoch (arriving on disturbed groundwork that resulted from RDNO's two renovations). 

It's Phase II's cost for stringers and walkway for the raised boardwalk--whose $65,000 cost, admits Trina, is double her planned $30,000. that had Council looking back and forth at one another, finally admitting "there's no budget".  Undaunted, Trina stated she had applied for a Gaming Grant last month for which no reply had yet been received, adding that other potential funding sources were Ducks Unlimited, EcoAction, Habitat Conservation, SPrKL ($2,000), and "maybe we can ask Tolko for help with the cedar railings and stringers..." (pilings are metal, and will last longer than wood in the wetland).  Coldstream is requested to "provide an engineered walkway drawing for builders and commit to walkway maintenance".
There's still no budget.

Councillor Besso said she had received requests from Selkirk Drive residents for picnic tables to be added to the area for family use.  Trina replied that while the wetland's signage and boardwalk features promote wetland education, a fence would then need to be installed as family activities (kids, dogs) would impact the pond's sandy beach perimeters.

Poor spadefoot toad...if the lone resident isn't impaled by the pounding of metal pilings, he'll surely pack up and head off for the culvert under Highway 6 for protection from Selkirk's kids and dogs.  The Ministry of Environment's efforts would be better utilized preventing recurring contamination of the area's drinking water around the Duteau Creek reservoir.  Must be too big a job for the MoE, because they're noticeably absent at the Duteau watershed.

Public Information Session on Ag Amendments to Zoning Bylaw  
Council--including three members of the public--were interested in comments that arose from Wednesday's open house on RU10 and RU30 zoning, forced on acreage owners valley-wide by Council.  Craig Broderick offered it was well attended, with approximately 75 to 100 people showing up throughout the two-hour session.

In the understatement of the new Century, Craig indicated there were concerns about lot sizes changed from existing to RU10 and RU30, homeplate footprint, and how existing properties could add on to their house for pools, garages, etc. without existing properties becoming non-conforming, and rebuilding concerns following a fire, for example, and some written comments had arrived concerning other aspects, including farm workers' housing.  "There were good comments, mostly concerning lot sizes and farm plate,"  he offered, adding  "March 28th is the deadline for comments, with 10-12 received Wednesday and six or seven emails since."

Councillor Dirk suggested compiling FAQs (frequently asked questions), so that all questions can be answered, posting on the District's website.  "Examples are what people want," he offered.  Craig stated that a report could be added to the website, but that people generally are making comments versus asking for examples to be provided.  Discussion continued, with Councillor Besso adding:  "They need to know their 8 ha parcel will stay as an 8 ha parcel."  She stated that 77.7% of the parcels in Coldstream in the ALR already are (emphasis Besso's) under 4 ha in size.

So the balance of acreages in Coldstream presumably will be punished.

Leading up to the end-of-meeting bombshell by Councillor Kiss, Mayor Garlick stated some concerns were regarding farm water allocations.  "Yes, you will always have an allocation," he affirmed, but added that all allocations were under question in the future.   Councillor McClean stated "People bought 5 gallons per minute per acre; now we are telling them that's probably only for farms, but they didn't buy it for farm use; more information should be provided." 

Councillor Kiss began (tough to hear him though)..."(there is) recommended meeting agenda (Greater Vernon Advisory Committee) on water rates co-mingling...you will never figure out how much because everyone is going to get treated water...there is going to be continued friction with domestic and ag users...it will upset...until we are totally separated."

Councillor Enns asked if anyone--any delegations--were speaking at the GVAC meeting on Thursday?
Discussion continued around not knowing the financial aspects or what type of plan they are putting forward.  Councillor Kiss affirmed that there is not enough money to create full separation between domestic and farm use, adding:  "Total separation is $50 million or more, in addition to annual costs of about $4 to $5 million at Duteau." 

"Are we going to put extra water into Kal Lake?" Kiss continued: "We have licences available, Coldstream Creek...King...we just have to transfer it.  There has to be some kind of intelligent ... on it.  I am writing an observation on it and I am making my comments on Thursday...they are protecting the plant...$29 million...it will be another $50 million just to bring it up to standards...it would be good to discuss it."  (Ed...the continuing curse of no microphones).

