New B.C. study shows strong public support for local farmland (2014)

95% of respondents say the Agricultural Land Reserve should be preserved for green space and growing food


SEPTEMBER 17, 2014, Vancouver, B.C. – A public opinion study released today by the Real Estate Foundation of BC and Vancouver Foundation found that four in five (82%) respondents believe farmland is a vital public asset, like forests and water.

Three-quarters (76%) of respondents either agree or strongly agree that the B.C. Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) is important, not only for protecting farms, but also for protecting valleys and green space needed for wildlife habitat and recreational enjoyment.

Meanwhile, 71% of respondents believe that laws protecting the ALR should be strengthened or maintained.

The online poll of 1,704 British Columbia residents was conducted in July 2014 to assess public attitudes toward agriculture and food in the province.

The two foundations commissioned the study to inform discussion and decisions on the future of the ALR, a provincial land-use zone that protects farmland and land with potential to be farmed. The ALR currently makes up 5% of B.C's land base.

Among the survey’s other findings:

 When asked what priority uses for land in British Columbia were, respondents identified "natural freshwater systems" (83%), closely followed by "farming and growing food" (81%).

 80% of respondents are concerned about dependence on other countries for our food security.

 73% of respondents say the ALR is a cornerstone of food security and the B.C. economy.

"Local, sustainable food systems are a priority issue for the Foundation because of the link between food security and community well-being," said Jack Wong, CEO of the Real Estate Foundation of BC. "With challenges such as development pressure on agricultural land and changing weather patterns, it is of vital importance to have forward-thinking policies that protect land for growing food, now and for future generations."

“This study demonstrates that British Columbians believe strongly in safeguarding our farms and green spaces to ensure long-term health, well-being and resilience in our communities,”
said Kevin McCort, CEO of Vancouver Foundation. “The Agricultural Land Reserve is a vital public asset contributing to our ability to reliably produce fresh food, preserve local farmland and freshwater supplies, and to support local B.C. farmers and ranchers.”

Both foundations have a province-wide mandate and support projects that promote strong, resilient communities and natural environments.

The poll was conducted by Vancouver-based McAllister Opinion Research. The survey is accurate to within +/- 2.36%, 19 times out of 20.

Link to full survey results.

- 30 -

About the Real Estate Foundation of BC:

The Real Estate Foundation of BC is a philanthropic organization that helps advance sustainable land use in British Columbia. It provides grants to non-profit organizations working to improve B.C. communities and natural environments through responsible and informed land use, conservation and real estate practices. Its funding programs support research, education, and law and policy reform. Since 1988, the Foundation has approved more than $67 million in grants. Learn more at www.refbc.com.

About Vancouver Foundation:

With over 1,600 funds and assets totaling $930 million, Vancouver Foundation is Canada’s largest community foundation. Each year, Vancouver Foundation and its donors make more than 5,300 grants, totaling approximately $50 million to registered charities across Canada. Since it was founded in 1943, Vancouver Foundation, in partnership with its donors, has distributed more than $1 billion to thousands of community projects and programs. Grant recipients range from social services to medical research groups, to organizations devoted to arts and culture, the environment, education, children and families, disability supports for employment, youth issues and animal welfare. To find out more about Vancouver Foundation, please visit www.vancouverfoundation.ca.

Contact:
Celina Owen
Real Estate Foundation of BC
Direct - 604.343.2623 | toll free 1.866.912.6800 ext. 103
celina@refbc.com

North Saanich Unbalanced? (2014)

A Balanced Community - But  Whose Scale? (2014)

          Recently, the Saanich Peninsula Chamber of Commerce has expressed support for the North Saanich RCS/OCP Amendments about to undergo a Public Hearing and debate by Council. Some of the Chamber's arguments are both perplexing and concerning.

          Actually, their first point is generally not contentious - that those who work in a community should have the opportunity to live in that community. Of course, this is quite reasonable. However, others have gone a step further, insisting that workers have the right to live in the communities. I can only agree with the first statement.

          It is the Chamber's second reason that causes me concern. They state that "… The ongoing health of our community requires a "Balanced Community" where all age groups are adequately represented." This implies that there is some standard by which to assess the age group balance within the community and, further, there is some "adequate representation" of a certain age classes.

          So, who is to determine what is the proper "balance"? Would Sidney, with its preponderance of older people, be considered out of balance? How about Langford? It is highly represented by younger people. That doesn't sound balanced. The demographic profile of North Saanich falls somewhere between that of Sidney and Langford. Perhaps it is actually in balance?

          So, how does the Chamber of Commerce get to decide which communities are in or out of balance? I think that they would be among the least qualified, and least objective of all agencies, to comment upon "demographic correctness" and how some ideal standard of that should be achieved. How does this differ from examples of ageism in other sectors of society? It doesn't.

          What a remarkable coincidence that North Saanich is suddenly proclaimed to be "demographically unbalanced" with respect to younger people just as land speculators are seeking approval for higher density, but not necessarily cheaper, housing.

