OK, Max is old enough that we are considering going to the Oak Bay Teaparty. It has been a LONG time since I was last at the teaparty (link is to some info on the new US movement that stole the name, Oak Bay should sue).
The last time I went was in 1988 with Steve Holland and Phil Hoover. We came armed with a tape recorder and were investigating the use and abuse of tea in Oak Bay for our late night radio program The Anarchist Teaparty - the link has nothing do with our show of the time. Actually the most professional part of our show were the posters Rob Passingham did for us, in writing this I am wondering how to get a hold of Rob and see if he has any posters left from that time.
The piece we aired was medium funny - us asking the organizers about tea as if it an illicit substance. That, along with everything else we did over three years on the show, has been lost.
I will post some pictures of Max and rides and such after the event.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Community Forum on the Sayward road/Hwy #17 intersection
I got this email from Lana Popham, MLA for Saanich South. For a long time I have thought this intersection and the one at Haliburton, need to be replaced. My intention is to go to this community forum.
Dear Friend,
Are you concerned about the intersection at Pat Bay Highway and Sayward Road?
Did you know that for over two decades it’s been one of the most dangerous intersections in all of British Columbia?
Please join me for a community forum about this intersection and highway safety.
Tuesday, June 15, 7-8:30pm
Cordova Bay Elementary School, 5238 Cordova Bay Road.
I'll be introducing three speakers who are well-versed in the possible solutions:
Judy Brownoff, Saanich Councillor and Council Liaison to the Ministry of Transportation;
Wayne Christmas, Cordova Bay Association for Community Affairs; and
Patrick Livolsi, Regional Director, South Coast Region, Ministry of Transportation
There will be lots of time for community engagement and refreshments will be served.
Please share this with anyone you know who might be interested!
Thank you,
Lana Popham
MLA, Saanich South
250-479-4154
4085 Quadra Street
lana.popham.mla@leg.bc.ca
Monday, May 24, 2010
Not only Victoria is working on their OCP, so to is View Royal
The council adopted
Here is the part that resonates with me:
A Central Community Gathering Place
The visioning process revealed a strong desire to have a central community gathering place that will the civic and cultural heart of View Royal. This will be unique from the smaller neighbourhood centres in that it will serve the entire town and and will be designed to accommodate community events - such as community picnics or outdoor celebrations - and meet a diverse range of needs. Some ides that received support include a mixed-use, transit-oreinted town centre or developing a large public park or plaza in close proximity to other community amenities. Regardless of the final location and form, the creation of a central gathering place is intended to complement, rather than replace, a connected network of walkable neighbourhood centres.
This speaks the heart of my complaint about View Royal - there is no there there. Where and what is View Royal? I know when I raised this before there were those that disagreed with me.
Within the nine goals of vision, the first one is:
Promote a strong sense of community in all areas and neighbourhoods of the Town, and create an enhanced sense of place and identity throughout.This again speaks to my issue of the lack of a cohesive sense of a place that is View Royal. The parts close to Shoreline feel like they connect to Esquimalt, the area near VGH feels like Saanich, and the areas by the Casino feel like Colwood. This really covers the majority of the town.
I am very interested to see how the plan suggest dealing with the problem, I would go to the open house, but I have to be in Prince George on that day.
Friday, May 21, 2010
More thoughts on the Vantreight proposal
I have been looking for alternatives to the development as ways to ensure one of the most significant farming operations in our region stays in operation for the next generation of the Vantreight family.
I see Central Saanich speaks a lot about supporting the rural nature of the municipality and the fact they value farming. What I do not see are any actions Central Saanich is taking that actually make a difference for the farmers.
What I see are a lot or rules and restrictions to development of land. That is all fine and wonderful for people who want a bucolic landscape, but it does nothing to help preserve the economic viability of farming. The OCP wants to retain the agricultural land but there is nothing within it to show the residents of Central Saanich will pay for it. The majority in Central Saanich are asking the minority, farmers, to accept the burden of the costs of the OCPs rural desires.
The ALR was a good thing for farms and together with farm status within the property tax system, many farms were saved. The primary reason the farms in Gordon Head were developed is because the property tax bill for the farmers was simply way too high to be able to continue to own the land. The farmers were forced off that land due to how their land was valued.
I look through the OCP and I find not a single concrete example of what Central Saanich will do to actually support the 25 farms that are making a real go of it?
As someone that has worked on farming and small scale food processing business planning and knows something about the economics of agriculture, I can only say I am amazed anyone still farms in the CRD. the fundamental reality is that an operation much smaller than what the Vantreights operate now, already very small. The only reason the farm can continue is because there is a next generation willing to take it on.
From the OCP
Allowing the Vantreight property to be sold off piece meal runs directly counter to a key objective of the OCP. The Vantreights not only farm their 400 acres, but they also lease almost the same amount of farmland. They alone account for the equivalent of almost 10% of the ALR in Central Saanich, The area of land that they farm is equal to 13% of the land farmed in Central Saanich
There are only 16 operating farms in Central Saanich of more than 70 acres. There are less than 25 agricultural operations in Central Saanich that are family supporting economically viable.
There are 112 farms in Central Saanich, 62% of the total, that produced less than $10,000 in gross income. These are in almost all cases not real farms at all but people seeking to get farm status for the purposes of their property taxes. Many of these operations are hobby horse farms and not paying their fair share in taxes. A high portion of active farming in Central Saanich is growing hay......
Whoever you slice it, the loss of the Vantreight farm would mean the loss of a significant portion of farm land in Central Saanich from active use. There is no feasible way anyone can raise the funds to buy the farm as it is and in individual parcel most will be purchased by people wanting private estates. If one were to take the Vantreight farm out of the mix, gross farm receipts in Central Saanich would drop by 15 -30% in my quick estimate.
If Ian Vantreight had not taken the action he did and buy out his brother, the farm would be no more. I find it insulting that people say he all he did was make a bad business decision. This is a man risking his and his sons financial well being to preserve farming in this region. He did not make a business decision, he made decision to protect Central Saanich's rural nature. I can not think of anyone else who has done as much to save the farmland the OCP wants protected than Ian Vantreight.
So where was the council? No where to be seen to ensure the farm survived.
The Hill proposal is an interesting and innovative solution that should be applauded. There are few solutions that strike as most in keeping with the spirit and intent of the both the Regional Growth Strategy and the Central Saanich OCP than the Vantreight proposal. The OCP makes it clear that farming is key in Central Saanich, it is listed ahead of everything else. Clearly the intent in the OCP is to do whatever is possible to make farming possible. This proposal not only costs Central Saanich nothing, it gets more and better protection for agricultural, more tax dollars, and the highest quality development ever seen in Central Saanich.
Saying NO does not mean the status quo continues, saying no without a reasonable alternative solution is sticking your head in the sand. It also sends a message that Central Saanich will not lift a finger to protect family farms and the heritage of the area.