After the $50 million water bombshell, the Log House Vision discussion was anti-climactic, and "a community's gathering place," as Councillor Besso called it, not worthy of mention.  Since acreages -- and acreage owners -- aren't important any more.

"A bombshell?  We should call National Defense," offers Kia.  

National?  They're only good at collecting taxes, not offering help to acreage owners.

Cuba proves Coldstream Council wrong

Call it uncanny.
Or knowledge karma.

It happened two days after the Agricultural Open House in Coldstream at which the new RU10 and RU30 zones were unveiled.

A reprinted article from 2007 in the March/April 2012 issue of "North of 50" appeared on my desk today.
Flying in the face of our community's knee-jerk reaction to an agricultural application--also in 2007 (*more on that later) -- this 5-year old article's revelations equate to an Aha! Moment.

The late Dr. Paul Phillips wrote The Cuban Agricultural Revolution:  The Future of Agriculture?
(his profile:  Paul Phillips (1938-2008) was a long-time faculty member of the University of Manitoba community, a superb teacher, a widely-published researcher and author, a proud union member, an effective labour negotiator and arbitrator, a culture aficionado and opera singer, and a long-time board member of the Winnipeg Folk Festival).  His article is reprinted here:

Agriculture as it is now practised in North America is simply not sustainable.  The rising price of oil and gas means that farmers will not be able to afford to produce food at prices that consumers can afford to pay.  In the US, 85% of all water is absorbed by agriculture and many river systems are virtually running dry.

The most immediate threat to our food supply is the rising cost and increasingly insecure supply of oil and gas.  Industrial agriculture requires ten calories of fuel for every one calorie of food produced, not including the energy used in processing, packaging and shipping the final product.  In North America we currently consume 40% more energy than we receive from the sun, the only ultimate source of sustainable energy.  Most of that 40% comes from fossil fuels.  If the world's population is to be fed using only the sustainable part of solar energy, we can only support a fraction of the current population. 

Petroleum is not only the source of fuel for agricultural equipment, tractors, trucks and irrigation systems but also the feedstock for pesticides, herbicides and insecticides, while natural gas is the feedstock for commercial fertilizers.  In North America, industrial agriculture directly consumes over a sixth of all energy consumption.

What happens when we begin to run out of oil or when oil prices rise precipitously as demand rises faster than supply?

We do have an example:  Cuba after the disintegration of the Soviet Union.  Cuba initially adopted the industrial agricultural model:  large scale, mechanized collective farms, mono-cropping emphasizing exports of cash crops, heavy use of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides.  By the late 1980's Cuban agriculture had become highly reliant on Soviet supplies of cheap fuels and petrochemicals, and dependent on exports of cash crops -- sugar, coffee, tobacco and citrus fruits.  By 1989, 55% of food consumed in Cuba and 97% of animal feed grain were Soviet-subsidized imports.

By the 1980s Cuba had more tractors per hectare than California, increasing its dependence on cheap Soviet oil.  This was unsustainable with the fall of the Soviet Union.  Cuba's GDP fell 85% and food supplies collapsed.  The average Cuban lost 20 pounds, and malnutrition, especially among children, became prevalent.  Food consumption went from 3000 calories per day to 1900, the equivalent of skipping one meal.

"...50 - 80% of Havana's food is produced in the city..."

"Rooftop, urban and local organic gardens, some 200 in Havana and 100,000 country-wide, have become major producers."

"...there are 2,600 large scale organic gardens in cities, 3,600 smaller, intensive gardens, and 93,948 small urban family garden parcels."

Cuba faced a stark alternative.  It chose to revolutionize its agriculture rather than capitulate to American imperialism.  Industrial scale, energy and chemical-intensive production was converted to local, small scale, primarily organic agriculture.  Tractors were replaced by animal (oxen) power, more efficient on the smaller plots, particularly after 1993 when the large state-owned, Soviet-style farms were broken up and land distributed to the compesinos.  Some 200,000 oxen were trained to plow.

