Silent Majority in Summerland: Urban Growth Strategy

[fluffy]

i had thought that was one of the 'silent majority's' pillars though, the cost of additional infrastructure and cost of maintaining existing/aging infrastructure.

The cost of getting water to a property to facilitate agricultural use is dwarfed by the cost of getting water, sewer, electrical, communication and transportation services to that same property.

i will point out again, being within the alr is not a barrier to development of any sort, residential or commercial.

You are mistaken. The whole idea of the ALR was to preclude any development other than agricultural. That's why it's called an Agricultural Land Reserve. It reserves the land for agricultural use.

the only reason i can see for the proposed land to be swapped is subdivision possibilities...

Yes. That's generally the way residential development works.

...and the to make farming and commercial development more difficult if not impossible.

Again you are mistaken. For those who wish to continue to use the land for agricultural purposes nothing will change.

[fluffy]

the unpopular decision to exclude already improved land for what would seem to be potential population growth, and potential city tax revenue, does not seem to be logical, and is certainly not sustainable. those revenues still need to come from somewhere.

Unpopular to just how many is yet to be definitively established, hence terms like "silent majority". This same split exists between people who consider the decision illogical and unsustainable.

growth in 'new' farming is a real thing, despite what some on this thread may say.

I agree, and it's certainly appropriate to look into alternative strategies when it comes to feeding a burgeoning global population. However the discussion here is what is the best use for the land in question. I, for one, think that the use of this land for self-contained processes that can exist pretty much anywhere where the climate is suitable would appear downright wasteful whether you are an opponent or a proponent of the land swap.

[A_Britishcolumbian]

fluffy, you seem to delving into the make believe again.

where in the alr management outlines does it prohibit residential development? we have been through this. the alr designation does not prohibit even high density residential development. whereas non alr land is subject to regulations prohibitive to farming.

thanks for reinforcing my point as well, the already improved land does not require the infrastructure that the previously removed, and now proposed to be re included land would require.

increasing population alone is a bad idea in my mind, increasing employment and revenue sources is a great idea though.

[fluffy]

where in the alr management outlines does it prohibit residential development? we have been through this. the alr designation does not prohibit even high density residential development. whereas non alr land is subject to regulations prohibitive to farming.

Yes, we have covered this ground before. I also recall that the last time you made that claim you were challenged to supply details and conveniently ignored the challenged. Consider the gauntlet dropped once again.

thanks for reinforcing my point as well, the already improved land does not require the infrastructure that the previously removed, and now proposed to be re included land would require.

You're playing the word twisting game again. Is there something in the math between agricultural and residential development you need help with?

increasing population alone is a bad idea in my mind, increasing employment and revenue sources is a great idea though.

In this case population growth would bring both jobs and revenue with it. Housing, increased retail demand, increased tax base, it's all there.

[A_Britishcolumbian]

word twisting :) only following suit. i myself, while in favour of a golf course, have never promoted the idea of developing the land that is proposed to re included in the alr.

the gauntlet :) this thread, and for that matter entire forum, is a gauntlet, with all the dirt, slings and arrows i see.

creating jobs first, and augmenting with population seems much more prudent to me.

a farm can provide housing for as many people as the farmer should choose. the terms of the alr clearly express that.

again...

3. Housing In The ALR: Siting & Size

Size of Residences

Besides the siting of residential buildings, a second concern is the actual size of residences in agricultural areas. While one home per parcel is an outright use in the ALR, the Agricultural Land Commission Act and most local bylaws do not place limits on the size of residences in the Reserve. Farm homes come in every shape, size and variety of architectural styles. It is not uncommon for a farm home to be larger than its urban counterpart. The size of farm properties affords greater siting flexibility and is less confining than urban residential lots

Opportunities & Recommendations:

That the Agricultural Land Commission and Ministry of Agriculture and Food jointly undertake a review and develop policy direction to provide greater clarity for the provision of additional homes for farm help in the ALR based on the underlying principles of:
providing for the legitimate needs of the farm community

http://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/publications/p ... erence.htm

nothing in the way to prevent expanded residential capacity in the alr.

the land should be preserved for farming, if the current owners do not feel they should farm it, then they should sell or lease it to someone who will.

[fluffy]

Those passages contain a couple of clear stipulations that conflict with your claim:

"One home per parcel" doesn't leave much room for interpretation, other than the added stipulation of "added homes for farm help".

