ALR - Largest land expropriation in Canadian history
Click Here
The incursion by government in to the domain of private property, and its use and administration challenges one who holds private property rights dear. In Canada, and specifically in British Columbia where in 1972 the then NDP government in effect expropriated agricultural land in British Columbia for “preservation” as a perceived public good. Perhaps the best example of the lack of consideration in Canada for private property rights is their absence in the Charter of Rights and freedoms, Canadian’s are essentially absent any constitutional protection of private property – we do have a large breath of common law to support property rights; but our ownership or management choice of property can be legislated away, as was demonstrated by the advent of the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC). Had property rights been in place, as a right held by Canadians, the government would have had to properly compensate landowners for the reduction in opportunity that accrued to the owners as a result of the ALC’s creation. Farmers were never properly compensated, the legislation has never served to stave off development of choice farmland, agricultural land holds a massive “speculative development premium”, agricultural land trades at values that far exceed economically viable operations and the other goals of the legislation have only partly been satisfied.
The
ALC’s actions, having failed to some degree to effect an overall benefit to
agriculture, still frustrates the supply of land of only “marginal” value as
farm land, in retarding the supply of said lands, the ACL has put significant
upward pressure on land development for housing, this situation is acute in the
lower mainland. This reality is exacerbated by the fact the most of BC is
crownland and the government seems intent on hording it, rather than releasing
in a responsible way to effect a more livable circumstance for the lower and
middle income strata.
There
are circumstances where the government is warranted in offering direction for
private land use, but parameters must be set, people need to be reimbursed.
Perhaps key agricultural land is such a case. Please read below, a letter sent
in 2006 to the Agriculture Minister. Most of my critique offered then is still
valid – action is needed.
Click Here
Neil E.
Thomson
Honourable
Minister
of Agriculture and Lands
Stn
Prov. Govt.
V8W
9E2
Dear
Sir,
RE:
The Agricultural Land Commission Reform
This
letter is in response to your and other’s discourse on the Bill Good show and
the Forever Farmland submission paper authored by Charles Campbell for the
David Suzuki Foundation.
Property Rights
Recent
discourse around this issue is lacking advocacy for land owner’s interests. On
the Bill Good show you stated that, upon a properties exclusion from ALR the owners become “instant millionaires.” The
presumption being that the owner in enjoying a windfall through a zoning change
being bestowed on them by the government. The fact is that farmland owners are
being impaired from exercising their right to manage personal property in the
most profitable way. Your tone seemed to support the tone of the David Suzuki
Foundation’s submission paper that opportunity is being extended to land owners
upon exclusion from the ALR , when
in fact opportunity is being regained, or that ownership is being allowed to do
what property rights should allow them to do.
The
right to manage property by ownership in response to market opportunity is the
keystone of a market based society. Proper deference to this paradigm was withheld
when this legislation initially was imposed on the farmland owners of British Columbia ALR ’s
thirty plus year history.
One
needs to recognize that market influences often impose Faustian actions that
run contrary to the greater good, and perhaps agricultural land use and
development is such a case. While the need to preserve farmland is certainly a
value I share with many, the actual need to preserve farm land is very abstract
and subjective. It is difficult to provide supported argument for preservation
of farmland outside what may have “naturally” occurred in response to market
forces.
In
a case such as the ALR , especially
where a compelling state interest is very difficult to demonstrate, property
rights should be respected by reimbursing ownership for opportunities forgone.
When the government put this legislation into place in 1972 they erased large
portions of people’s net worth with what amounted to an act of expropriation.
Had
the government given deference to property rights when this legislation was put
in place, many of the negative effects of the ALR
would have been reduced. The proper treatment of farmland owners of the day
would have given the government the latitude to strengthen lands retention by
the ALC and may have greatly
reduced the speculative values on farmland today.
The
present application of the ALR
legislation has set up a dynamic where speculation is still viable, so land prices
escalate in response to their potential value for development, while at the
same time the ALR is restricting supply
of land for development. The past application of the ALR
legislation may have driven farmland prices higher than if the ALR legislation was absent.
