COMMENT: Too much Happy Valley farm … or too little imagination?

by Andrew Bennett on 26 Aug 2012
in
Happy Valley—not just a pretty face
Happy Valley—not just a pretty face

Recent comments by Coun. Cary Fisher and Coun. Jill Spearn—regarding Brenda Trenholme's appeal to subdivide her Happy Valley property—taste like a slice of logical swiss cheese on a slab of imagination tofu.

And you'll need a pinch of salt for the cracker too.

Sure, sure, everyone's in favour of local agriculture. Just not in Rossland. Everyone knows it can't happen here, it's just impossible! Our climate prevents it. Taxes are too high. There are no farmers.
 
Right?
 
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
 
If Trenholme and other Happy Valley landowners don't want to pay taxes, its as simple as earning $2500 in some kind of agricultural product from their land, and there are plenty of young farmers out there who would be pleased for the opportunity to oblige, especially in a rad town like Rossland.
 
On the other hand, if imagination-free Happy Valley landowners want to sit idly on their juicy, mild-climate acreages and not use them—but then gripe about taxes—then I call them aristocratic lords whose pockets deserve to be targeted by the proletariat. 
 
FARMIN' IN ROSSLAND: It ain't so hard and it's also our heritage
 
Most gardeners like to gripe about the weather and how hard the season's been. It's part of the fun. But Rossland's climate is actually quite favourable for a wide variety of crops and livestock. It ain't any easier in Saskatchewan.
 
Fisher thinks farming is for elsewhere. He said, "If you want to be rural, and you want to have a farm, there are some other areas outside the City of Rossland you can have it."
 
Now that's a cow pat slap dab in the face of history. 
 
I like Cary, don't get me wrong, and his golf course is a boon to the community. But there's still plenty of room on the edges of his course to grow a salad. Indeed, Redstone occupies the old Chinese Gardens, the fuel that fed Rossland's gold rush. Masses of veggies were grown with simple tools and hauled up to Columbia Ave on the backs of hardworking gardeners. 
 
Moreover, I suggest Fisher and other folks lacking local-food-imagination take a trip to the Rossland Museum where dedicated historians have drawn a map of Rossland dotted with tens of farms that produced dairy, vegetables, meat, fruit, and eggs.
 
We don't face a lack of means, a particularly difficult climate, or even a lack of mouths watering for fresh, local produce. Nor do we, collectively, suffer a lack of will to farm.
 
CRAZY IDEALISTS: Farm land's nice and all, but where are the farmers?
 
Spearn called local agriculture an "ideal." She said, "The ideal around agriculture, and sustainability, and food production, and all that, is wonderful. But when the rubber hits the road, most people don't have time, the energy, or the money to get into agriculture in the municipality of Rossland."
 
Spearn's comments echo those of Trenholme, who throws her despairing hands in the air: "People aren't doing small farming."
 
Most people may not have the inclination to farm, but some people most certainly do, and that's more than enough. 
 
Farmers need not own their land, and indeed that old model has lost favour among most young agriculturists who—cash poor but idea rich—now use a variety of ways to connect with landowners. Websites such as Linking Land and Future Farmers and the Kaslo-based Farmers to Farms unite people who own land with those who want land to farm.
 
Rossland is such a hip town, and the agricultural district such a short walk to amenities, that I could guarantee Trenholme would not only find someone, but would have a list of bright-eyed candidates from whom to choose if she wanted a farmer to help her with her taxes.
 
Rent them a room and suddenly the home also qualifies for farm class taxes, as well as the land.
 
FARM TAXES: Happy Valley livin' should be nearly tax free
 
Low taxes should, in fact, be a natural benefit of ownership in Happy Valley. Urban farmers on small lots—like me—have to gross $10,000 in agricultural products before the BC government will give them "farm class" and cut their taxes to next-to-nothing. The high limit appropriately discourages abuse of farm classification on small lots.
 
But acreage owners in Happy Valley need only gross $2500 in "primary produce" priced for "farm gate sales," and that's before deductions for costs incurred!
 
Yes, in the good ol' days, Trenholme and others could simply let a farmer's cattle graze their fields and farm taxes were theirs for the taking. 
 
But that was before Cargill, Monsanto, and other greasy corporate giants got their greedy grip around government necks and suffocated the living daylights out of sensible policies that allowed small farmers to slaughter cleanly, humanely, and locally. Meat production was relegated to massive abattoirs in the name of "health and safety."
 
Thankfully—Maple Leaf recalls aside—these sanctioned mega-facilities have toilets and offices dedicated to the health inspector. Phew!
 
