Photo facebook
Bill 15 52 Protests
Protests at the legislature in Victoria.
The BC government appears to be responding to the extensive opposition against Bills 15 and 52, the new amendments to the Agricultural Land Reserve. On January 27, the Ministry of Agriculture released a Policy Intentions Paper on Residential Flexibility in the ALR.
“The Ministry is publicly sharing this proposed policy direction now, in order to ensure those interested have an opportunity to review,” the intentions paper says. “As always, input from the pubic and stakeholders is appreciated.”
There has been a lot of input. Last fall, ALR chairperson Jennifer Dyson, Agricultural Land Commission CEO Kim Grout, and Ministry of Agriculture assistant deputy minister James Mack led eight public engagement sessions across the province. More than 600 people attended, and backed that up with 1580 on-line surveys, 87 personal submissions and 19 formal submissions from interest groups.
O&V readers also added their weight with 128 responses to our survey.
The overwhelming feeling across the province is captured in a comment summarizing the session in Kelowna on October 10: “The common view expressed was that the ALC protects farmland but not farmers.” Most important in that perceived lack of protection for farmers was the ability to construct a secondary residence.
“The Ministry heard a key theme. “More flexibility is needed for residences in the ALR,” says the ‘What We Heard’ intentions paper. Indeed, it was the number one concern at the public engagement sessions. Succession, aging in place, new farm entrants, and on-farm help were all reasons given for multiple residences.
Manufactured homes have been allowed as a secondary residence for family members without ALC approval for some time, but amendments would potentially close that option, with a grandfathering period that gave owners until February 2020.
The first change noted in the intentions paper is that this date has been extended to December 31, 2020, “In order to allow time for the policy direction outlined in this paper.”
That direction is towards “… considering a change in regulations that will enable landowners in the ALR to have both a principal residence and a small secondary residence on their property provided they have approval from their local government (with no application to ALC required).” The province would not restrict this to a manufactured home, nor require it to be for an immediate family member, or part of a farming plan.
The intentions paper recognizes the rationale of aging in place, new farmers, joint ownership, and worker accommodation as reasons for additional housing, but it also takes a step towards acknowledging the reality of farming in BC today. “It could simply be used as a source of rental revenue (that may or may not be invested back into the farm.)”
Is this the thin edge of the wedge toward allowing farmers to diversify their income streams through processing or agritourism? Many BC farmers feel that they are over regulated, and unfairly, despite being private landowners. “It’s not just about housing and people need to quit making it that way,” said one person posting on Orchard & Vine. “Our farms have been bought and paid for, we pay taxes; how dare Lana Popham and the NDP come along and treat us as if we don’t own it.”
Does the right to earn a living from one’s land not apply to all British Columbians? Economic opportunity was a second important theme that came out of the engagement sessions. Currently you can make alcohol (vinify, brew, distill), pack and sell your farm products, make compost and have a temporary or seasonal agri-tourism activity (orchard dinner, corn maze, pumpkin patch). But is that enough? If you are handy with machines, you aren’t allowed to fix your neighbour’s tractors in the winter. If you support your farm income with seasonal logging, or a job in the oil patch, you can’t park your equipment at home. If your partner teaches yoga in town that’s ok, but if they want to build a yoga studio on the farm, they can’t.
One person posting on the O&V site puts it well: “If the bill just stopped the dumping of industrial waste or reduced house sizes, not many farmers would complain. But this bill went too far and unfairly penalizes farmers across BC for Lower Mainland issues that could easily have been solved by updating local municipal bylaws.”
The “Intentions Paper” is available at - https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/agriculture-and-seafood/agricultural-land-and-environment/agriculture-land-reserve/residential_flexibility_intentions_paper.pdf and readers can respond until April 17, 2020
The full “What We Heard”, report available at-https://engage.gov.bc.ca/app/uploads/sites/121/2020/01/Final-Draft-Jan-23.pdf