ALR under attack, and farmers dont care this time.

[dinosaur]

The ALR is under review by Bennet who is leading a cost cutting task force. The ALR budget has already been cut by 1/3 since the Liberals came in and now the whole works is on the table.

There has never been a provincial government more hostile to agriculture than our current one. Dispite our diverse and complicated industry including all the variety in the Okanagan and Frasier, our govt puts less of its agricultural GDP back into farming than any other province.

Since Christy Clark the Minister of Agriculture has been a token possition with no continuity and a new minister every six months.

Now the ALR is under attack and I dont think farmers are going to fight it this time. They wear two hats, the other one being property owners, and in a political climate that is hostile to farming I dont think they will fight to save the ALR this time. They will retire in style, and the beautiful orchards in the Okanagan will be turned into trailerparks, subdivisions, and mini-golf/RV Parks.

If the public wants to see farming continue and this land to be protected for future generations it is up to them to fight this time as farmers are not going to.

[LoneWolf_53]

As far as I'm concerned we are supposed to be living in a free country.

The concept of someone else, dictating what a person can, and can't do, with their own land, sort of flies in the face of that.

Everyone has a right to survive as best they know how, and if a 90+ year old farmer wishes to subdivide, because he has no one to take over the orchard, yet wants to live out his days in his own home, it should not be someone else's right to tell him no.

The whole concept is whacked from the get go.

Perhaps what you are overlooking is that just maybe the Liberals are actually listening to the people, and many are fed up with the ALR.

[Rosieodonell]

NDP / Liberals / Next politcal party.. it doesn't matter. The ALR is very important and shouldn't be removed.

It is a free country and that farmer that purchased that land knew when he purchased the land that it had restrictions. If he doesn't want to abide by the rules now, he shouldn't of purchased it. Paving over viable farming land is a terrible idea and people all over will suffer from the loss of good farm land.

If the ALR does restrict this, then maybe we should change the rules and have the government purchase the land from the 90 year old farmer that can't sell it to prevent hte loss of this land.

[dinosaur]

Lonewolf I understand what you are saying, but you are omitting the concept that groups have rights too. There are already a million laws affecting what you can and cannot do on land you own. For instance a neighbourhood might be considered a group with rights, and because of this they create bylaws against noise and stop people from opening industrial businesses close by, I have even heard of neighbourhoods where they regulate the lenght of grass on the lawn and what type of vehicles can be left in the driveway. It can get extreem to be sure, but so is the idea that individuals should be able to do whatever they want.

What we are giving up here is group rights, and perhaps some individual rights too as once that farmland is gone that is one less choice our sons and daughters will have. I dont think the situation is as you describe; this is about a quik buck with no concern for the longterm economic effects, not about some high-minded restitution of rights from some agregious policy, though im sure the government will present it that way. One short spike in constuction jobs, a breif crash in property values, and then everthing will return back to where it was except the farms will be gone.

The fact is most of BC is not in the ALR. There are thousands of acres that could be used for development that are not suitable for farming and doing it this way we can preserve what little farmable land we have in this province.

I also want to point out a historical pattern; thoughout history and particularly in times of crisis people migrate to areas that are good food producers. Cities develop, and farmland is not only repurposed for residential/comercial, but water gets tied up and is not available for food production. This is our history; a patern where we have destroyed most of the best land already. This can be avoided with political forseight; but that takes leadership not populism.

[LoneWolf_53]

Answer me this then, if the ALR is such an important entity to have, why is it that I haven't noted such a thing in other provinces?

Bear in mind also, that many old timers, who are at or near mandatory retirement, being in their 80's ir 90's, and for obvious reasons no longer able to run a farm/orchard, with no relatives to pass the duty on to, had the ALR imposed on them, so you can't argue that they knew the regulations attached to the land when they bought it.

[GordonH]

The ALR is under review by Bennet who is leading a cost cutting task force. The ALR budget has already been cut by 1/3 since the Liberals came in and now the whole works is on the table.

There has never been a provincial government more hostile to agriculture than our current one. Dispite our diverse and complicated industry including all the variety in the Okanagan and Frasier, our govt puts less of its agricultural GDP back into farming than any other province.

Since Christy Clark the Minister of Agriculture has been a token possition with no continuity and a new minister every six months.

Now the ALR is under attack and I dont think farmers are going to fight it this time. They wear two hats, the other one being property owners, and in a political climate that is hostile to farming I dont think they will fight to save the ALR this time. They will retire in style, and the beautiful orchards in the Okanagan will be turned into trailerparks, subdivisions, and mini-golf/RV Parks.

