Preserving farmland

[cowman]

The big buzz right now in the county I live in is about bringing in bylaws to preserve good farmland. But is this really a good thing?
Wouldn't it be better to have many small holdings for people to live on? I'm not talking about houses jammed together but say 5 to 20 acre parcels? Sort of the "ranchette" concept?
It is very obvious that we can't make any money on land that is worth a small fortune and if we could take that land out of production then that would be good!
These small landholdings would allow the owners to have a few sheep or a cow or two or some horses. They would be able to enjoy gardening and maybe put up a bit of hay. They wouldn't be dependent on agriculture for a living so they could do things right and not have to use massive amounts of fertilizers and chemicals.
I see it as a win/win situation! Allow the farmer to retire with some money in his pocket and repopulate the countryside with people who really want to be there. Get all the smelly hogbarns, dairies, and feedlots out in the boondocks where they won't be a problem to the quality of life.

[dalek]

But why can't we afford the land that's there now? It's because so many people are constantly buying up the small acreages and pushing the towns outwards. I'm fortunate to be about 10 miles from town but if I was 5 miles closer, I'd have to pay almost twice as much for the same quality land to compete with everyone who wants to buy 50 acres of land so they can let it go to weeds and watch the deer graze on their way to the farm next door. As it is, in an area of about 7 or 8 square miles, there are 3 farms trying to make a living on about 2000 acres total(2 dairy, one hog/beef), a few part timers on another 1500 or so acres, and a bunch of townies sitting on another 12-1500 acres going to weeds to feed the deer, and we've had more deer damage to corn and hay this year than ever before.
The idea of allowing easy development on farmland is great for those farmers who are giving up on the industry, but shouldn't the industry be more concerned with those trying to stay in?

[dalek]

Also, in this area, it's those same people who want to live on 50 acres who expect to be able to tell everyone else for 5 miles in all directions how to farm because they read Harrowsmith.

[lonewolf]

Amen dalek This residential sprawl needs to be contained. In my neck of the woods a near by town has various homes for sale under 60 large but are opting for the rural landscape paying 40 grand or more for a quarter section and then spend major bucks to improve. This drives up prices higher and consequently assessment and ultimately taxes. But thats not what concerns me. Its the power that these new neighbours have over my operation that concerns me. Consequently I have opted to an agressive stategy of buying land to push the nieghbours furthur away. In the midst of the government taking away land from production for enviromental reasons and increasing regulations for running a farm. What else is a person to do?

[dalek]

Lonewolf, my father used to be in municipal politics. In the early 80s they did several studies showing that for the average rural municipality in Ontario, every new house developed used more in services than it paid for in taxes, meaning they had to constantly raise agricultural, industrial and commercial taxes to pay for servicing the new houses. When he retired in the mid-90s, nothing had changed, and practically every rural council was ignoring their own figures. I think the idea is that people moving into rural areas feel somehow indebted to the politicians for making it easy for them, and so provide a constant supply of new electors who don't know the mistakes that have been made in the past and thus make it easier for the politicians to keep getting re-elected.

[cowman]

Well perhaps the situation is a little different here. There is basically little or no farm expansion going on. Some farms are being bought up by foreigners and individual quarters are being bought for "country estates". The Alberta government decides if an intensive livestock operation can be built so they keep them as far away as possible from houses. Which is basically a good thing.
There was a real ugly situation a few years ago when the county got to decide where an ILO went. A young farmer wanted to expand his hog barns and all the other farmers around opposed it. He went through all the hoops, at a high cost, and was finely turned down. He had been told by the municipality that if he followed the steps he would get it! The neighbors reasons for opposing it was it would lower the value of their land for future residental developement. Which was a very valid concern...right now there is a large subdivision going in there and he is out of the hog business. It created a lot of hard feelings between neighbors.
I believe you are correct dalek about residental developement not being able to pay for itself. However in my county residental and farm land only picks up 31% of the taxes right now! I went to a land use meeting where the Reeve told us that within 5 years there would be no taxes on farm land or residents! Industry(read that oil and gas mostly) would pay the whole shot!

