Originally published on 2 Nov 2014, updated Sept 2026.
North Saanich is at a crossroads. Development pressure presents NS residents with a stark choice: re-commit to our rural-residential and agricultural identity, or continue down the road to urbanization.
Proponents of high-density development claim that more people to “broaden the tax-base” will keep taxes low for all residents. This is not true. Development has proven repeatedly to increase taxes. Rural municipalities typically have lower tax rates than their urbanized neighbours.
The reason for this is simple: urban densities require urban amenities and infrastructure. When people live in urban areas on small lots, all the activities and recreation that don’t take place on their own property depend on publicly funded infrastructure. They require roads to go where they need to go, transit to get there, parks in which to walk and play, soccer and baseball fields for their kids, rec centres in which to swim and skate and work out – all paid for by taxes. Urbanization also needs infrastructure like sewers, sidewalks, gutters and streetlights – that’s why it makes sense to keep urban densities in urban areas like Sidney, where the infrastructure already exists.
The reason for this is simple: urban densities require urban amenities and infrastructure. When people live in urban areas on small lots, all the activities and recreation that don’t take place on their own property depend on publicly funded infrastructure. They require roads to go where they need to go, transit to get there, parks in which to walk and play, soccer and baseball fields for their kids, rec centres in which to swim and skate and work out – all paid for by taxes. Urbanization also needs infrastructure like sewers, sidewalks, gutters and streetlights – that’s why it makes sense to keep urban densities in urban areas like Sidney, where the infrastructure already exists.
A look at Metchosin and Langford, neighbouring municipalities with strikingly different visions, dramatically illustrates the point. Metchosin has elected to remain rural, and enjoys low taxes and small municipal staff costs. Langford has chosen to pursue development, has much higher taxes, and the attendant infrastructure costs. In fact, with developable land in Langford disappearing, so are the Development Cost Charges that municipalities count on to fund the building of new infrastructure.
Increasing industry in NS will also bring further pressure on “available” land for more housing. Even if developers bear the initial cost of infrastructure, maintenance and replacement are permanent municipal costs, which is why residents in municipalities like Langford are facing increasing tax bills.
Much of the industrial development in NS is on ALR land at the airport. With approximately 1/3 of the NS land base in the ALR, residents who value our agricultural resources and food security should be concerned about the recent actions by the BC government that undermine the integrity of the ALR, and the targeting of agricultural land by land speculators.
The whole point of sound regional planning is to emphasize diversity and match land uses to their best potential use and most appropriate locations. The best use of agricultural land, particularly in NS, is agriculture.
Any actions by municipalities to allow development on our rural-agricultural land jeopardize the future of agriculture in NS. As long as land speculators believe that they will be able to subdivide agricultural land, they will buy it, sit on it until it looks unused and perhaps overgrown with brush and blackberries, and then claim that it's not productive agricultural land, so "it’s perfect for development.” This further drives up the price of farmland, making it unattainable to young farmers.