I have yet to hear any serious alternative solutions. One solution proposed is at best laughable and at worst verging on criminally naive, that idea is having the land purchased by a trust and then farmed on a lease basis. The example of why this can not work is Madrona farm. One 26 acre piece of farm land more than stretched the limits of fundraising. There is no way that this is a model that will be able to purchase more than a few small parcels of land. It will not work for something on the scale of the Vantreights.
The solution also has a fundamental problem in that farmers need access to financing to be able to afford to buy the equipment to farm and be able to build the infrastructure needed. They need land as collateral to get banks to lend them the money they need to operate. The leases would have to be fully transferable and have terms of decades to have any value for borrowing money.
Here are some possible solutions I can think of
It seems to me that people are much more interested in protecting the image of what a bucolic landscape is than actually protecting farming. It is also interesting that people are all gung ho about protecting heritage buildings but when there is a family that is more part of our regions heritage than any building I can think of, it becomes "a bad business decision" when they act to preserve the heritage of the region.
I see Central Saanich speaks a lot about supporting the rural nature of the municipality and the fact they value farming. What I do not see are any actions Central Saanich is taking that actually make a difference for the farmers.
What I see are a lot or rules and restrictions to development of land. That is all fine and wonderful for people who want a bucolic landscape, but it does nothing to help preserve the economic viability of farming. The OCP wants to retain the agricultural land but there is nothing within it to show the residents of Central Saanich will pay for it. The majority in Central Saanich are asking the minority, farmers, to accept the burden of the costs of the OCPs rural desires.
The ALR was a good thing for farms and together with farm status within the property tax system, many farms were saved. The primary reason the farms in Gordon Head were developed is because the property tax bill for the farmers was simply way too high to be able to continue to own the land. The farmers were forced off that land due to how their land was valued.
I look through the OCP and I find not a single concrete example of what Central Saanich will do to actually support the 25 farms that are making a real go of it?
As someone that has worked on farming and small scale food processing business planning and knows something about the economics of agriculture, I can only say I am amazed anyone still farms in the CRD. the fundamental reality is that an operation much smaller than what the Vantreights operate now, already very small. The only reason the farm can continue is because there is a next generation willing to take it on.
From the OCP
A key objective of the OCP is to ensure the sustainability and economic viability of the
District’s agricultural community as an integral part of farming on the Saanich Peninsula.
Allowing the Vantreight property to be sold off piece meal runs directly counter to a key objective of the OCP. The Vantreights not only farm their 400 acres, but they also lease almost the same amount of farmland. They alone account for the equivalent of almost 10% of the ALR in Central Saanich, The area of land that they farm is equal to 13% of the land farmed in Central Saanich
There are only 16 operating farms in Central Saanich of more than 70 acres. There are less than 25 agricultural operations in Central Saanich that are family supporting economically viable.
There are 112 farms in Central Saanich, 62% of the total, that produced less than $10,000 in gross income. These are in almost all cases not real farms at all but people seeking to get farm status for the purposes of their property taxes. Many of these operations are hobby horse farms and not paying their fair share in taxes. A high portion of active farming in Central Saanich is growing hay......
Whoever you slice it, the loss of the Vantreight farm would mean the loss of a significant portion of farm land in Central Saanich from active use. There is no feasible way anyone can raise the funds to buy the farm as it is and in individual parcel most will be purchased by people wanting private estates. If one were to take the Vantreight farm out of the mix, gross farm receipts in Central Saanich would drop by 15 -30% in my quick estimate.
If Ian Vantreight had not taken the action he did and buy out his brother, the farm would be no more. I find it insulting that people say he all he did was make a bad business decision. This is a man risking his and his sons financial well being to preserve farming in this region. He did not make a business decision, he made decision to protect Central Saanich's rural nature. I can not think of anyone else who has done as much to save the farmland the OCP wants protected than Ian Vantreight.
So where was the council? No where to be seen to ensure the farm survived.
The Hill proposal is an interesting and innovative solution that should be applauded. There are few solutions that strike as most in keeping with the spirit and intent of the both the Regional Growth Strategy and the Central Saanich OCP than the Vantreight proposal. The OCP makes it clear that farming is key in Central Saanich, it is listed ahead of everything else. Clearly the intent in the OCP is to do whatever is possible to make farming possible. This proposal not only costs Central Saanich nothing, it gets more and better protection for agricultural, more tax dollars, and the highest quality development ever seen in Central Saanich.
Saying NO does not mean the status quo continues, saying no without a reasonable alternative solution is sticking your head in the sand. It also sends a message that Central Saanich will not lift a finger to protect family farms and the heritage of the area.
I have yet to hear any serious alternative solutions. One solution proposed is at best laughable and at worst verging on criminally naive, that idea is having the land purchased by a trust and then farmed on a lease basis. The example of why this can not work is Madrona farm. One 26 acre piece of farm land more than stretched the limits of fundraising. There is no way that this is a model that will be able to purchase more than a few small parcels of land. It will not work for something on the scale of the Vantreights.
The solution also has a fundamental problem in that farmers need access to financing to be able to afford to buy the equipment to farm and be able to build the infrastructure needed. They need land as collateral to get banks to lend them the money they need to operate. The leases would have to be fully transferable and have terms of decades to have any value for borrowing money.
Here are some possible solutions I can think of
- A grant from Central Saanich to the Vantreights in the amount of the value the development would bring them. In return Central Saanich gets the lots amalgamated and would get the 36 hectare hill.
- The development goes ahead and Central Saanich commits to depaving or acquiring 36 hectares of land elsewhere in Central Saanich.
It seems to me that people are much more interested in protecting the image of what a bucolic landscape is than actually protecting farming. It is also interesting that people are all gung ho about protecting heritage buildings but when there is a family that is more part of our regions heritage than any building I can think of, it becomes "a bad business decision" when they act to preserve the heritage of the region.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Recreation Centres and the City of Victoria OCP
The City of Victoria manages to surive on a single recreation centre because it has can count on people in Victoria being able to use the facilities in neighbouring municipalities. As exmaples, the Burnside neighbourhood is close to Pearkes, Oaklands is abutting Cedar Hill Rec, Vic West is much close to the Esquimalt Rec Centre and the Jubilee area is very close to the Oak Bay Rec Centre.
Oak Bay manages to operate 2 rec centres for a population of only 17000. Saanich operates four rec centres for a population of 117,000. Esquimalt operates one for 17,000 people and the Department of National De fence effectively offers another one. Victoria has a single recreation centre for a population of 82,000.
The city should set a goal of one full recreation centre per 30,000 people in the city within 15 years. A full recreation centre would have the full gamut of fitness equipment, meeting rooms, at least one gym and either a pool or an arena.
To achieve ration of 30,000 people per recreation centre would mean constructing two more. Where does one put these two?
A first location that strikes me as a good spot would be along the western side of Beacon Hill Park (and now I will duck as I am sure some the friends of Beacon Hill Park will want to fling goose poo at me for the suggestion). This location would be a very good one to have with a pool, especially if one where to create the ability to have some pool and water park play area outside connected with the centre.
This location would offer James Bay much better access to City recreation services. It would also mean all of Fairfield west of St Charles would have better access as well. It also serves the southern half of Downtown well.
