Summerland farm land development proposal

[cfriedemann]

Why should the development of orchard land be even considered? Summerland has poor farming land. That is where development "buildings" should be happening. Like mountainsides. Yes it costs more and it is harder to build on, but it can be done.
Do not follow Kelowna's lead as that is what they did because it was easy. I have seen many orchard lands taken out into subdivisions. Kelowna's reduction in orchards has also killed the many packinghouses. Decent paying jobs lost. Kelowna used to call itself the "Apple center". No longer does that apply.
, Fruit growing and farming is an industry that employes people, year after year. Once the houses are built...that is the end of it. We have cars and buses so distance is not a problem.
SAVE THAT LAND FOR FARMING. There is a lot of un-farmable land. Build there.

[Daspoot]

Like known frost pockets where several agricultural attempts have failed?

[twobits]

Why should the development of orchard land be even considered? Summerland has poor farming land. That is where development "buildings" should be happening. Like mountainsides. Yes it costs more and it is harder to build on, but it can be done.
Do not follow Kelowna's lead as that is what they did because it was easy. I have seen many orchard lands taken out into subdivisions. Kelowna's reduction in orchards has also killed the many packinghouses. Decent paying jobs lost. Kelowna used to call itself the "Apple center". No longer does that apply.
, Fruit growing and farming is an industry that employes people, year after year. Once the houses are built...that is the end of it. We have cars and buses so distance is not a problem.
SAVE THAT LAND FOR FARMING. There is a lot of un-farmable land. Build there.

Can't disagree with saving farmland but a great many of the people that support that goal will also turn around and fight development of housing on hillside lands as urban sprawl. What's left then......we all live in cookie cut condo's. No thanks.

[Drip_Torch]

a great many of the people that support that goal will also turn around and fight development of housing on hillside lands as urban sprawl. What's left then......we all live in cookie cut condo's. No thanks.

Apparently, the only alternative is Calgary with a view of the lake?

(IMHO>>> That's a recipe for federal disaster money with the potential for a whole lot of regret.)

[fluffy]

Why should the development of orchard land be even considered? Summerland has poor farming land. That is where development "buildings" should be happening.

Can you supply details on the particular piece of land in question? Is there anything about it that would make it unattractive for agricultural use?

[A_Britishcolumbian]

it is beautiful land they want to remove, and forested, less suited for agriculture land they want to replace it with.

land they are trying to take out

land they would like to replace

http://savethesummerlandalr.com/talk-about-it/

[fluffy]

I'm a little torn on this. I agree with the principle behind the ALR, orchards and farmland were disappearing at a disturbing rate when the law was enacted, but the two large parcels in the foreground of the photo above have not seen agricultural activity for years, and the current owners are not showing any inclination to do so. Their proximity to the developed area of downtown makes this a logical avenue for growth while hillsides are turning into vineyards in lots of locations. If the land were being actively farmed I'd be inclined to oppose the swap, but the property nearest Quinpoole Road only sporadically sees ground-cover crops while the next parcel north has lain dormant for a couple of decades now.

[totoramona]

In my opinion, that land has sat dormant and unfarmed because it is owned by two current counselors who want to see it removed from the ALR so that they can make a tidy profit from the change in zoning. If it were being farmed viably, that would be an argument against removal.

[grammafreddy]

it is owned by two current counselors who want to see it removed from the ALR so that they can make a tidy profit from the change in zoning

Hopefully those two have removed themselves from council chambers and have not participated in any discussions or voting regarding these properties they own. That is a very definite conflict of interest.

[old boy]

The 2 Councillors, from my information ,have declared a conflict, and haven't participated or voted on the proposed Growth Plan. One of them does hobby farm his land and the other piece has been fallow for years.

[fluffy]

There are more owners involved than just the two councillors. I rented along that stretch of road for a time some thirty years ago and orchards that were marginal (big, old trees long past their prime) at that time have been gone for twenty years or more.

[old boy]

There are over 40 property owners involved, counting the area that is included across the highway in the area of the bottle wash plant. The 2 councillors involved own approx.10ac. out of the 199ac being considered for exclusion.

[Anonymous123]

There are over 40 property owners involved, counting the area that is included across the highway in the area of the bottle wash plant. The 2 councillors involved own approx.10ac. out of the 199ac being considered for exclusion.

So that would be 40 lots based on .25 acre lots, 66 lots based on .15 acre lots.

[Daspoot]

As towns grow, the land close to downtown gets more and more valuable. At some point the cost of the land exceeds the potential income from conventional agricultural ventures. There are only so many people willing to operate a "Hobby Farm or Orchard" as something to do for fun with little or no hope of being a legitimate option to pay the bills. Throw in land that is less than ideal for many conventional crops and you end up with large tracts of land left barren because not much grows well there, and it won't sell because anything that might grow there wouldn't pay the mortgage.

I'm not saying this is the case with all the land, but it's a definite factor to some degree in some of the land.

I concede that taking any land out of the ALR is a potential slippery slope, and should be examined very closely for motives behind any such request.

Before people form an opinion, they should at least be aware of the questions that should be asked, let alone the answers. This being the internet full of keyboard experts, I won't hold my breath, but in passing words with a few who staunchly oppose this swap, I was aghast at how they not only didn't know much about what they had formed such a strong opinion against, but some knew absolutely nothing about the facts at all. Kind of like how it gets turned into "2 Councillors own all the land" coming out of the ALR" or "It's all premium farmland being traded for hilly, marginal land"

An uninformed opinion is the worst opinion of all. Ask some questions, talk to both sides and go from there.

[A_Britishcolumbian]

i could support a family with a 1/4 acre of that land. we could live good with 10 acres of it.