If what you say is true then why go to the trouble of getting property out of the ALR? It's because the ALR prohibits subdivision for individual ownership, which effectively precludes development.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or is the real intent of the ALR beyond your understanding? I'm starting to think you're just trolling because I really think you're smarter than your posts indicate.

[A_Britishcolumbian]

it is difficult to search for the examples i believe exist, i haven't found the most extreme ones, likely in richmond or other parts of the lower mainland.

i know bed and breakfasts have been built on alr land, i know multiplex rental units have been built, i believe hotels have been built. one would have to consult with the alc to know how a condo would be received.

again, i am a farmer. when i first moved to the okanagan i did some work consulting with a developer regarding what was then orchards north of union. the issue at the time was working within the parameters of the alr. my ideas never came to fruition, but they were sound. high density condos on a farm. i was not perfectly aligned with the developer, they were of the mind of 'getting around' the alr as opposed to my 'working within' philosophy.

added residential capacity is not just for 'farm help', it is more accurately "for the legitimate needs of the farm community."

[twobits]

it is difficult to search for the examples i believe exist, i haven't found the most extreme ones, likely in richmond or other parts of the lower mainland.

It is difficult to search for examples because you cannot search for something that does not exist. Some people believe in perpetual motion as well but cannot supply verifiable examples. You are suggesting things that are just not possible within the ALR and are trying to subvert the intention of the AlR with interpretations that quite frankly come from your gluteus maximus. In simple terms....and as pointed out by others.....trolling.

i know bed and breakfasts have been built on alr land, i know multiplex rental units have been built, i believe hotels have been built. one would have to consult with the alc to know how a condo would be received.

Bed and breakfast are allowable uses in the ALR. Show us ONE EXAMPLE of mutiplex rentals that have been built on ALR land that have not been associated with farm need, at least with original intent, on ALR land. Go ahead and ask the ALR commission about building a condo on ALR land and report the answer back here. I know what it will be.

again, i am a farmer. when i first moved to the okanagan i did some work consulting with a developer regarding what was then orchards north of union. the issue at the time was working within the parameters of the alr. my ideas never came to fruition, but they were sound. high density condos on a farm. i was not perfectly aligned with the developer, they were of the mind of 'getting around' the alr as opposed to my 'working within' philosophy.

What you didn't understand is what the developer did. Your philosophy was obviously not in line with ALR guidelines and why the whole thing went south on you.

added residential capacity is not just for 'farm help', it is more accurately "for the legitimate needs of the farm community."

Ya sure, go ahead and build a high density residential complex and try to sell it to people as long as they sign an affidavit they they are technically only renting the property and only occupying the property as farm help with the understanding that if they do not work on the farm, they will lose their investment.

Do you seriously think you are smarter than everybody else that has not figured out a work around to ALR development?? Are you also selling waterfront property in Florida?

I suggest you join anonymous and kick butt in the next election for a new clean slate. Oh....wait a minute.....neither of you can vote in that jurisdiction!!! Sometimes even small blessings are huge.

[NextGen]

Fluffy and Twobits, your comments are definitely worthy of reading, researched and accurate and informative. Thank you.

[Daspoot]

i will point out again, being within the alr is not a barrier to development of any sort, residential or commercial.

Never before have I seen something so wrong posted as fact and then also defended so poorly while claiming victory.

I thank you for putting the rest of you posts in perspective.

[coolworx]

Growth! Progress!
How can anyone argue with that?

Except that if you care to pay attention, the world is becoming lesser - more course, and dehumanizing.

We have billionaire sociopaths running the place because we value craftiness over craft.

[NextGen]

Found this article in the Penticton Herald today, I am not surprised that these comments came from David Gregory, he has been a constant trouble maker in our town for some time now. You would think that someone that was a previous Mayor In Summerland would know his facts. Or is he doing this just to start trouble. Or is he a scorned man who resents anyone that works for the City of Summerland.



Dear Editor:

When Summerland Council recently dealt with an “amendment” (the so-called “land swap”) of the 2008 Official Community Plan, two councillors were not in attendance for most municipal meetings. Throughout the process, two councillors did not clearly

establish that they had a conflict of interest.

Section 100 (Conflict of Interest) of the Community Charter (formerly known as the Municipal Act) is quite clear about what is required for councillors.