This should be set as a proirity and should have a timeframe of less than eight years.
The third location? There are various options.
The existing Crystal Pool and Fitness Centre is not well located for a host of reasons and has some major shortcomings.
The importance of public recreation centres is that local government is one of the few ways larger scale infrastructure can built. The arena and pool aspects are expensive. The City also has to consider the issue of access, if the City will not offer the recreation services close to the people, the public will not make use of them.
Oak Bay manages to operate 2 rec centres for a population of only 17000. Saanich operates four rec centres for a population of 117,000. Esquimalt operates one for 17,000 people and the Department of National De fence effectively offers another one. Victoria has a single recreation centre for a population of 82,000.
The city should set a goal of one full recreation centre per 30,000 people in the city within 15 years. A full recreation centre would have the full gamut of fitness equipment, meeting rooms, at least one gym and either a pool or an arena.
To achieve ration of 30,000 people per recreation centre would mean constructing two more. Where does one put these two?
A first location that strikes me as a good spot would be along the western side of Beacon Hill Park (and now I will duck as I am sure some the friends of Beacon Hill Park will want to fling goose poo at me for the suggestion). This location would be a very good one to have with a pool, especially if one where to create the ability to have some pool and water park play area outside connected with the centre.
This location would offer James Bay much better access to City recreation services. It would also mean all of Fairfield west of St Charles would have better access as well. It also serves the southern half of Downtown well.
This should be set as a proirity and should have a timeframe of less than eight years.
The third location? There are various options.
- Gonzales - the density is not there and the distance to Oak Bay's centre is not that far
- Vic West - This could be a good location given the rising population in the area. The existing Vic West Y community Centre is not nearly close enough to the core of the population to be the best location. The Vic West Park would be a good location. One could work with the Davinci centre and develop something at Wilson and Bay.
- Cedar Hill Rec Centre - this is a Saanich Rec Centre, but it is on the border with Victoria. What if the two municipalities cooperated and made this bigger and better rec centre? What if Victoria were to contribute an two sheet ice arena to the site?
The existing Crystal Pool and Fitness Centre is not well located for a host of reasons and has some major shortcomings.
- The facility has inadequate parking - if the city is going to have a single rec centre, it should provide much better parking for the public.
- There is only one bus route that passes by it, the number 6. The new number 10 comes close. With the addition of the #10, some of the Jubilee area can now bus to Crystal pool. Oddly enough, both the #6 and #10 allow for easy access from the Vic West to Crystal Pool. There is no easy transit access from James Bay, Fairfield, Burnside, Rockland, Oaklands, most of Fernwood or Gonzales to the facility.
The importance of public recreation centres is that local government is one of the few ways larger scale infrastructure can built. The arena and pool aspects are expensive. The City also has to consider the issue of access, if the City will not offer the recreation services close to the people, the public will not make use of them.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
The Importance of the OCP
The last time the City of Victoria came out with an Official Community Plan (OCP) was in 1995 and it was designed to look out to 2020. Much has changed in the city in that time, some of it the direction of the plan, some of it not. More importantly is that 15 years is a long time in the life of most of us.
When the last plan was being worked on I was not yet a parent. By the time the next plan is developed in our around 2030 I will be 65. The timing of the plans is such that people are at very different stages in their lives when each plan is developed. Who I was, what I knew and what I thought when I was in my late 20s is very different than where I am now in my mid 40s.
The danger in many communities is that a very limited number of people take part in the process and the plan is not complete reflection of the will of the public. From 1992-95 the City of Vancouver went through their OCP process, which they called CityPlan. I not only took part, I had a chance to see how the planning process was run up close and personal, my uncle Lorenz von Fersen was seconded to work on it. He was a cultural and social planner for the city. Vancouver managed to use some very interesting and innovative ways to engage the public.
Victoria is doing a reasonable job of trying to reach out to the public, but it is not doing anything dramatic to reach out to the public and engage a much larger cross section of people. The City could be working with youth in High Schools, imagine if all three High Schools that have City of Victoria residents each developed their own ideas for a plan. There are departments and UVic that could be engaged. There is a small but very active discussion group talking about these sort of issues at Vibrant Victoria. What I am saying is that the City is not thinking outside of the box. More people involved at any point in the process means more ownership of the process and eventual plan by the public.
There are some major issues that the City needs to consider within the OCP that simply are not yet on the radar and will cause public concern when the issues arise. As an example, many of the apartment buildings in Victoria were built in the 1960s. They are coming up on 50 years old and this means there will be owners looking to redevelop them over the next 20 years.
The OCP will set the parameters under which the city will move forward for the next 20 years, if we do not take part, we could very well end up with a plan and future we do not want. Taking even a few minutes to express what your values are and what you like and do not like about the city is important and useful to the process. There are numerous ways to get your opinion in to the city.
When the last plan was being worked on I was not yet a parent. By the time the next plan is developed in our around 2030 I will be 65. The timing of the plans is such that people are at very different stages in their lives when each plan is developed. Who I was, what I knew and what I thought when I was in my late 20s is very different than where I am now in my mid 40s.
The danger in many communities is that a very limited number of people take part in the process and the plan is not complete reflection of the will of the public. From 1992-95 the City of Vancouver went through their OCP process, which they called CityPlan. I not only took part, I had a chance to see how the planning process was run up close and personal, my uncle Lorenz von Fersen was seconded to work on it. He was a cultural and social planner for the city. Vancouver managed to use some very interesting and innovative ways to engage the public.
Victoria is doing a reasonable job of trying to reach out to the public, but it is not doing anything dramatic to reach out to the public and engage a much larger cross section of people. The City could be working with youth in High Schools, imagine if all three High Schools that have City of Victoria residents each developed their own ideas for a plan. There are departments and UVic that could be engaged. There is a small but very active discussion group talking about these sort of issues at Vibrant Victoria. What I am saying is that the City is not thinking outside of the box. More people involved at any point in the process means more ownership of the process and eventual plan by the public.
There are some major issues that the City needs to consider within the OCP that simply are not yet on the radar and will cause public concern when the issues arise. As an example, many of the apartment buildings in Victoria were built in the 1960s. They are coming up on 50 years old and this means there will be owners looking to redevelop them over the next 20 years.
The OCP will set the parameters under which the city will move forward for the next 20 years, if we do not take part, we could very well end up with a plan and future we do not want. Taking even a few minutes to express what your values are and what you like and do not like about the city is important and useful to the process. There are numerous ways to get your opinion in to the city.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Victoria OCP process
As I posted earlier, I am interested in hosting an evening for people to exchange ideas on the future of the City of Victoria. There is a Facebook event page for this now.
I would love to have the evening be a chance for people to share their visions and ideas for the future. I would love for it to be a mini Ideas Fair - this would be a chance for people to talk about and/or display information about their ideas.
If you have any ideas you want to get out there, I am happy to post them here or to provide links.
All I ask of people is an RSVP and come with an open and positive mind. I value all ideas and want to give everyone a fair chance to explore what they are thinking.