No, cattle may no longer be a viable way for folks in Happy Valley to earn their farm tax. But c'mon, think how easy it still is!
 
Maybe you like chickens. You can sell eggs at $5 per dozen: a mere 500 cartons of eggs could earn a Happy Vallian the farm tax. One hen produces about 20 dozen per year, so a farm need only keep some 30 hens to earn the farm tax—well below any conflict with the quota system. Just make a coop, fence in a run, order 60 chicks, send 30 roosters to freezer camp, and you're off to the tax-free races.
 
Maybe you want to grow greens. Rachael Roussin sells mixed salad greens grown in Happy Valley for $5 a bag. You need only sell 500 bags of salad mix and voila, the coveted "farm tax" is yours. Each square meter of garden can easily produce five bags of greens in a season, so we're talking about a garden on the order of 10 metres by 10 metres that will not only turn a modest profit, but will save the owner thousands in taxes.
 
(I might add, Roussin's nutrient-dense greens beat the pants off the so-called "organic" salads in plastic boxes from California—as do the greens of anyone who takes the minimal time and effort required to grow a patch in their garden.)
 
These are just two obvious examples. There are many other ways the farm tax can be met, all of it off the backs of young farmers who are just begging for a piece of land to work on.
 
POETIC IDEALISTS: Farms are for postcards
 
People who don't understand the importance of local food seem crippled by the perception that Rosslanders want Happy Valley to remain in large acreages to satisfy some irrational fixation with romantic, pastoral scenery.
 
Fisher said outsiders look in at "little hobby farms" and want to keep it that way. Trenholme argued that subdivision was only limited to five acres because "people enjoy the view."
 
The view's very nice, but that's not the point. And no, there isn't much farming going on in Happy Valley right now, but that's not the point either.
 
There's a concept called "City Country Fingers" popularized by the famous architect Christopher Alexander in his landmark tome, A Pattern Language. (I wish this masterpiece were compulsory reading in more high school and university courses.) The point of City Country Fingers is that—for a host of economic, social, and ecological reasons—it makes sense to have productive farmland stretch directly into dense pockets of urban living, like green fingers interlocked with "infill" fingers.
 
Fisher expressed confusion: "On one end of town we're talking about infill, infill, infill on 30 foot lots, and on the other end we're telling people [they need] five acre parcels." He's only confused because he hasn't thought through the different needs of a city. Infill zones increase the efficiency of urban living. Nearby agricultural zones feed the infill zones efficiently.
 
And what's the alternative? A homogeneous sprawl of semi-dense suburbanity with people driving hither and thither? That model is not only thoughtless but so provably inefficient and unsustainable that to replicate it any further would be best characterized as insanity.
 
Right now, with a little imagination, Rossland has all it needs to be a truly sustainable town. If the dense areas get denser, if urban agriculture is encouraged, and if landowners in Happy Valley forge partnerships with the many eager farmers out there looking for a chance to break new ground, we can be a town that not only walks the active-lifestyle walk, but also eats the fresh, local produce that forms the basis for complete health.
 
You are what you eat, after all. Hippocrates—known to doctors everywhere for the Hippocratic oath—held to a central maxim: "Let food be your medicine."
 
SUBDIVISION: A slippery slope to lost agricultural potential
 
Trenholme is quite correct that other lots in Happy Valley are already less than the two hectare minimum, grandfathered in, as it were. And it is no wonder the neighbours would like to see Trenholme's appeal go forward, since they too would profit from the ability to subdivide. But I don't see these as reasons to lower the limit and allow more owners to subdivide. 
 
The effects of subdivision are real. The R-1R "Detached Rural Residential" zone allows 200 square meters of dwelling coverage, and a maximum building coverage of 15 per cent.
 
To help visualize 15 percent, the owner of a two hectare parcel is permitted to build on top of an area roughly two-thirds the size of a Canadian football field. Recalling our earlier calculation with greens, that's enough area to grow at least 10,000 bags of salad mix—or three bags for every Rossland resident. This is the potential lost with every subdivision.
 
I absolutely believe Trentholme when she says she only wants to build a "small home" to live out her days on a five acre parcel. But the next owner could just as well build on 3000 square meters without running into zone restrictions.
 
Look at the lots in Happy Valley, and imagine buildings on each one. Imagine how the cry for subdivision will not stop here, as each successive owner looks to profit from the value of their land. This is exactly how Canada's most productive farmland turns into the suburban wastelands around Toronto, as one example.
 