[ianben]

Here in UK we have no land taxes as such but strong planning laws.

All houses are taxed on value and farm houses are valued and taxed also. Seems fairer so far as the people who can afford big houses pay more and I am sure most houses pay for the services they recieve not quite sure how you work this out.

Land use however is another story.

Land here is zoned.

Green White Brown lines on maps drawn by politicians and regulated by jobsworth beaurocrats whos rules must be obeyed.
Commonsense and practicality go out the window in case a presendent is created.
Build on a floodplain if it is the right side of the line. Do not build on poor land with good public services if it is green.

House prices soar along with the price of land with premission due to inability to let supply follow demand.

Farm land in green £2000/acre.

Move the line grant planning for houses £250,000 /acre.

This can cause a few minor disputes as you can imagine!!!

Also tax rules avoid tax if this money is reinvested in land.

Think how that distorts agricultiual land values.

Getting a fair balance is tricky.

[dnach]

This is an interesting topic. Here in the North Battleford area, urban sprawl is not the problem. Our issues are now trying to compete with Federal money with First Nations paying more for land then what it is worth thus driving up land prices. With acerages, at least your counties can still collect taxes, here a huge problem is looming becuase no taxes are collected on TLE lands.

[cakadu]

The acreage owners tend to have more money, often more influence and have the time and/or inclination to make noise. Take for example in my county, people on an acreage moved in next to a gun range that had been in existence for some 20 years or so - now they are wanting the gun range to close down because it is too noisy.

How do we effectively deal with all parties so that as many as possible can feel that their needs have been met?

[cowman]

Ian: I believe our new land bylaws will probably be similar to what you have there now. Where a line will decide whether you are rich or a peasant!
The prices you quote are amazing! Consider for one acre, in the right zone, you could turn around and buy about 2800 acres in Sask.? No wonder we're getting lots of English farmers coming over here. Which is a good thing! Our young people are not going into farming and we need young people if we hope to keep the infrastructure up and running out on the prairies.
I think part of the problem is the German, Swiss,Dutch, and UK farmers coming over are used to a certain way of life where they had access to all the amenities. They aren't too keen on living out in the sticks, so they tend to want to buy close to the cities. And cities and hog barns/dairies have some problems!
The Calgary/Edmonton corrider is the fastest growing area in North America. It is time to zone land in this area so that no intensive livestock operations can be built there. Let the ones that are there now stay as they are. In twenty years or so their owners will have quit and we won't have a problem.

[ianben]

Cowman
I had a deal in 2001 for the sale of just my house and farm buildings standing on less than 2acres for conversion to pub/restraunt, which would nearly have paid for the 2080acres I looked at outside N. Battleford.
It is still for sale I believe at same price while my yard should be worth even more as house prices here continue to spiral.
It was super land and a house to "die for", but you are right, we did think I was just to far away from the amenities we are used to.
9/11 destroyed the twin towers and my deal so we never got to make the final choice but I think an hours drive from large city and international airport would have been my wifes bottom line.

What makes people move from these places. Is it the lack of oppertunity jobs etc or the lure of the bright lights.
Perhaps the question I am asking is how many young people would love to farm that land in Battleford if they could make it pay?
Would they too be unwilling to give up the ameneties being close to a city affords?

[cowman]

Ian: I live 10 minutes from a fairly large city(by Prairie standards). I believe I have the best of both worlds. When my great grandfather came here it was basically the frontier. Personally I wouldn't want to move out to the sticks but then I'm not all that young. I suspect women find it tougher than men and families even more so.
I think you would have to be very dedicated to farming to live in a remote area but I can't really answer your question because I've always lived here and had access to the things a city brings.
So how were your crops this year? How was the weather? It is -27 C here this morning!