I have enough space to host largish number of people inside, more if the weather is warm and dry.
I would love to have the evening be a chance for people to share their visions and ideas for the future. I would love for it to be a mini Ideas Fair - this would be a chance for people to talk about and/or display information about their ideas.
If you have any ideas you want to get out there, I am happy to post them here or to provide links.
All I ask of people is an RSVP and come with an open and positive mind. I value all ideas and want to give everyone a fair chance to explore what they are thinking.
I have enough space to host largish number of people inside, more if the weather is warm and dry.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Esquimalt High Track and Tennis Courts
I find it rather depressing to see the state of the track at Esquimalt High
This view does not really show how bad it is. If you look from the parking lot near the portables, you can see it is basically falling apart.
There are also a set of tennis courts on the grounds, but they have weeds growing through the pavement.
It is a said statement on the way SD #61 is run that this infrastructure has been allowed to decay to the point of where it is not realistic to repair it. Why is there no one on staff at the district office who has the job to secure capital funding for projects like repairing the track and tennis courts? Why is there no active fundraising by SD#61 in the same way that UVic fundraises? Why is there no serious attempt to access foundation money for the schools?
This view does not really show how bad it is. If you look from the parking lot near the portables, you can see it is basically falling apart.
There are also a set of tennis courts on the grounds, but they have weeds growing through the pavement.
It is a said statement on the way SD #61 is run that this infrastructure has been allowed to decay to the point of where it is not realistic to repair it. Why is there no one on staff at the district office who has the job to secure capital funding for projects like repairing the track and tennis courts? Why is there no active fundraising by SD#61 in the same way that UVic fundraises? Why is there no serious attempt to access foundation money for the schools?
Camden Green Development in View Royal
This development is located close to VGH. I have no idea why the name as there are no greens around here at least the street it borders on is called Camden. The location would be a very good one for a nurse working at VGH. In general the development seems to be oriented to people buying their first place. Of the 48 units, 40 are one bedroom, 4 are two bedroom and three are the tiny bachelors.
What I find interesting is how small some of the units are, Residence 8 has an area of 406 square feet. There is one unit of this size on each level. I am assuming the unit available for $189,900 is the 406 square unit on the ground floor.
406 square feet is really small, this is 20' by 20'. You can cover this with twelve and half a sheets of plywood. A queen bed is 6'8" by 5'. A six person dining table is 3'6" by 5'. I am amazed at how small a unit this is.
There are some cool aspects to the development, specifically their use of geothermal heat for the development.
What I find interesting is how small some of the units are, Residence 8 has an area of 406 square feet. There is one unit of this size on each level. I am assuming the unit available for $189,900 is the 406 square unit on the ground floor.
406 square feet is really small, this is 20' by 20'. You can cover this with twelve and half a sheets of plywood. A queen bed is 6'8" by 5'. A six person dining table is 3'6" by 5'. I am amazed at how small a unit this is.
There are some cool aspects to the development, specifically their use of geothermal heat for the development.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
City of Victoria OCP Process
Readers of this blog, I would like to invite people to come by and spend an evening talking about the City of Victoria OCP and what various people think should be part of the vision for the City into the future.
I would like to host this evening on Friday June 4th at my home, starting at 7:00 pm and going till we finish.
I would like to focus on the following:
I am open to any other ideas people may have. I am just interested in an interesting and wide range debate.
I will have my vision for an OCP on hand in a draft form for people to rip and shred if they would like to, I will be posting bits and pieces of it on here as I finish them.
If you are interested in coming, please drop me a line via the comments here, my email, my facebook profile, Vibrant Victoria, or whatever other place you can find me, I am easy enough to find.
I would like to host this evening on Friday June 4th at my home, starting at 7:00 pm and going till we finish.
I would like to focus on the following:
- Visions for a great Victoria
- Building a City that works for residential, commercial, industry and social sectors - you hopefully remember I have a passion for protecting industrial lands.
- Making the city financially sustainable
- Integrating the City of Victoria more closely with the other local governments
I am open to any other ideas people may have. I am just interested in an interesting and wide range debate.
I will have my vision for an OCP on hand in a draft form for people to rip and shred if they would like to, I will be posting bits and pieces of it on here as I finish them.
If you are interested in coming, please drop me a line via the comments here, my email, my facebook profile, Vibrant Victoria, or whatever other place you can find me, I am easy enough to find.
Francis Drake Apartments in James Bay
I wish the City of Victoria would make it easier to find out about development proposals on their website, but that does not seem to be something they are doing. I may think Saanich is anti change, but at least I can find all the proposals online. If anyone knows how to easily find development proposals on the City of Victoria site, please let me know how it is done.
I raise this because I wanted to look at what exactely is being proposed in James Bay for the Francis Drake apartments. I came across the proposal at MakeVictoriaBetter.com. This directed me to the Times Colonist article on the development. I wanted to read up on it myself, but I could not find the details on the City website. I am not even sure how long the proposal has been around for. The 2008 Google Streetview has some sort of Land Use Application sign up in front of the building, but it is not on the active proposal page for the James Bay Neighbourhood Association.
The Francis Drake apartments site on a site slightly larger than 1.5 acres. There is access to the site for cars from St James Street, Oswego Street and Beckley Street. The proposal is to remove the two story parking structure accessed from St James Street and replace it with a 15 unit rental building. This would take the building from 93 units to 108 units but would reduce the parking spaces from 81 to 56.
This is the accees to the parking structure from teh St James Street side
And this is the view from the Beckley Street side
The big issue with this development is the low number of parking spaces in relation to the number of units. The development would mean the site would have less than one parking spot per two apartments. City staff recommended that the site has at least 102 parking spaces, an increase of 21 from what is there now and also six more parking spaces than new units. The question becomes, how many parking spaces would be needed for this apartment building and what could be done to reduce the demand?
The developer is proposing having a Car Coop vehicle on site. It strikes this is a very good idea for this location because there is only one other Coop car in James Bay and this is a neighbourhood where it is easier to live without owning a vehicle fulltime. The developer is also offering to provide space for 47 bikes.
If the idea of a less car dependent city is to work, then proposals such as this one should be going forward. If James Bya cannot be made less car dependent, then it is not going to happen elsewhere.
In looking at the site using the CRD Natural Areas Atlas, it looks like there are between 27 and 30 on street parking spots bordering on the apartment building property. I also believe that if one were to work with the site, it should be possible to add another 10 to 15 parking spaces on site. It seems to me that it should be possible to make a go of this proposal without having to have as much land being used for parking.
There is one other issue with the development, I can understand if the people living on Rendall Street might not be keen on the development. They would be going from a two story parking structure that is maybe 10 feet tall to a four story building looking into their backyards.
I raise this because I wanted to look at what exactely is being proposed in James Bay for the Francis Drake apartments. I came across the proposal at MakeVictoriaBetter.com. This directed me to the Times Colonist article on the development. I wanted to read up on it myself, but I could not find the details on the City website. I am not even sure how long the proposal has been around for. The 2008 Google Streetview has some sort of Land Use Application sign up in front of the building, but it is not on the active proposal page for the James Bay Neighbourhood Association.