          I heartily resent being told that my community, because it is apparently burdened with a surplus of older citizens, is somehow deficient and needs "an injection of life" to be considered up to some external and mysterious standard. This philosophy has more than a tinge of Social Engineering which all of us should find abhorrent and reject wholeheartedly.

          No doubt there are more than a few members of our communities that have seen "demographic restructuring" first-hand but in a much less benign setting.

          I am quite disappointed that the Saanich Peninsula Chamber of Commerce would select such odious reasoning to prop up their faltering case for institutionalized spot rezoning in North Saanich.

Public Sentiment - 97% against the RCS/OCP changes (2014)

A tally of submissions to two recent CRD meetings on this issue showed 9 submissions in support and 263 against!  Is anyone listening!

These opinions not favouring the RCS/OCP changes are not form letter responses, but all original letters listing many different difficulties with the proposal.

Speakers at the CRD meetings showed a similar high preponderance not in favour as well.

Notable among the few supporters of these changes, were several people with commercial ties to some of the projects - not impartial voices.

As of July7, there were 77 submissions to Council on this topic.  Of those, 77 were against this RCS/OCP Amendment.

It is difficult to see how how Council could not place significant weight on this public input.  On another recent rezoning application, the Council majority were adamant that public sentiment in that case be accorded major importance.  Hopefully, they will remain consistent.

A Plea to Protect our OCP - please circulate (2014)

Dear North Saanich resident, 

The rural/residential and agricultural character that we love in North Saanich is under threat and we urgently need 2 minutes of your time to save it.

We need at least 100 people to send a short email to the CRD Board of Directors at    crdchair@crd.bc.ca  telling them they have no business changing our Official Community Plan for us.

Here's a bit of background:  As you may be aware, there is a Regional Context Statement (RCS) amendment going before the CRD Board of Directors on April 9 at 1:30 that, if approved, would significantly alter the North Saanich Official Community Plan (OCP).  If approved, this amendment would allow for average gross densities of up to 8 to 16 units per acre, with some densities as high as 30 units per acre (3 story apartment buildings) in two areas of NS.  In some parts of those areas, these densities would be put on agricultural land, or be situated directly across the road from ALR land.  More information is available on the district website here:  http://www.northsaanich.ca/Municipal_Hall/Departments/Planning_and_Community_Services/Regional_Context_Statement_Amendment.htm

or at the North Saanich Community Voices website here:  www.nscv.ca

To be clear:  if this RCS amendment is approved, its adoption constitutes a change to our OCP.  Our OCP was developed over a long period of broad public consultation and input, and reflects a rural/residential and agricultural vision that has been consistently supported by NS residents since NS was established in 1965.  The proposed RCS and OCP changes would negatively affect our quality of life, increase our taxes, and drastically increase traffic in NS.

Do you believe that a group of regional politicians who don't know our municipality, don't live in our community, don't pay taxes here, and don't understand our unique issues and character should be allowed to change our OCP?  If not, they need to hear from you.  

We believe that the CRD Board of Directors needs to hear from as many North Saanich residents as possible that we believe that broad changes of this magnitude need to be made through an OCP review, not by a group of politicians who don't even know our municipality, its character or its issues.

What we're asking you to do is simple and quick, and if enough people do it, could save the rural/residential and agricultural ambience that we in North Saanich love:

Would you take 2 minutes to send a brief message requesting (or even demanding) that the CRD keeps its hands off our OCP and leaves any decisions around OCP changes up to NS residents ourselves?

Send your comments to  crdchair@crd.bc.ca   The proper opening salutation is:  "To the Chair and Board of Directors at the Capital Regional District."  Please send a copy to our North Saanich Council too at   admin@northsaanich.ca

The message can be brief, stating simply that you're a NS resident, how long you've lived here, and that you do not want the CRD making OCP decisions for our municipality.  Of course, you may add more if you wish.

The main thing is to send the CRD Board a message that they can't ignore.  A flood of emails from NS residents indicating our demand that we decide our OCP, not the CRD Board, will hopefully get their attention, and make them think twice about interfering in and significantly altering another municipality's OCP.  We think that at least 100 emails (more would be better!) will make the CRD Board sit up and take notice, and we need your help to achieve that goal.

Please take those 2 minutes right now and send an email.  Ask every adult in your household to do the same.  Then forward this to your NS friends and neighbours, letting them know that you are behind this effort, and asking them to help too.

We've seen too many local areas destroyed by unplanned development.  We don't have to be like them.  Please send an email now, and help us protect our OCP.

Thanks,

North Saanich Community Voices

NSCV Commenting Policy

Comments are accepted through the feedback form on the homepage. Respectful comments that advance a particular discussion may or may not be posted at the discretion of the site editors. By submitting a comment you acknowledge and accept that your comment may be posted.

This policy may be reviewed in the future; thank you for your understanding.