Summerland Election

[0gopogo]

......"I must be really missing something here. Can someone please explain to me why it's necessary to preserve land for agricultural use when there is no interest in using that particular land for agricultural purposes, and there is a much more logical use available? I speak specifically of the twenty or thirty odd acres at the intersection of Quinpool and Garnet Avenue, land that has lain fallow for years and is immediately adjacent to existing residential neighbourhoods. Anyone?.........."

__________________________________________________________________

I wondered this too. Can anyone answer this? Surely a stop the swapper like Logitack must know???

[Anonymous123]

......"I must be really missing something here. Can someone please explain to me why it's necessary to preserve land for agricultural use when there is no interest in using that particular land for agricultural purposes, and there is a much more logical use available? I speak specifically of the twenty or thirty odd acres at the intersection of Quinpool and Garnet Avenue, land that has lain fallow for years and is immediately adjacent to existing residential neighbourhoods. Anyone?.........."

__________________________________________________________________

I wondered this too. Can anyone answer this? Surely a stop the swapper like Logitack must know???

So let's say that land gets developed. The houses on that land will then become adjacent to ALR land. What then? Does the next twenty or thirty acres adjacent to the houses get developed? Where is the stop line? That land has been left fallow so that it can be developed. There is nothing wrong with the soil, I have eaten food grown on that particular property. Mind you that was thirty years ago.

[twobits]

......"I must be really missing something here. Can someone please explain to me why it's necessary to preserve land for agricultural use when there is no interest in using that particular land for agricultural purposes, and there is a much more logical use available? I speak specifically of the twenty or thirty odd acres at the intersection of Quinpool and Garnet Avenue, land that has lain fallow for years and is immediately adjacent to existing residential neighbourhoods. Anyone?.........."

__________________________________________________________________

I wondered this too. Can anyone answer this? Surely a stop the swapper like Logitack must know???

Silly question. Global warming, recent droughts in the Vegetable Belt of California, Monsato, frost in Florida, Putin in the wheat basket of the Ukraine, price of fuel.....so get ready to only eat a 100 mile diet. Take your pick.
Those 30 acres laying fallow for years are necessary for our survival as they can grow enough carrots, potatoes, squash, and turnips to put in the root cellar to sustain 50 Summerland families until the next harvest.
And if the calamities of the future that these people justify their ridiculous position on should ever happen, this same mindset will be advocating for the seizure of the lands as it is in the best interest of the people. Sound like a familiar doctrine?

[twobits]

So let's say that land gets developed. The houses on that land will then become adjacent to ALR land. What then? Does the next twenty or thirty acres adjacent to the houses get developed? Where is the stop line? That land has been left fallow so that it can be developed. There is nothing wrong with the soil, I have eaten food grown on that particular property. Mind you that was thirty years ago.

You also need to review and understand the principles of Smart Growth. This was not a case of the redesignation or rezoning of one parcel from ag to future housing.....like one opportunist developer might try to get away with. This was a long term, several decade long, direction for housing growth that identified an area of lands that made sense from a proximity and servicing perspective. It was not an opportunist initiative.
It is actually much smarter for communities to designate and direct this kind of development rather than what we now have as an ad hoc willy nilly application stream on a parcel by parcel basis. Having a clear area defined sends a clear message to opportunist developers that this is where future growth is going to happen.
And yes, this would set a new boundary adjacent to ALR land. How could you possible not do so in a town that is completely circled by this designation? The message it does send though, is that there is ample land available that is cost efficient to service, close to the core, and in line with all current Smart Growth principles. That new line bordering the ALR is sound and sacrosanct for 30 to 50 years. Two generations hence will then grapple with and decide about further expansion or not if those lands are spent. And they will be making those decisions based on then current information and their best interests.
And it is my humble opinion, that our children and grandchildren will appreciate a planned growth and expansion for the efficiencies it brought from transportation, servicing, density for a vibrant downtown core rather than a hodge podge satellite of neighbourhoods with no connections between them besides several kilometers of asphalt (and expensive or no services) between them.

ETA- Would anyone care to comment as to developments such as Cartwright Mountain or Deer Ridge as being examples of Smart Growth?

[Anonymous123]

And so it begins:

http://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton/127244/Fresh-start-for-Summerland

[lesliepaul]

I hear Monsanto is interested in those 20 - 30 acres.

[RandyDandy]

Why? Well, there are about 3 days worth of food in Vancouver warehouses to serve the province. If the I-5 were to be closed for a week we might wish we'd planted a bit more food where we could, and that would not be Deer Ridge, Cartright mountain or Hunter's Hill. The property at the corner of Quinpool and Garnet is owned by 2 former councillors. Lots more money in selling residential land than farmland. It's not a difficult equation.

[fluffy]

So let's say that land gets developed. The houses on that land will then become adjacent to ALR land. What then? Does the next twenty or thirty acres adjacent to the houses get developed? Where is the stop line?

The proposed inclusion area was bounded by either existing residential areas or natural boundaries such as claybanks, from town level up to Jones Flat level or down to Peach Orchard/Hospital Hill. Residential/agricultural interface would be no worse than it is at present as would eventually disappear for this area over the coming decades, given that Summerland is allowed to grow.

That land has been left fallow so that it can be developed.

That's one theory. Another is that the returns on agricultural ventures suitable for that type of property are just not very attractive. At first glance it looks like the only crop presently on the upswing in the Okanagan is grapes, a crop more suited to sunny slopes like those available in the proposed inclusion zone.