The Francis Drake apartments site on a site slightly larger than 1.5 acres. There is access to the site for cars from St James Street, Oswego Street and Beckley Street. The proposal is to remove the two story parking structure accessed from St James Street and replace it with a 15 unit rental building. This would take the building from 93 units to 108 units but would reduce the parking spaces from 81 to 56.
This is the accees to the parking structure from teh St James Street side
And this is the view from the Beckley Street side
The big issue with this development is the low number of parking spaces in relation to the number of units. The development would mean the site would have less than one parking spot per two apartments. City staff recommended that the site has at least 102 parking spaces, an increase of 21 from what is there now and also six more parking spaces than new units. The question becomes, how many parking spaces would be needed for this apartment building and what could be done to reduce the demand?
The developer is proposing having a Car Coop vehicle on site. It strikes this is a very good idea for this location because there is only one other Coop car in James Bay and this is a neighbourhood where it is easier to live without owning a vehicle fulltime. The developer is also offering to provide space for 47 bikes.
If the idea of a less car dependent city is to work, then proposals such as this one should be going forward. If James Bya cannot be made less car dependent, then it is not going to happen elsewhere.
In looking at the site using the CRD Natural Areas Atlas, it looks like there are between 27 and 30 on street parking spots bordering on the apartment building property. I also believe that if one were to work with the site, it should be possible to add another 10 to 15 parking spaces on site. It seems to me that it should be possible to make a go of this proposal without having to have as much land being used for parking.
There is one other issue with the development, I can understand if the people living on Rendall Street might not be keen on the development. They would be going from a two story parking structure that is maybe 10 feet tall to a four story building looking into their backyards.
Friday, May 14, 2010
I have been busy trying to finish renoing our upstairs bedroom because my niece is living with us for a couple of months and we need another bedroom in the house. I have been laying a fir floor made from the boards of the old gym from when Spectrum high school was on Carey Road. I finally figured out what I was doing by the time I finished laying the floor. Now I am putting on a polyurethane coating and I am still not done. This was all supposed to be done by May 10th......
Because of this work I have not been near the computer for most of the last week and not written much of anything - barely ready email.
I cam across this interesting site on Vibrant Victoria - Strata Watch. You can look up how well your management company is doing.
I know I have not posted much on the real estate market locally, This is not because I have not had anything to say, but because I have not had time to digest and analyse all the data. Just some quick notes:
The number of housing units on the market has climbed very quickly after a dramatic fall over the winter. December saw the total number of units on the market fall to about 2500, the lowest level we have seen the last four years. The rebound back up to just under 4300 units in April and represents the highest number of units available in any April in Victoria history. I suspect will reach 5200 units on the market by the end of the summer.
The just under 800 sales in April is not a strong number and is the worst April in this market since 2004.
Prices for houses remain flat and still remain above the bottom of the market in late 2008 and early 2009. Normally March through July is a rising market with respect for house prices, and given the push due to various changes, I would have expected to see a rise in prices. Does this mean we are going to see a bad fall for sales?
Because of this work I have not been near the computer for most of the last week and not written much of anything - barely ready email.
I cam across this interesting site on Vibrant Victoria - Strata Watch. You can look up how well your management company is doing.
I know I have not posted much on the real estate market locally, This is not because I have not had anything to say, but because I have not had time to digest and analyse all the data. Just some quick notes:
The number of housing units on the market has climbed very quickly after a dramatic fall over the winter. December saw the total number of units on the market fall to about 2500, the lowest level we have seen the last four years. The rebound back up to just under 4300 units in April and represents the highest number of units available in any April in Victoria history. I suspect will reach 5200 units on the market by the end of the summer.
The just under 800 sales in April is not a strong number and is the worst April in this market since 2004.
Prices for houses remain flat and still remain above the bottom of the market in late 2008 and early 2009. Normally March through July is a rising market with respect for house prices, and given the push due to various changes, I would have expected to see a rise in prices. Does this mean we are going to see a bad fall for sales?
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Central Saanich Planning and Development Committee Meeting on Vantreight Proposal
I went to the meeting of the committee last night and listened to what was being said about the Hill project proposed by the Vantreights. There were about 150 people at the meeting last night. I was surprised at how many people came out in support of the project, it was an interesting mix of people. There were farmers from all over the south island and advocates of food security.
The only farmers that came out opposed were the ones from Madrona farm. They clearly want to do something different what has been done in the past with their land and want that model used elsewhere.
There is a strong opposition group from Central Saanich and from the Dean Park area of North Saanich. The Central Saanich group is working hard to maintain the rural nature and character of Central Saanich and are very much opposed to any development outside of the urban containment boundary.
I did speak, but only to raise the issue of what most of the ALR land is used for in the region. I have tried to make an estimate of how much ALR land in Central Saanich is actually being farmed and how much of it is just large rural estates for the richest people.
The committee has decided to send the proposal to public hearing. The biggest change agreed to was that agreement to consolidate the remaining land in the block into two titles, one of 60 acres and the other of 175 acres with a covenant to not allow subdivision.
The opposition to the project centred around several primary issues:
The council seems to be three in favour, two opposed, one in conflict of interest and one I am not sure about. A tied vote means defeat for the project. Because Jack Mar the mayor is in conflict, it will take four of the six remaining councilors for the project to get approval.
I will be posing more about the development as things move forward as I find it a very interesting debate in relation to community planning. The central question is about how to best protect the future
The only farmers that came out opposed were the ones from Madrona farm. They clearly want to do something different what has been done in the past with their land and want that model used elsewhere.
There is a strong opposition group from Central Saanich and from the Dean Park area of North Saanich. The Central Saanich group is working hard to maintain the rural nature and character of Central Saanich and are very much opposed to any development outside of the urban containment boundary.
I did speak, but only to raise the issue of what most of the ALR land is used for in the region. I have tried to make an estimate of how much ALR land in Central Saanich is actually being farmed and how much of it is just large rural estates for the richest people.
The committee has decided to send the proposal to public hearing. The biggest change agreed to was that agreement to consolidate the remaining land in the block into two titles, one of 60 acres and the other of 175 acres with a covenant to not allow subdivision.
The opposition to the project centred around several primary issues:
- The project goes against the OCP and RGS. I find this very much a 'letter of the law' argument and not an argument that focuses on intent. Interestingly Central Saanich has a zoning that would allow the development and not need a change to the OCP with the RE5 zoning option
- The location is environmentally sensitive. The problem with this is that the location has no current protection. The owner could pave over the whole area slated for development. The development offers long term protection to the most important sensitive areas.
- Farming should not have to depend on development. This is the argument of the economically illiterate. Madronna farm is showing this idea of having a trust own a property and then long term lease it to a farmer is not a viable way forward because there is not enough money to repeat the model. The people arguing this do not understand the costs involved with one small farm like the Vantreights.