Secondly, local, renewable production, particularly in the urban areas, was promoted.  Some 50 - 80% of Havana's food is produced in the city, perhaps as much as 90% in and around Havana -- 300,000 tons of produce in 2004.  Rooftop, urban and local organic gardens, some 200 in Havana and 100,000 country-wide, have become major producers.  Officially, there are 2,600 large scale organic gardens in cities, 3,600 smaller, intensive gardens, and 93,948 small urban family garden parcels

These urban gardens also absorb greehouse gases and improve urban air quality, attract bees that produce honey, and also produce herbs to treat cancer, colds and diabetes.  Pesticides and insecticides are prohibited in urban centres.  All this drastically reduces the energy required to process and transport food to market.

The third transformatiom of Cuban agriculture was to organic, or near organic, farming.  Approximately 60% of non-sugar farmland in the country is now organic.  Given the Soviet collapse, Cuban scientists were propelled to develop biological pest control and soil fertility enhancement.  Plant fertilizers, intercropping, biological pest and weed control and vermicompost (worm castings, 10 times as effective as cow manure) have been developed, in addition to a national program of fruit tree planting.

The result -- a gradual return to an adequate and productive agricultural industry sufficient to maintain a sustainable, subsistence food supply.  Moreover, most of the food raised in Cuba is organic and therefore amongst the healthiest in the world.  The Cubans got their third meal-a-day back and have adequate calories to maintain a healthy diet, though they still want more meat and milk since the Cuban climate and soil does not support livestock."

Here's the Aha! Moment:  Coldstream Council would drool at the thought of nearly 94,000 small urban family garden parcels, especially those using rooftops!  And 3,600 smaller intensive gardens.


Oops!  Too bad, so sad.
This Coldstream Council--with RU10 and RU30--are going the other way...to larger parcels.

Re the earlier story comment:  (*more on that later):
Seems the seeds of RU10 and RU30 began here around the same time that Dr. Phillips first published his article in 2007.  A Buchanan Road application (among others) was submitted by applicants Asif Mohammed, Kashif Mohammed, Abid Mohammed, Nadeem Akhtar, and Razie Ali to subdivide the family's 100 acres into 7 family parcels for intensive agriculture.

The Agricultural Land Commission denied the request, stating intensive agriculture could more easily occur on the 100 acre parcel than on 7 parcels where housing pressures would reduce the land available for farming.

That 100-acre Buchanan Road parcel has been for sale for a number of years.
If a family with 7 adults can't make a go of it, how does this Council expect one family to farm a 74-acre parcel under the newly-imposed RU30 agriculture zone?


"So will Council have an Aha!Moment too?" asks Kia.


Maybe an  Oh No! Moment.

Thanks, North of 50! for your important reprint.

RU Insane?

The first hit by Mayor Garlick and his council on a family's pocketbook--Subdivision Development and Servicing Bylaw 1535 2008--saw First, Second and Third readings on Monday, March 12th, 2012.

The second hit--this time to families' lifelong investment plans with the creation of RU10 AND RU30 land zoning--was presented at an Open House on Wednesday, March, 14th.

Glossy maps and full-colour flipchart pages adorned display stands and tables, and bureaucrats were available to answer questions from the public.  Even the mayor and councillors attended.  A bonus.

Many people, most of whom were elderly residents, walked around viewing the displays.   The odd jaw dropped here and there, but not from speech.  From what they saw was happening to their family's property investment...their homes.

Never mind that the changes "support agriculture".
Never mind that you can have chickens now.
Never mind that farm workers won't have to live in tents while picking fruit.
Never mind that you can have 3 directional signs so the public find your "Hay for Sale" gate.

In the supreme interest of supporting agriculture--a phrase used so frequently by this Mayor and Council that it might as well be emblazoned on their foreheads--they're even changing the zoning of land that isn't agricultural (not locked against subdivision within the provincial Agricultural Land Reserve).

Really?  Yup, and just because it's NEAR agriculture.

So if Mayor Garlick and his council are supporting agriculture with these changes, who is supporting the non-agricultural lands?  

Apparently nobody.

Non-agricultural landowners didn't apply for any zoning changes.
Likely many farmland owners are being forced to accept zoning changes.

The 20+ pages of the new bylaw, with 10 additional map pages and official community plan amendment, read like an insurance policy.