If the public wants to see farming continue and this land to be protected for future generations it is up to them to fight this time as farmers are not going to.

Maybe its time for ALR to be removed give farmers the same freedom other land owners have to sell parts of their land. To generate some income to keep the rest of the farm running.

What agricultural land BC has is what is being used today, due to BC terrain large section with mountains. Totally useless unless you are raising goats.

Hey it's not as if every farmer in BC is going to sell off their land, some may most more than likely not. It's giving them that freedom to have an option if needed.

[exFarmerS]

If people want to keep the ALR, then the province should automatically give land within the ALR farm status for reduced taxes without have to constantly "prove" they're farming. When the ALR originally was brought in farmers were given lots of subsidies to farm and then, slowly over the years, the subsidies disappeared while the ALR stayed.

If we could have had the cheaper taxes without all the bloody non-profit "farm" work, we would have stayed on the land and just fed ourselves and our extended family. And there wouldn't be a huge house in the middle of what was our most productive fields.

[grammafreddy]

Another reality is that farmers, ranchers and orchardists can't make a living off the land any more - they have to have other jobs as well. Even the Asian and South Asian family nucleus farmers are finding their children are not interested in staying and working their land. My former SA landlord in Kelowna has two 20-something sons who wouldn't dream of bending their backs or getting their hands dirty - they like to drive the tractor and the ATV at high speeds, though.

[hobbyguy]

Be careful what you wish for.

- the ALR has driven up land costs for development, if it goes to a "free-for-all" then existing home owners will ALL take a significant financial hit.
- a person holding ALR land looks over at a parcel approved for development, and thinks if they get rid of the ALR then they will make a pile of $$. If the ALR goes, they won't make the big $$ because development land will drop back in price to pretty much what they are looking at now for ALR land.
- Countries like China are looking at implementing (not removing) ALR type regulations because they are losing their food growing base. China used to be food self sufficient (or close) - but they have lost that by allowing a free for all.

By the way, the libertarian view of a "free country" never holds up if you turn to page two. Freedom always has a price, and part of that price is reasonable rules we can live by. The difference between a football game and the Hell's Angels vs the Rock Machine in a stadium is rules and referees. Take away the rules and referees, and all you have is chaos.

The ALR is good policy, which is why Bill Bennett, one the best premiers we ever had, left it alone. Even wild Willy Van Der Zalm thought enough of it to leave it alone. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[1nick]

I have 3/4 acre it's in the ALR and can't get farm status,but it would cost me money to apply to get out of the ALR.They can deny my application and I don't get my money back.If your property isn't large enough,ie fiscally viable for farm status it should be an automatic out of the ALR.

[Glacier]

The reason that BC has an ALR is because only 3% of BC is arable land. Other provinces have 10 times this amount. The other problem is that the best growing areas in BC face heavy pressure from development. Once the land is lost, it is lost forever. People who own ALR land knew it was ALR land when they bought it, and thus don't deserve sympathy. Those who owned it from the beginning are free to sell it, and believe me, the price they will get many times more than they would have gotten had they sold pre-ALR.

One more thing, we live a free country, but not a Harper-version of free country. ALR restrictions are the same idea as zoning bylaws.

[LoneWolf_53]

ALR restrictions are the same idea as zoning bylaws.

I doubt the 80-90 yr old farmers that had it imposed on them, feel that way.

[bob vernon]

Cut the red tape and let the free enterprise system do the job that God intended. Put that land on the market and put houses, strip malls, and highways on it. We can import all our food from the US and Mexico. 3% of BC is arable land, but that land mostly exists in the lower mainland and the Okanagan where everybody wants to live. What's more important: people or peaches?

[logicalview]

Cut the red tape and let the free enterprise system do the job that God intended. Put that land on the market and put houses, strip malls, and highways on it.

Why would we do that? Do we need more stripmalls and highways? I don't think so. This is just alarmist nonsense.

We can import all our food from the US and Mexico.

You do know that the prairie provinces also produce a lot of grain, meat and diary too right? You don't have to import everything from far away lands. Right next door is ok too.

3% of BC is arable land, but that land mostly exists in the lower mainland and the Okanagan where everybody wants to live. What's more important: people or peaches?

People. It's no contest. And people need freedom. Freedom to do what they want with land that they buy, as long as they don't hurt the environment. Forcing them to maintain land in the ALR even though it is not being used to grow food is just plain communism. It's a stupid idea, enforced by incredibly stupid people.

[kgcayenne]

Someone please fix the title of this thread. I'm having an OCD fit over here.