According to provincial law, councillors “must declare that they are not entitled to participate and state in general terms the reason why the member considers this to be the case. The minutes of each meeting must record the member’s declaration and the reasons given for it.”

This is required for each of the council meetings (including public hearings) which involved this topic, and must be made by the councillors themselves.

Summerland’s long-time legal counsel, lawyer Bill Buholzer, has clearly stated his opinion on councillors being absent from meetings with perceived conflict of interest.

According to Buholzer, “this perception has such unfortunate results as council and board members absenting themselves from meetings entirely to avoid making a conflict of interest declaration….when one is clearly required, with negative consequences for both the municipal corporation and the elected official.”

The Community Charter is a provincial law created to ensure greater transparency of actions of municipal governments.

Why was legal protocol not followed, on several occasions, over many months?

David E. Gregory

Summerland



I am grateful to our Mayor Perrino for correcting this man that is trying to put misinformation to the public and trying to discredit current public servants. This is our Mayor's response.



Dear Editor:

David E. Gregory’s letter to the editor (Herald, June 5) was incorrect.

Proper protocol was followed. Section 100 of the Community Charter was misquoted. Subsection 2 states “If a council member attending a meeting considers that he or she is not entitled to participate in the discussion of a matter…the member must declare this…” (emphasis added).

In every case the Official Community Plan amendment in question was considered, the two impacted Councillors either declared their conflict and the reasons for it, or were not in attendance at the meeting.

Janice Perrino, Mayor

District of Summerland

[old boy]

Found this article in the Penticton Herald today, I am not surprised that these comments came from David Gregory, he has been a constant trouble maker in our town for some time now. You would think that someone that was a previous Mayor In Summerland would know his facts. Or is he doing this just to start trouble. Or is he a scorned man who resents anyone that works for the City of Summerland.



Dear Editor:

When Summerland Council recently dealt with an “amendment” (the so-called “land swap”) of the 2008 Official Community Plan, two councillors were not in attendance for most municipal meetings. Throughout the process, two councillors did not clearly

establish that they had a conflict of interest.

Section 100 (Conflict of Interest) of the Community Charter (formerly known as the Municipal Act) is quite clear about what is required for councillors.

According to provincial law, councillors “must declare that they are not entitled to participate and state in general terms the reason why the member considers this to be the case. The minutes of each meeting must record the member’s declaration and the reasons given for it.”

This is required for each of the council meetings (including public hearings) which involved this topic, and must be made by the councillors themselves.

Summerland’s long-time legal counsel, lawyer Bill Buholzer, has clearly stated his opinion on councillors being absent from meetings with perceived conflict of interest.

According to Buholzer, “this perception has such unfortunate results as council and board members absenting themselves from meetings entirely to avoid making a conflict of interest declaration….when one is clearly required, with negative consequences for both the municipal corporation and the elected official.”

The Community Charter is a provincial law created to ensure greater transparency of actions of municipal governments.

Why was legal protocol not followed, on several occasions, over many months?

David E. Gregory

Summerland



I am grateful to our Mayor Perrino for correcting this man that is trying to put misinformation to the public and trying to discredit current public servants. This is our Mayor's response.



Dear Editor:

David E. Gregory’s letter to the editor (Herald, June 5) was incorrect.

Proper protocol was followed. Section 100 of the Community Charter was misquoted. Subsection 2 states “If a council member attending a meeting considers that he or she is not entitled to participate in the discussion of a matter…the member must declare this…” (emphasis added).

In every case the Official Community Plan amendment in question was considered, the two impacted Councillors either declared their conflict and the reasons for it, or were not in attendance at the meeting.

Janice Perrino, Mayor

District of Summerland

Glad to see, as well, Mayor Perrino correcting the ex Mayor,he should know better!! Good to see him being challenged on misinformation. But like others he picks and chooses what suits him from information. How does he even know that the 2 Councilors in question,were even in town at the times of those meetings,they simply could have just been away?
He is always looking for trouble,,just as he did when he was Mayor. My recollection of his term,was that there were a lot of 4/3 votes on issues,with him casting the deciding vote in most cases and never knowing which way that was going to be.

[Anonymous123]

You guys just keep patting each other on the back. I don't think D. Gregory's spouse got the contract to operate the landfill without the tender process. Yeah that Janice is a real treasure. What a joke this council is. Glad it's not mine.

[Daspoot]

Are you being deliberately obtuse

Unfortunately I don't believe it is deliberate.