Council is creating RU10 and RU30 zones.  Some lands used to be able to be subdivide if they met the previous minimum of 4.94 acres.  On some lands, that's now changed to a minimum of 24.71 acres.

The non-agricultural lands that have been zoned RU2 will stay RU2...but don't breathe a big sigh of relief yet.  There are new rules on how you can/cannot impact adjacent agriculture. 
As though my BBQ would scare a goat.

Some agricultural lands were able to subdivide previously; now they cannot subdivide unless they're (RU sitting down?) 74.13 acres.  No matter that a portion or all of their lands have, since 1973, been locked in the ALR!

This Council is even encouraging consolidation where numerous farm titles exist under the same owner.

Where previous--and objectively-focussed--mayors and their councils decided that farmland would be valley-bottom and growth would occur on sidehills along the valleys, several months ago Councillor Maria Besso was quoted saying "we don't want mile-long subdivisions".  And, overhead--and obviously in reply to an unheard question from a resident--Councillor Enns was heard to say: "...we can do this, it's to our lands here."  Let me guess what may have prompted that response:  "I own--not rent--my land; how can you do this to my family?"

That may be, yes, but a previous mayor and council whom we trusted said we could have mile-long subdivisions.

It's as though Mayor Garlick and his pack are blending the Occupy Movement with the Growth Management Strategy.
They've set the blender on PUREE.
And this unrecognizable soup is the result.

Seems the Mother Ship wants to remove not only the ability--but also the temptation--to subdivide.

"The Mother Ship?" asks Kia.

RU not listening either, Kia?  Apparently people are still allowed to apply to the Mother Ship for variances.


  "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."  Winston Churchill, on misplaced idealism.

On the Street Where You Live...

Doubt that songster Vic Damone, or Willie Nelson, had Coldstream in mind when they crooned: 

"I have often walked down this street before;
But the pavement always stayed beneath my feet before"

Well, residents' feet were off the pavement at Monday night's council meeting.  And again on reading Jennifer Smith's recap in the Morning Star today.  But not from love.

The entire tone of the meeting--residents' continuing outrage--was ignored by the Morning Star.

But that's all right.  We can always count on Councillor Gyula Kiss to appear frustrated with any dissent.  He didn't disappoint, finally blurting out:  "Council looked at the old bylaw because it was wrong and we now have problems with drainage.  We're not looking for confrontation."

Three things:  the old bylaw being wrong, NOW having drainage problems, and Council not looking for confrontation.  

• The old bylaw wasn't wrong.  If you were not subdividing your land, you paid no off-site service costs because there was no directly attributable impact on infrastructure.  A kitchen renovation didn't put "extra poop in the pipe" to put it bluntly.  That old bylaw didn't call residents developers and charge them for an unlimited scope of off-site works (which the first and second drafts of the re-write sought to charge, depositing residents' money into this council's empty coffers.)

• NOW having drainage problems, to use Councillor Kiss' emphasis, are we Coldstream residents oblivious to a mountain-building event and the entire community used to be flat during the old bylaw?  Drainage and its effects have been around since the glaciers retreated.  Drainage is why we have drinking water year round.  Water runs downhill, and will for some time, at least until December 21st of this year, according to the Mayans.

• And not wanting controversy?  Huh?  What did the insightful minds of this mayor, council (and reporter Jennifer Smith) actually think would occur with the District's headlong plunge into our wallets...that residents would champion discrimination?  That we'd sit quietly by and allow the imposition of an onerous new tax whose face value wouldn't be known until residents actually submitted a building permit for a renovation? 

Funny how words and phrases pop into--and out of--draft versions.  A new word has popped up in the proposed bylaw (in addition to renumbering the bylaw, perhaps to bury the evidence of this monumental year-long fiasco). 

The new word is SAFETY.  Maybe--like the mountain-building example--people behaved more safely under the old bylaw and didn't require protection by local government. So the new bylaw's inclusion of safety will then allow residents to act with complete disregard--indeed reckless abandon--to their, and their family's, safety because the District's bylaw will protect them.