Happy Valley is incredibly well situated for agriculture in Rossland. It's south and east aspects warm early in the morning and keep sun through most of the day. The topography shelters much of the land from wind. And there's a hungry population of 3500 a short walk away, most of whom would gladly source their food from the farm next door.
 
PUBLIC REPRESENTATION: Make your voice heard
 
Like council, I too am in favour of Trenholme going to the public with her proposal. And I fully expect to hear a diversity of opinions. But I hope the community's voice as a whole will finally ring around the understanding that to change the OCP at this point would be the thin edge of a wedge that, over time, would see Happy Valley split into smaller lots covered with more buildings and ever-less capacity to truly farm.
 
At the moment, council believes opposition to Trenholme's proposal amounted to "only one letter," and that because the neighbours are in favour, it's A-okay.
 
With only a modicum of imagination any Happy Valley owner can easily contrive a way to avoid their taxes. But if we go the way of subdivision, it will become increasingly difficult to expect anyone to farm for a living.
 
Will people farm again? You tell me.
 
Will oil prices rise? Will more droughts hammer the corn belt? Will transportation costs increase? Will the global economy get rocked again by all the fake money flying around? Will people increasingly recognize the damage caused to our health by processed foods, or foods harvested well-before-ripe and transported great distances? Will people increasingly value the flavour of fresh and the good it brings to mind and body?
 
Here's my opinion, loud and clear for the public representation on this OCP amendment: As the global economy tips back to the real norm after a splash of exuberant decadence through the last half century, real food will come back into its own. Don't touch the farms, leave them as they lie. You'll be happy you did.
 
Editor's Note: This article originally misspelled Brenda Trenholme's name and has been corrected twice. Our apologies for the errors.

Comments

Public input needed! Sept. 20, 7 p.m. Prestige Hotel

by Andrew Bennett on 12 Sep 2012 at about 11:00.

This just in from the city planning department:

"Rossland City Council is considering rezoning the property located at 2302 Happy Valley Rd to permit a subdivision of this property into a 2.2 acre and a 5 acre parcel."

"The OCP designates this property as Rural Residential which prevents subdivision of the parcel. As this rezoning will require an Official Community Plan (OCP) Amendment, an initial public consultation is required with persons that will be affected by the OCP amendment."

"Any comments received will be considered by Council before proceeding to the bylaw amendment process. Another opportunity for public input is also provided at the public hearing stage of the bylaw amendment process."

Questions and comments should be directed to Assistant Planner Stacey Lightbourne. (250) 362-2329 or email stacey@rossland.ca

Comment from Coun. Kathy Wallace

by Andrew Bennett on 12 Sep 2012 at about 15:14.

This just in from Coun. Kathy Wallace:

"I just read your comment on the possibility of a subdivision in Happy Valley. 

'It is not the city who is organizing the public meeting - it is the property owner on direction from council. City staff will attend to monitor it. I was absent at the August meeting but I believe that council's action was to reaffirm a previous decision that if the property owner wishes to pursue the request then a public meeting to gather community input is required - at the property owner's expense."

Egg prices

by Sara Golling on 31 Aug 2012 at about 12:47.

Oh Anthony -- please help keep Rossland less unaffordable!  Please, don't raise your egg price until you must ... keep being a locavore competitive financially! 

(signed, Egg Eater)

Food for Rossland

by Sara Golling on 31 Aug 2012 at about 12:13.

Rosslanders had the opportunity to participate in the "Adapting to Climate Change" project, thanks to Columbia Basin Trust, and two of the main concerns expressed by participants were WATER and FOOD SECURITY.

Rossland's Strategic Sustainability Plan (SSP) and Official Community Plan (OCP) do not focus much on agriculture, food security, or local food production, but they do talk about "Rossland's commitment to a sustainable future" and being "committed to meeting its existing needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".

I suggest that sacrificing potential farm lands on the alter of personal convenience would indeed be compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, and would be rendering Rossland's future less sustainable.  In these days of increasing droughts and decreasing water levels in (polluted) aquifers used for irrigation in the main agricultural regions of the United States, where much of the food consumed in Canada has historically been grown, local politicians had better pay attention to our need for local food production capacity, and had better make decisions that maintain that capacity rather than diminishing it incrementally. 

In short -- I think that allowing subdivision of Happy Valley lands would be wrong. 

30 Chucks?

by vcanthony on 30 Aug 2012 at about 23:18.

Yes $2500 of farm gate income is the threshold to 'apply' for farm status, but it also depends on how much of the parcel is used for farming.

