Land use bylaws...again!

[cowman]

Went to an open house on land use bylaws where the municipality laid out their plans! Was not a very happy camper about what I heard. Got into a very good discussion with the planner who wrote up the plan. Had some real problems with "First Parcel out" as he saw it happening!
He kind of danced around the issue as he knew it was going to be a problem! When I asked him why in the world he would even suggest changing "First Parcel Out" when the Reeves task force on land use had clearly indicated that the vast majority didn't want a change, he answered me in what I believe was a truthful and honest felt opinion. He also understood where I was coming from even though he didn't agree with me.
We were very amiable about the whole thing and it was not confrontational at all. We've had this same argument at a lot of info meetings and as I said I respect the man and can see his side...although I don't agree with it!
Anyway I told him he was probably going to get a lesson in politics 101! And he said he knew he was and in the end he was sure politics would decide the issue but he had to say it as he saw it!
I came away with a deep feeling of respect for this gentleman...

[cowman]

you are fortunate to have a planner that understands where you are coming from. I have had dealings with the local Planing and Development Officer and he hasn't a clue about agricultural uses and what they may include. Didn't even know that there was a feedlot within the buffer zone of one of the hamlets, and it has been there for several years. I am hoping that our new council will amend the LUB that the previous bunch passed, allowing up to five parcels out without an area structure plan !!!!
There is a quarter down the road from me that is for sale at this time, and from what I hear it is being marketed with potential for country residential. If our current LUB remains in force, there could be country residential development out here right in the midst of large cow/calf operations. Then watch someones phone ring when the 'urbanized folks' smell manure, hear cows bawling and silage hauls go past their door. Conflicting land uses need to be address prior to allowing development if agriculture is important to the municipality.

[cakadu]

I'm kind of curious to know what the planners response was, cowman. Was the fellow presenting the plan the one who did the Ag Viability Study or the actual county planner?

The key I think will be to have consistency when it comes to land use and the decisions regarding land use.

Many producers are reaching retirement age and their only source of retirement income is what they could get from taking a parcel out and either selling it or selling the balance of the land. How then do you tell them that they can't have access to what might be their only source of revenue? Is it fair to say to someone "bad luck, you should have done it years ago". What about all the parcels out that have come before?

If it is marginal land or even scrub land that is the area being subdivided, what does it hurt if the remainder of the land is kept agricultural?

This is where rural development and ag development clash and balance is going to have to be found in order to have both survive into the future. The principles of new concepts like Smart Growth will play a significant role in shaping the various communities of the future.

I think councils and planners alike are going to have some fairly significant and difficult decisions to make in the future and in ensuing years.

Emrald is right in that you can't have an ag subdivision right smack in the middle of a bunch of farming operations. I don't know if that is what people want, but looking at the big picture and deciding what you want in 10 years time is going to be crucial.

Not to mention that we have to do our best to preserve green spaces and the environment as well.

Acreage owners bring a lot to the municipalities in terms of taxes, so a balance will have to be struck when it comes to determining what it will cost to allow them in the first place versus what it will cost to maintain them.

Development is not an easy task.

[cowman]

Linda: I totally agree, developement and land use rules are a really difficult task! And by the way it was the guy who wrote the Ag viability study and not the municipal planner.
It is not just the old farmer who wants to sell that is affected by these decisions? It is everyone of us landowners?
The fact is when and if they pass these new rules they have devalued your asset by a substantial amount? So if today your land is worth $400,000/quarter, once First Out is lost your quarter is now worth $300,000(or less)? I really don't know of anyone who would agree it is a good thing to lose 25% of your assets' value?
I don't believe some of these farmers who might support the elimination of First Out have really thought this thing through? Or perhaps they are naive enough to think they and theirs will be farming forever?
In the end the "experts" won't decide this mess? It will be politics or maybe the courts?
I hope these planners understand the concept of democracy and the majority will decide...or maybe even the concept of individual rights? Individual rights does not mean you can do whatever you want and thwart the desire of the majority...but it does mean you are entitled to compensation when you give up your assets for what the majority wants? Otherwise it is just legalized theft?
The system was working(and I will note at least half of the elected counsellors took advantage of that system!) so why change it? I guess the best situation would have been if they had never allowed First Out to take place at all? I don't think they will get that genie back in the bottle!

[cowman]

One more thing Linda: County council didn't seem to have much of a problem cutting a subdivision out of a quarter so they could build their little "Taj Mahal" office? In fact it was so fast they had the darned building up before the subdivision was even through or they had the land bought!...I guess the rules are different if you are the government?

[cowman]

I am not supporting or opposing municipalities that construct new administration buildings but it does seem that ones like you speak of cowman are built where it is 'user friendly' to their citizens vs having to fight city or town traffic to get to their county headquarters. Land use planning in a fast growing municipality with a lot of pressure for development is a real challenge. Your county has acquired some top notch planners and that certainly is a bonus. In areas like the one where I live, the only development officers that will locate here are usually from cities in BC and have no agricultural background at all.IF the council isn't ag focused it can be a wreck.

[cakadu]

An ag focus is important, however, being on the highway #2 corridor is also bringing challenges in terms of other development or potential development.