Doubt that includes a bylaw officer escorting a resident home after a twilight stroll--flashlight in hand--to ensure he's safe.  More likely, safety added to this bylaw will include, for example, roads identified as being too narrow, or too steep, or too broken, or too littered by leavres from a tree on your property...on and on, and where it stops no-one knows.

In the meantime, specific roads have been named as "drainage concerns", with the bylaw's activation triggered by a $50,000 renovation permit, maximum per residence contribution of $2,500 for drainage:

1. Buchanan Road (entire length).  Remedy:  ditch realignmemnt/culverting.
2. Cottomwood Lane (entire length).  Infiltration chambers.
3. Fairmont Place (entire length).  Ditching north side/infiltration chamber.
4. Howe Drive, north of Kal Lake Road.  Ditching/infiltration chambers.
5. Kalavista Drive (entire length).  Infiltration chambers.
6. Ponderosa Way (entire length).  Ditching/infiltration chambers.
7. Rendell Drive (entire length).  Infiltration chambers.
8. Rockland Drive (entire length).  Ditching north side/catch basin at curb/infiltration chambers.
9. Scenic Drive (entire length).  Catch basins/infiltration chambers on north side.
10. Springfield Road (9900 block).  Infiltration chambers.
11. Tebo Drive (entire length).  Infiltration chambers.
12. Torrent Drive (entire length).  Infiltration chambers.
13. Upland Drive (entire length).  Culverting/storm sewer.
14. Westkal Road (entire length).  Infiltration chambers/drainage easements.
15. Kidston Road (entire length).  Ditching/culverting.

Before you sit back and utter "whew" at not seeing your road listed, remember that the District of Coldstream--even under this revised bylaw-- still does not have the authority to demand off-site works and services unless the permit requests the subdivision of land and that the permit is for a complex building or variance that places new demands on existing infrastructure.  So this newly revised bylaw is still not allowed.

But to get a feel for the outrage of residents at Monday's meeting (since the newspaper omitted that), check out these questions posed by residents, and the answers (if they can be called that) received that night.

Question: The Mayor was asked if the residents on these roads had been notified of the change in permitting fees.
Response:     No, the residents were not informed.

Question:      Does Council feel that they should have contacted the impacted residents?
Response:      They probably should have been informed but they were not.

Question:      Do these property owners have any input on this new “tax” on their land?
Response:     No, the property owners had no input on the new fee/bylaw.

Question:     Does Council need the homeowners’ consent to pass this bylaw? 
Response:     No, Council does not need the homeowners’ consent.

Question:      Can Council add to this list of 15 identified roads without any other consent or input?
Response:    Yes, Council can.

Question:    Council will levy a $2,500.00 fee for single and dual family home standard building permits (no variances, subdivision, etc.) over $50,000.00 in value, but can Council charge more?
Response:    Yes, Council can.

Question:    When can Council change this value?
Response:    Council can change it at any time and they do not need consent or input from homeowners.

Question:    As homeowners, we purchased our property, we pay taxes, and we have rights on our land. If Council can do this, we might as well rent the land. Is this correct?
Response:    Council did not respond to this question.

Final Comment:  The new Subdivision bylaw gives the Approving Officer the ability to determine what drainage works are “directly attributable” to a standard building permit. The wording is vague and unclear and you are telling us that any permit on these streets over $50,000.00 becomes “directly attributable” to paying the $2,500.00 fee no matter what type of permit it is. A kitchen renovation is seen to be directly attributable to drainage problems on the road, and that homeowners have no say. Municipal government is supposed to be open, honest, and transparent.  We are not seeing that tonight.
Response:    Are there any other members of the public that wish to speak?



So with that, Mayor Garlick and Council--and even the Morning Star newspaper--buried the old bylaw.
The new one received First, Second and Third Reading.
They expect it to be finally passed (their phrase) at the March 26th, 2012 council meeting..

Oh, and the bylaw's now called:   Subdivision, Development and Servicing Bylaw No. 1535, 2008, Amendment Bylaw No. 1608, 2012, Amendment No. 2.

But residents have their own name for the bylaw.  
And tune.

"For there's no where else on earth that I would rather be," intones Kia, adding "he's not singing about Coldstream, that is clear to me."