The
only way to assure that Farmland prices reflect farming’s ability to be viable
is to have lands inclusion in the ALR
permanent and the contemplation of development non existent. As a society we
ascribe values to land for any number of reasons, we protect parks etc.. We
manage parks in the absence of consideration of the removal of Park status and
we can do the same for agricultural land.
Permanent Inclusion in the ALR
Permanent
inclusion in the ALR requires
recognition that government is expropriating opportunity from farmland owners
and retribution needs to be made to present ownership for opportunities
forgone. The commitment to permanence with proper deference to property rights,
would force government to be thorough in their assessment of land type and
quantity to be included in the ALR .
Clearly Defined Purpose, Criteria
for Inclusion and Inventory
There
needs to be a clearly defined purpose for inclusion and a set of criteria for
inclusion that supports that purpose. Preserving farmland is a very broad or
vague mandate and a confused execution has emerged as a result of the existing
vagueness. What is the farmland being preserved for? How much preserved
farmland is enough? What quality requires preservation? What are the complete
set of values we are seeking to protect?
Inclusion
in the ALR should be criteria
driven. The establishment of clear criteria for inclusion provides for a less
politically charged environment and provides the “market” with a stable setting
for planning and development.
Presently
there is a trading process which allows agricultural land outside the ALR to be “traded “ to allow the development of
land inside the ALR . This fact in
of itself illustrates that there is more work to be done on inventory or
presumably these “non ALR
agricultural lands” would have been included in the ALR
at the inception of the ALC . A
complete inventory of presently available agricultural land needs to be
developed.
The
interests underpinning the societal desire to preserve farmland are diverse. A
process needs to be initiated that draws out the values that exist in the
public body around farmland and informs them of the cost of preserving farmland.
It is my opinion that a broad array of values are at play exceeding just securing
food production, to values including aesthetics of the countryside and preservation
of the family farm. The existing legislation and its enactment seem to be
falling short on responding to the diversity of values that exist.
Regressive Assessment of ALR Legislation
The
legislation needs to be considered in the context of where would we be today in
the absence of the ALR ? What do
other jurisdictions look like without a ALR ?
This assessment would provide valuable information for the future management of
the ALR and its management regime.
Facilitation of Diverse Land
Use
The
government has taken steps in the past to contribute to the viability of
agriculture by offering opportunities for diversifying farm operations. The
woodlot program is a case in point. The farming community should have access to
tourism opportunities enhanced. Complementary Tourism enterprises come with a
small environment and land use footprint, and offer opportunity for higher
margins than can be garnered from most agricultural enterprises.
The
case of Golf courses has been raised by many as a “non agricultural” activity
and inappropriate for ALR Lands.
This is a case in point, where the legislation needs to offer direction. A Golf
course is an activity that allows for economically viable non-destructive use
of the land, until such time as a future agricultural venture offers a better
opportunity. That is to say the land is “readily” reclaimable or “held in
reserve” for agriculture. A golf course is every bit as agricultural as a turf
farm or a Christmas tree farm.
Forever Farmland – David Suzuki
foundation - Recommendations
The
recommendations submitted to you are generally acceptable. The recommendations
do need to be sensitised to property rights. In the ambit of land use
management, the various planning forums need to find interoperability. Criteria
and objectives can be derived from public consultation through the full
management spectrum, the application of criteria and objectives should be held
to the local forums.
Conclusion
I
am compelled to support measures that protect farmland. The protection of
farmland satisfies two primary concerns for me; firstly the assurance of the
ability to be regionally self-sufficient in traditional food production, and
secondly the desire to preserve the beauty of British Columbia’s countryside.
Thank
you for giving consideration to the contents of this letter in your
deliberations.
Sincerely,
Neil
E. Thomson
CC:
Claude Richmond, Minister of
Employment and Income Assistance
Kevin
Krueger, MLA Kamloops – North Thompson
Ann Rowan, Director of
Sustainability – David Suzuki Foundation
No comments:
Post a Comment