- There were numerous people opposed that seemed to be under the impression that the land to be developed is farmland. I do not know if this is because they are unaware of the facts or if they are grasping at something to hang their personal opposition on.
- One councilor, Adam Olsen, raised many issues and tried to sound like he was open minded about the project, but he came across like an insincere politician. His issues were about the ability to service the project on site with respect to water and sewer and wanting to divorce any issues related to the economic viability of the farm from the land use issue
The council seems to be three in favour, two opposed, one in conflict of interest and one I am not sure about. A tied vote means defeat for the project. Because Jack Mar the mayor is in conflict, it will take four of the six remaining councilors for the project to get approval.
I will be posing more about the development as things move forward as I find it a very interesting debate in relation to community planning. The central question is about how to best protect the future
Monday, May 10, 2010
Langford, what I make of it
Last night I had to pick up Sheila from a mother's day martini party in Langford in the Glen Lake neighbourhood. I got out there earlier than planned and did a bit of a drive in some of the places I have not been.
I drove along the road that goes in front of the new Eagle Ridge Community centre. The land is still mainly undeveloped, but it now leads to the first corner of the Westhills development that is complete, Lakeview Ridge. The houses are decent enough, but they all look very much the same, there is no variation in the look.
What I found interesting about Attree ave (Langford Parkway may be the name, I have different names on different maps) is that is does not connect to any of the existing streets on either side. Neither Leigh road around Langford Lake or Glen Lake road connect to it. It just feels wrong not have a connection
In the past it was mainly along Goldstream ave that there there new stone faces three to five story condo developments with ground floor retail/commercial, but that is not case any longer. The stone facing on Goldstream is also evident in the work at Westhills and elsewhere in Langford. An example is some of the new buildings on Peatt.
Peatt is on the way to becoming a major street now that it properly connects with Phipps and on through to the mall. I was surprised to see some of the buildings that have been constructed along the street, condos with ground floor commercial and that same stone facing.
I also see this same sort of development at the corner of Jacklin and Sooke road. What I am seeing is nice integration of living space, retail space and white collar work space. The ability to walk is emerging but requires the infrastructure to allow for it.
Along with these developments I see that Langford is creating decent sidewalks, they are looking at how to make the town walkable and seem to be doing a good job. They are making walking a priority in a way that Saanich is simply refusing to do. Langford seems to have the money to not only build sidewalks, but to make them wide and aesthetically pleasing. For me this begs the question, why can't Saanich do the same? Why is Saanich obsessed with the car and not willing to make walking a priority.
While it is fashionable to think negatively about Langford, I am have to say they are going in what seems to be the most progressive direction with a lot of how they are are developing. Yes, people can crap on the big box stores, but they need to be somewhere and the location where they are seems to make sense. Bear Mountain is also something people hate, but ultimately it is offering more housing for the region without infringing on farm lands.
Stew Young may not be an easy man for some to deal with, but no one can deny he seems to be only mayor in our whole region that has any vision of the future.
I am going to try driving out there again, but this time with a camera and take some pics of the aspects that I saw that impressed me.
I drove along the road that goes in front of the new Eagle Ridge Community centre. The land is still mainly undeveloped, but it now leads to the first corner of the Westhills development that is complete, Lakeview Ridge. The houses are decent enough, but they all look very much the same, there is no variation in the look.
What I found interesting about Attree ave (Langford Parkway may be the name, I have different names on different maps) is that is does not connect to any of the existing streets on either side. Neither Leigh road around Langford Lake or Glen Lake road connect to it. It just feels wrong not have a connection
In the past it was mainly along Goldstream ave that there there new stone faces three to five story condo developments with ground floor retail/commercial, but that is not case any longer. The stone facing on Goldstream is also evident in the work at Westhills and elsewhere in Langford. An example is some of the new buildings on Peatt.
Peatt is on the way to becoming a major street now that it properly connects with Phipps and on through to the mall. I was surprised to see some of the buildings that have been constructed along the street, condos with ground floor commercial and that same stone facing.
I also see this same sort of development at the corner of Jacklin and Sooke road. What I am seeing is nice integration of living space, retail space and white collar work space. The ability to walk is emerging but requires the infrastructure to allow for it.
Along with these developments I see that Langford is creating decent sidewalks, they are looking at how to make the town walkable and seem to be doing a good job. They are making walking a priority in a way that Saanich is simply refusing to do. Langford seems to have the money to not only build sidewalks, but to make them wide and aesthetically pleasing. For me this begs the question, why can't Saanich do the same? Why is Saanich obsessed with the car and not willing to make walking a priority.
While it is fashionable to think negatively about Langford, I am have to say they are going in what seems to be the most progressive direction with a lot of how they are are developing. Yes, people can crap on the big box stores, but they need to be somewhere and the location where they are seems to make sense. Bear Mountain is also something people hate, but ultimately it is offering more housing for the region without infringing on farm lands.
Stew Young may not be an easy man for some to deal with, but no one can deny he seems to be only mayor in our whole region that has any vision of the future.
I am going to try driving out there again, but this time with a camera and take some pics of the aspects that I saw that impressed me.
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
HOW TO PROTECT FARMLAND IN THE CRD – THE VANTREIGHT PROPOSAL
This is what I submitted to Central Saanich moments ago, I wish I had more time to write it better, but this is where I got to as the day was running out. I have added some links and a couple more details here.
____________________________________________________
Here in BC there has been a valuing of agricultural land for many years, the goal being to protect the ability to farm and have local food being produced. Certainly over and over again this is emphasized by governments at all levels and by large segments of the public, but are the actions of local government helping or hindering?
Strict Enforcement of Plans versus Compromise to Protect Agricultural
As the Central Saanich OCP and the CRD Regional Growth Strategy are written, the development clearly is not allowed. Central Saanich and the CRD have a choice to make between sticking to the letter of the OCP and Regional Growth Strategy or making changes that will allow the continuance of commercial agriculture in our region.
This is from the Central Saanich OCP
If you look at the whole range of princples and consider the Hill Project, it fits really well with the OCP. The problem is that the OCP was not written with the knowledge of the future and what the best path would be to protect the values. Official community plans and other planning processes are not long term and permanent plans, but plans for a period of time to set the pace and course for how development will proceed.
Planning processes are not only black and white plans but they also contain statements of intent for the community. The intent of both the Central Saanich OCP and CRD RGS is to maintain green space, agricultural lands and contain growth. Both of the OCP and RGS will be amended in the future, changing overtime as the situation warrants is acceptable and fundamentally warranted if if goes further in achieving the goals of the OCP.
What happens when the words of an OCP and the maps of the plan run counter to each other? The Central Saanich OCP clearly wants to retain agricultural land, but what happens if the OCP maps get in the way of this?
Economics of Agriculture
There are very few larger scale farming operations left in the CRD. At 750 acres of owned and leased farm land, the Vantrieghts are one of the few that have the economy of scale to be able to be economic.
There are two big capital costs for farms, land and infrastructure.