It doesn't take a lot of land to raise chickens unless you are growing your own feed. It is my understanding that the percentage of the parcel that can be classified as farm status is only that part actually farmed. e.g. if the parcel is 10 acres and maybe an acre is used for the buildings and runs then only 10% can be classified as farm staus. Soooo...what I think this means is that only 10% of the usual taxes would be  impacted by getting farm status.

i would love to be wrong.

Great discussion

Our eggs are too cheap apparently:)

Yup, 30 chickens.

by Andrew Bennett on 31 Aug 2012 at about 16:19.

Food is too cheap in general. We pay less for our food now than at any point in history...but that's another issue.

Yes, as I mention in a comment below, you have to contrive a use that contributes to the farm for every portion of the parcel to receive the full tax benefit on the land.

But that's easy enough if you've got pasture: it's as simple as harvesting the hay. You can get a farmer to do it for a share of the crop, or....

I recently learned that a walking tractor with hay-cutting/tedding/baling equipment can be rented rom the Kootenay Local Agriculture Society in Castlegar for 3-5 days depending on the weather—which is plenty for one person to cut and bale 2 acres of hay—for $120, total. That's way more hay than 30 chickens need, so sell the rest and keep the change.

(People pay top dollar for hay these days, $8/bale is fairly normal now.)

Also, you don't need to earn $2500 to apply, you need to produce a business plan that shows what you plan to produce and how, so you can get the farm tax as soon as they approve the business plan.

Again, it's not difficult, it just takes imagination to see the solution is available, and a little initiative to advertise for young farmers interested in taking it on...

OR, just get a simple coop built and run it yourself. It's not hard at all to feed and tend 30 chickens and get some local kid to cut hay for you with KLAS's equipment a couple times per year. Even on mediocre pasture, two acres of hay will produce enough bales to pay the kid a good wage and make you money too.

once its gone,its gone

by scottie on 29 Aug 2012 at about 13:26.

I for one am totally against dividing agricultural land into smaller parcels.the point of preserving farm land is to insure future use for production.whether there are people farming it now or not. its available.One thing that bothers me is people who build very large houses on agricultural land which raises the value and taxes of neighbors trying to get some land to farm.the land should be valued as soil and not ones own private paradise.If a person wants a smaller house its not that hard to sell and relocate, passing the land to the next potential farmer.when the pipeline went thru my land in sheep creek they argued that my herd of cattle was smaller than when I started and that I wasnt using all the land. I stated to their lawyer that the agricultural land reserve preserved the land for future use as farmland regardless of what its used for today and when my field was more productive I would have more cattle.he had no comment.maybe the land in question isnt being used now but it could be and Id hate to see another large house and swimming pool cover it up. happy valley has a long frost free growing season. look at Ralf Behrens place,lots of food production there and a large house on the hill off the field where it doesnt take up good soil.same with the old orchard, the house is up on the hill and the orchard is in the furtile soil.Brenda wants to put a house right in a flat pasture completly stopping any future agricultural use,she is a wonderful person but the idea is a bad one. I would love to lease or use an acre out there for garlic, now that the price makes a profit possible.

Possible

by lookingin on 28 Aug 2012 at about 18:01.

You might want to check with BC Assessment Authority.  Some very wealthy properties in parts of Saanich used the "farm" exemption to avoid paying taxes.  All they needed to do was grow a few crops.

Check into it.  Find out if rules have changed.

Farm taxes

by Andrew Bennett on 28 Aug 2012 at about 21:57.

The information presented above is up to date, at least it was last fall when I looked into it while making my own arrangements with a landowner.

It only takes $2500 in gross income of "primary" products at "farm gate" prices.

For example, if you had a big field of strawberries, you could sell them by the basket, or turn them into jam, but the jam would only count towards farm tax at the price of the raw strawberries, since a basket of strawberries is "primary" and the jam is a value-added "secondary" product.

There's one other thing to keep in mind. The farm operation needs to use all the land that is to count towards farm tax. So, for example, if you had a small patch that earned most of the money, to qualify for farm tax on the entire parcel, you might invite a farmer in to cut hay on the rest—or just cut the grass to use as mulch on the strawberries—to make sure the whole parcel gets used. (That's the regulation, anyway, I'm not sure how strictly that part of it is enforced.)

This principle of 'contributing to the farm' applies to buildings and other "improvements" that are taxed too. For the home to count, it needs to house the farmer, or the occupants need to contribute their labour in some way, sometimes, to the operation.

Regardless, it truly is that easy to get farm taxes, and there are lots of young people out there looking for land to farm on who won't likely consider Rossland as a destination until owners in Happy Valley advertise an opportunity, for example on one of the websites I mentioned above.

Once advertised, I am sure many young farmers would jump at the chance.