Could you explain a little more about how the value is lost if they don't allow the first out parcel as I want to get a good understanding of it.

One always has to wonder about people who want to buy acreages right in the middle of farm country and then complain when the business of farming takes place all around them. Common sense needs to prevail once in a while, don't you think?

One skill that I can see that will be necessary for councillors will be to be able to see the consequences of decisions 5, 10 or even 20 or more years out. What looks like a sound decision today, may or may not be tomorrow, so long range and big picture thinking is a must.

[cowman]

Well Linda it is very simple. Go get your land appraised(this is fairly costly but any competent real estate agent can do a ballpark estimate that is surprizingly accurate). You will find that the total sales value, with a subdivided first parcel out, will be 25% over the same piece of land without the subdivision. Therefore if the municipality decides to end your right to have "First Parcel Out" they have in fact reduced your asset value 25%?
Perhaps the really unfair thing about this Ag viability study is this: They pick winners and losers! If you live in an area they have decided needs to be protected for agriculture then you lose! If you are one of the lucky ones who lives across the road you win...in fact you double win because the county just cut out the competition and now you have a restricted market! And further this "selection" has absolutely nothing to do with how good or poor the land is, but about location and proximity to Red Deer/Highway#2 or #11!
The Ag Viability Study also has another basic flaw, or so I believe? Just who are we saving all this valuable farm land for? Well it certainly isn't for the majority of the rural residents! Age is depleting them at a very accelerated rate and their children are not staying? The European tide is drying up real fast as the immigrants realize what a losing proposition agriculture is in Alberta? So who are we saving all this agriculture land for? The Hutterites or other corporations?
What was the purpose of having an Agriculture industry in our country? Was it just to produce cheap exports for the Canadian balance of trade?
I would suggest to you that the real purpose was to have families settle and develop an otherwise desolate prairie? Now they are doing their best to get rid of people from the countryside? In my opinion you've got to have people to have a community and all I see the county doing is trying to get more people out of the rural areas!

[cakadu]

What you are saying cowman is very true - agriculture development (or in this case preservation) and rural development are often negatively correlated and their outcomes are most times divergent. If for example, you preserve all the ag land, then you have less people living in a rural area, less need for basic services such as health care, education, commerce and some form of recreation. On the other hand, if you have an increase in rural development i.e. chopping up land into acreages, draining wetlands, loss of green spaces and environmental sustainability, more industrial type commerce and develoment, then you have a depletion of land set aside for the environmental and agricultural purposes. Once it is paved over or built upon, the reality is that it is lost to agricultural production forever.

Land is the ONLY thing we cannot make more of. This is one area that you can't pick winners and losers, because in the end, we could all loose.

It is critical that a balance be found that preserves quality of life - whatever that may be for you - makes efficient and effective use of tax revenues, preservation of environment and it's uses as well as sustainable growth that enhances the whole county and not just those areas that have the benefit of highway access and location.

Will enough long term consequences be considered when making decisions? We often go for short-term gain at the expense of long-term planning and/or pain.

A consistent and equally applied land use system must be put in place by any municipality.

[cakadu]

The Provincial Land Use Policies are currently being discussed at the Deputy Minister Level. It will be interesting to see what evolves from this discussion. There are currently approximately 68 Land Use By-Laws and Municipal Development Plans in Rural Alberta, this does not include those in towns,villages etc. This means that importance of preserving agricultural land is viewed differently in various municipalities.
This will depend on the mindset of the current council and the pressure for non-agricultural development.

[cowman]

Here is the problem I have with planners: While they may have these " GOOD CONCEPTS" the fact is we live in a democracy and as such we have some sort of rights? Payed for dearly...
Now how is it that some college boy is going to decide my rights? Where in the hell were they when my aunts died from pneumonia in the thirties because there were no bloody doctors? Where were they when my uncles and great uncles got killed in the bloody wars in Europe?
Where were they when my Grandfather sold cattle to the thieves for 1 cent a pound, just so he could buy bloody gloves for his boys and hired men?
And now these cretins are going to tell us what we can or can not do with this bloody land? ...I don't think so.

[cowman]

Cowman do you mean planners as in planning officers for municipalities ? If so, no matter what the municipal planners suggest, it must be approved by Council.
In planning a community, the greater good must be considered. EG: What demands are there for specific growth patterns.

[cakadu]

Emrald - I am quite impressed by your knowledge of land use policies etc. Is it something that you've worked with or just taken a great interest in?

I've learned from your posts and hope to keep learning.

Thanks for your contributions!!

[cakadu]

Linda, I have been involved in land use planning issues for many years and continue to take a keen interest in it. I have seen first hand the issues that arise when conflicting land uses are encouraged in municipalities. Conflicting uses don't seem to be as much an issue when they don't involve livestock operations !!!

[cakadu]

Emrald, in your opinion, what would some of the key issues/concerns be when it comes to this whole issue of land use? What should one be aware of? As you are probably well aware, we have huge concerns and issues that are cropping up and will continue to crop up here in Red Deer county.

Are there any particular documents, legislation etc. that one could become more familiar with in order to better deal with the issues?

Over both the short and long-term, the whole issue of land use is going to become increasingly important and complex.