The Vantreight farm has spent the money on the infrastructure in the form of a 70,000 sq foot warehouse, 120,000 sq foot greenhouse and eight 1600 sq foot cold storage units. These facilities represent an investment of something in the range of $10,000,000..
Agricultural land in the CRD sells for $30,000 to $100,000 an acre. For someone to acquire enough land to put together a 100 acre farm, the cost would be in the range of $5,000,000. It is now virtually impossible for anyone to choose to go into farming in this region. To retain farming in this region means we have to maintain the families on the land they have now.
In the case of the Vantrieghts, the family has been on the land for a long time and it was only because Ian Vantreight was not a new entrant that he could raise the money to buy out his brother's interest in the farm.
In 2006 the region was close to seeing the farm sold off completely. If the sale had gone ahead, the region would have lost one of the most significant farms as it would have been replaced by a large number of estate properties with little or no farming of any sort.
The farm could be parceled into 37 different properties through existing right to subdivide the titles. The scale of the houses that would be build on this land would in the range of 5000 to 10,000 square feet with the rights to build a second building on the parcel. The sale of the farm would not only mean the loss of significant land in production but also the exact sort of sprawl that both the OCP and the RGS want to stop.
The Vantreights have a next generation that is willing to take over the farm, that being Ryan. Ryan has moved the farm is some very interesting ways. He is not going down the agri-tourism direction that some people have done in this region. Ryan is taking the farm down the path of it being the cornerstone of regional agriculture and the centre piece of food security.
The Plan
The proposed development is located on land that has never been with the ALR. The land is of the Mount Newton soil type which is shallow and not very productive.
To the south east of the development there is a small portion of the land that is not within the ALR that likely should have been. With no loss of farmable land, the economics of the farm are not harmed by this development though the proceeds of the development would allow for long term financial security for the farm. This is fundamentally important as it is valid argument to be made that land should be removed from the ALR as it is not economical to farm it.
The development fits very well within the existing development and is a natural extension of the existing residential areas in North Saanich. It flows well and reinforces density staying within an existing neighbourhood.
The plan calls for 57 houses to be built. If the plan does not go ahead and the farm is sold off as individual parcels, Central Saanich is likely to see the same number of houses built on the individual properties, though these houses would be spread out over a much larger area.
Potential Sharp Tail Snake habitat is maintained in the plans. The snake is considered endangered in Canada, but this is also the northern limits of what the potential habitat. The development sets the potential habitat aside in a way that existing rules for the land do not.
The Future Without the Plan:
The odds are that without the development the farm will be sold as individual parcels. The majority of these properties will become estate like properties with very large houses on them. The rules of the ALR land allows for secondary suites, a second house to built on a property and for a mobile home as well.
If the farm were to be divided in 37 different parcels and each property required on average from half to one acre for a driveway, the loss of the farm would also mean an additional 20 to 40 acres of pavement. Assuming each property had one house of 5000 sq feet on three floors, another 2000 sq foot house on two floors and an accessory building of 6000 sq feet, this would mean another 8700 sq feet of land on each property covered with an impervious surface for a total of another 7 acres.
The loss of the Vantreight farm would not only remove their farm from production, but also another 350 acres of leased farm lands. This would move a lot of land in hay production from the current use. It would also remove about 40 agricultural jobs in the region. Farm suppliers in the region would feel the loss of the farm as well.
Without the Hill project, Central Saanich will lose more of its rural nature and continue the trend towards being the home for the rich with their horse estates.
The Compromise that makes the most sense.
The proposal from the Vantreights for their Hill development makes the most sense as it lives up to the spirit and intent of the OCP and the Regional Growth Strategy. Ian Vantreight took on a burden that benefits the whole region. He and his son have a passion for farming and should be rewarded for taking a huge risk to preserve the farm.
While we do not know what the price was that had to be paid to acquire the other half of the farm, it was likely in the range of $15,000,000. We also do not know what the gross or net income of the farm is, but doing some quick calculations, it seems that the debt servicing costs are enough to make the farm uneconomic.
If the farm is not making money, or is making only a very small profit, the banks will come and force the Vantreights to sell. Central Saanich has to give serious consideration to how the economics of the farm impact the ability of land to remain in agricultural production. If the farm has to be sold, it is clear that the blame will rest with the council for being blind to a creative way to meet the needs of the farm and the Central Saanich OCP.
Only the Hill project will ensure that the rural nature of Central Saanich has some certainty over the long term.
____________________________________________________
Here in BC there has been a valuing of agricultural land for many years, the goal being to protect the ability to farm and have local food being produced. Certainly over and over again this is emphasized by governments at all levels and by large segments of the public, but are the actions of local government helping or hindering?
Strict Enforcement of Plans versus Compromise to Protect Agricultural
As the Central Saanich OCP and the CRD Regional Growth Strategy are written, the development clearly is not allowed. Central Saanich and the CRD have a choice to make between sticking to the letter of the OCP and Regional Growth Strategy or making changes that will allow the continuance of commercial agriculture in our region.
This is from the Central Saanich OCP
1.2. Fundamental Principles
Seventeen fundamental principles provide the foundation for the objectives and policies of this plan.
Support Agriculture
The residents of Central Saanich have expressed strong support for preservation of the agricultural land base, and the farming economy which depends on it. Any future residential, commercial or industrial growth should be directed towards the established Urban Settlement Area. Agriculture is an important contributor to the local and regional economy, creating jobs, and generating revenues.
Maintain Rural Character
Rural lands and rural lifestyles are highly valued by residents of Central Saanich. The rural character of Central Saanich, defined by its large agricultural land base and its compact, mixed-use village centres, should be sustained; future growth should be focused within the established Urban Settlement Area within the municipality.
If you look at the whole range of princples and consider the Hill Project, it fits really well with the OCP. The problem is that the OCP was not written with the knowledge of the future and what the best path would be to protect the values. Official community plans and other planning processes are not long term and permanent plans, but plans for a period of time to set the pace and course for how development will proceed.
Planning processes are not only black and white plans but they also contain statements of intent for the community. The intent of both the Central Saanich OCP and CRD RGS is to maintain green space, agricultural lands and contain growth. Both of the OCP and RGS will be amended in the future, changing overtime as the situation warrants is acceptable and fundamentally warranted if if goes further in achieving the goals of the OCP.
What happens when the words of an OCP and the maps of the plan run counter to each other? The Central Saanich OCP clearly wants to retain agricultural land, but what happens if the OCP maps get in the way of this?
Economics of Agriculture
There are very few larger scale farming operations left in the CRD. At 750 acres of owned and leased farm land, the Vantrieghts are one of the few that have the economy of scale to be able to be economic.
There are two big capital costs for farms, land and infrastructure.
The Vantreight farm has spent the money on the infrastructure in the form of a 70,000 sq foot warehouse, 120,000 sq foot greenhouse and eight 1600 sq foot cold storage units. These facilities represent an investment of something in the range of $10,000,000..
Agricultural land in the CRD sells for $30,000 to $100,000 an acre. For someone to acquire enough land to put together a 100 acre farm, the cost would be in the range of $5,000,000. It is now virtually impossible for anyone to choose to go into farming in this region. To retain farming in this region means we have to maintain the families on the land they have now.