The property at the corner of Quinpool and Garnet is owned by 2 former councillors. Lots more money in selling residential land than farmland. It's not a difficult equation.

Your feeble attempt at muck-raking aside, both these landowners removed themselves from any and all discussions regarding the land swap as is required by law. Your omission of that little gem of information from your equation leads me to believe that math is not your strong suit.
 

[old boy]

Why? Well, there are about 3 days worth of food in Vancouver warehouses to serve the province. If the I-5 were to be closed for a week we might wish we'd planted a bit more food where we could, and that would not be Deer Ridge, Cartright mountain or Hunter's Hill. The property at the corner of Quinpool and Garnet is owned by 2 former councillors. Lots more money in selling residential land than farmland. It's not a difficult equation.

First of all,the property you are referring to and the 2 properties to the north of it involve 3 land owners,2 of which aren't on Council. In my recollection, these properties have been owned by the same people for over 20 years, could hardly call that a good investment for development. The issue was/is about a future growth plan for the foreseeable future, not about who owns land within the proposed area.
A number of years ago,I can remember some different ground crops were grown on this property, but not with much success, as it only lasted a couple of seasons and nothing has been done since.
In my opinion, this play is all about retaining land within the ALR,so that our hobby farmers can have cheap leased land, cheap water ,minimal taxes and a great lifestyle at the rest of ours expense.Doesnt make for a very sustainable community with a total tax bill of $47,000 for all the ag lands in Summerland.
Anyways the election is over and we need to be looking to the future with our new Council.but that shouldn't be too hard, as I didn't hear any of them present any alternatives during the campaign for moving Summerland forward.

[Anonymous123]

That's one theory. Another is that the returns on agricultural ventures suitable for that type of property are just not very attractive. At first glance it looks like the only crop presently on the upswing in the Okanagan is grapes, a crop more suited to sunny slopes like those available in the proposed inclusion zone. 

I know of a crop that is ideally suited for smaller acreages, and no, it's not marijuana. Drought tolerant, frost tolerant, re seeds itself, up to $200K/acre, 4 years to full crop.

The property at the corner of Quinpool and Garnet is owned by 2 former councillors. Lots more money in selling residential land than farmland. It's not a difficult equation.

Your feeble attempt at muck-raking aside, both these landowners removed themselves from any and all discussions regarding the land swap as is required by law. Your omission of that little gem of information from your equation leads me to believe that math is not your strong suit.
 

Just like The Mayor excused herself from the non tendering of the landfill contract. Interesting enough the two landowners on council, that excused themselves from the ALR vote, voted in favour of renewing the landfill contract to the Mayors husband. A phone call or two and you get a "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" situation.

[fluffy]

I know of a crop that is ideally suited for smaller acreages, and no, it's not marijuana. Drought tolerant, frost tolerant, re seeds itself, up to $200K/acre, 4 years to full crop.

Which crop is that?

Just like The Mayor excused herself....blah blah blah.

Conspiracy theories and innuendo. Come back when you have something of actual substance.

[0gopogo]

............"I know of a crop that is ideally suited for smaller acreages, and no, it's not marijuana. Drought tolerant, frost tolerant, re seeds itself, up to $200K/acre, 4 years to full crop......."

Really?? What crop is this???

[Daspoot]

......"I must be really missing something here. Can someone please explain to me why it's necessary to preserve land for agricultural use when there is no interest in using that particular land for agricultural purposes, and there is a much more logical use available? I speak specifically of the twenty or thirty odd acres at the intersection of Quinpool and Garnet Avenue, land that has lain fallow for years and is immediately adjacent to existing residential neighbourhoods. Anyone?.........."

__________________________________________________________________

I wondered this too. Can anyone answer this? Surely a stop the swapper like Logitack must know???

Let me summarize for you what the reasons are so far:

1 - If they swap this, they'll swap it all eventually, paving it and putting gleaming skyscrapers up to blot out the sun.

2 - What happens when the zombie (or other) apocalypse comes and we can't get food from out of town?

3 - It's all because of the tiny percentage of land owned by two people who didn't vote on the swap, ie: it's a politico back-scratching play. ( I think this one is the biggest laugh btw.)

4 - It's for the birds and butterflies and other soft fluffy things, except we put nets over the trees so the birds can't eat the cherries, and spray 5 times a year so the butterfly eggs don't hatch and eat the apples.

Whatever it is, it surely can't be because:
1 - Growth near the downtown core and schools makes sense fiscally and ergonomically.

2 - That infrastructure for houses is much cheaper to install near the core as opposed to the hillside on the outskirts of town.

3 - That tax revenues realized for residential eclipses agricultural by such a freaking huge margin, or that agricultural endeavors provide almost zero jobs for people living in Summerland, which is a bedroom community with no bedrooms available right now.

How many acres of food producing land has been turned under to become vineyards and then held up as a shining example of agricultural success even though zero food or sustenance is produced on it and it all goes to produce a drug that ruins millions of lives all around the world every year.... Just saying....

[antelee]

Priceless! Well written Daspoot!

[Logitack]

guess you and your ilk should have gotten your vote out to ensure like minded politicos were elected. what happened? if castanet forum were any gauge, the stop the swap group would be annihilated on election day!

but none of that happened... sucks to be the "for growth for a few" side...