In the case of the Vantrieghts, the family has been on the land for a long time and it was only because Ian Vantreight was not a new entrant that he could raise the money to buy out his brother's interest in the farm.
In 2006 the region was close to seeing the farm sold off completely. If the sale had gone ahead, the region would have lost one of the most significant farms as it would have been replaced by a large number of estate properties with little or no farming of any sort.
The farm could be parceled into 37 different properties through existing right to subdivide the titles. The scale of the houses that would be build on this land would in the range of 5000 to 10,000 square feet with the rights to build a second building on the parcel. The sale of the farm would not only mean the loss of significant land in production but also the exact sort of sprawl that both the OCP and the RGS want to stop.
The Vantreights have a next generation that is willing to take over the farm, that being Ryan. Ryan has moved the farm is some very interesting ways. He is not going down the agri-tourism direction that some people have done in this region. Ryan is taking the farm down the path of it being the cornerstone of regional agriculture and the centre piece of food security.
The Plan
The proposed development is located on land that has never been with the ALR. The land is of the Mount Newton soil type which is shallow and not very productive.
To the south east of the development there is a small portion of the land that is not within the ALR that likely should have been. With no loss of farmable land, the economics of the farm are not harmed by this development though the proceeds of the development would allow for long term financial security for the farm. This is fundamentally important as it is valid argument to be made that land should be removed from the ALR as it is not economical to farm it.
The development fits very well within the existing development and is a natural extension of the existing residential areas in North Saanich. It flows well and reinforces density staying within an existing neighbourhood.
The plan calls for 57 houses to be built. If the plan does not go ahead and the farm is sold off as individual parcels, Central Saanich is likely to see the same number of houses built on the individual properties, though these houses would be spread out over a much larger area.
Potential Sharp Tail Snake habitat is maintained in the plans. The snake is considered endangered in Canada, but this is also the northern limits of what the potential habitat. The development sets the potential habitat aside in a way that existing rules for the land do not.
The Future Without the Plan:
The odds are that without the development the farm will be sold as individual parcels. The majority of these properties will become estate like properties with very large houses on them. The rules of the ALR land allows for secondary suites, a second house to built on a property and for a mobile home as well.
If the farm were to be divided in 37 different parcels and each property required on average from half to one acre for a driveway, the loss of the farm would also mean an additional 20 to 40 acres of pavement. Assuming each property had one house of 5000 sq feet on three floors, another 2000 sq foot house on two floors and an accessory building of 6000 sq feet, this would mean another 8700 sq feet of land on each property covered with an impervious surface for a total of another 7 acres.
The loss of the Vantreight farm would not only remove their farm from production, but also another 350 acres of leased farm lands. This would move a lot of land in hay production from the current use. It would also remove about 40 agricultural jobs in the region. Farm suppliers in the region would feel the loss of the farm as well.
Without the Hill project, Central Saanich will lose more of its rural nature and continue the trend towards being the home for the rich with their horse estates.
The Compromise that makes the most sense.
The proposal from the Vantreights for their Hill development makes the most sense as it lives up to the spirit and intent of the OCP and the Regional Growth Strategy. Ian Vantreight took on a burden that benefits the whole region. He and his son have a passion for farming and should be rewarded for taking a huge risk to preserve the farm.
While we do not know what the price was that had to be paid to acquire the other half of the farm, it was likely in the range of $15,000,000. We also do not know what the gross or net income of the farm is, but doing some quick calculations, it seems that the debt servicing costs are enough to make the farm uneconomic.
If the farm is not making money, or is making only a very small profit, the banks will come and force the Vantreights to sell. Central Saanich has to give serious consideration to how the economics of the farm impact the ability of land to remain in agricultural production. If the farm has to be sold, it is clear that the blame will rest with the council for being blind to a creative way to meet the needs of the farm and the Central Saanich OCP.
Only the Hill project will ensure that the rural nature of Central Saanich has some certainty over the long term.
Official Community Plans - what do you do if they are not followed?
Victoria is right now going through the process of developing a new Official Community Plan, but how well have the past plans been followed? I know of several commitments in the last two Victoria OCPs that have not been done to date. Who is held responsible for this? How do you enforce it?
It seems the only enforceable part of an OCP is to stop things from happening. A good example of this is the use of the OCP in Central Saanich to get in the way of long term viable farming. The Vantreights came up with a unique way to reduce the debts they have on the farm, but it requires a small piece of land to be developed, land that is not farmed and has never been classified as agricultural land. What stands in there way is people insisting on the specific maps and not on the intent of the to OCP to protect green space and farming.
Much too much energy is spent on developing plans that do not end up being used. In my neighbourhood there as a plan for improvements to Harriet and Burnside, some five years later and nothing has happened.
I am raising all this because I am debating how much energy I should put into the Victoria OCP process. I am also concerned that this region is in danger of losing one of few functional commercial farms because of an OCP is applied.
Do I go ahead? Maybe I should just invite a bunch of you over for dinner and have us all talk Victoria OCP stuff. Interested?
It seems the only enforceable part of an OCP is to stop things from happening. A good example of this is the use of the OCP in Central Saanich to get in the way of long term viable farming. The Vantreights came up with a unique way to reduce the debts they have on the farm, but it requires a small piece of land to be developed, land that is not farmed and has never been classified as agricultural land. What stands in there way is people insisting on the specific maps and not on the intent of the to OCP to protect green space and farming.
Much too much energy is spent on developing plans that do not end up being used. In my neighbourhood there as a plan for improvements to Harriet and Burnside, some five years later and nothing has happened.
I am raising all this because I am debating how much energy I should put into the Victoria OCP process. I am also concerned that this region is in danger of losing one of few functional commercial farms because of an OCP is applied.
Do I go ahead? Maybe I should just invite a bunch of you over for dinner and have us all talk Victoria OCP stuff. Interested?
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
State of the No HST Campaign in the CRD
Since the No HST people released data on how the campaign is going, I thought I would look at how things are going in the CRD.
15% is higher than the 10% needed in each riding, but going for 15% allows for a margin of error to ensure success. Four of the ridings have managed to break the 10% mark, only Oak Bay Gordon Head and Victoria Swan Lake have not managed to get over the 10% hurdle
- Riding Party 15% mark total How close to 15%
- Esquimalt-RR NDP 5540 4752 85.78%
- Juan de Fuca NDP 4960 4350 87.7%
- Oak Bay-Gordon Head Liberal 5731 2985 52.09%
- Saanich North Isl Liberal 6548 4785 73.08%
- Saanich South NDP 5557 4180 75.22%
- Victoria-Beacon Hill NDP 6307 5253 83.29%
- Victoria-Swan Lake NDP 5683 1933 34.01%
15% is higher than the 10% needed in each riding, but going for 15% allows for a margin of error to ensure success. Four of the ridings have managed to break the 10% mark, only Oak Bay Gordon Head and Victoria Swan Lake have not managed to get over the 10% hurdle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)