A slight tax increase?

[cowman]

Linda: I will point out to you that the conflicting land use studies were not really the same. The Reeves task force involved the people...the other study was a paid consultant, who did not consult the people? In fact I would go so far to bet that he was basically told by the planning department what results they wanted and then was told to go out and get them? Maybe not?
The point here is the people spoke pretty clearly on where they wanted to go? Even the hand picked Agricultural panel said very clearly, keep "First Parcel Out"? Now the planning department, in all their professional wisdom, aren't about to let the peasants decide important things like that...so we have a conflict! Who will decide...the people or the elite? I guess we'll soon find out if democracy is alive and well in Red Deer county or is just a myth? Perhaps we need a plebisite?...but then that wouldn't get the desired result, now would it?
Emerald: I suspect your municipality will have a tough time getting that genie back in the bottle? As they should?
Now I have no clue what land prices are where you live but if it was like here you could expect bare farm land to sell in that $2,000-$2,800/acre. A three acre bare subdivision could be anywhere from $40,000 to $120,000! So taking your 5 lot example a farmer could be sitting on land worth quite a bit of money! Example: 5 lots worth $60,000=$300,000 plus the remaining 145 acres at $2200= $319,000 for a grand total of $619,000! Compare that to 160 acres at $2200=$352,000! For a difference of $267,000!
Now do you think that farmer is going to gladly give up $267,000 so some one can have a fantasy they are actually making a living raising some worthless cows or raising some $1.85 barley?
In Red Deer County we are not fighting for the right to have 5 subdivisions per quarter...just one! We would be in heaven if they ever let us have 5!
How any landowner would be willing to see his assetts devalued by half is more than I can understand. Do they think they will be farming forever?

[cowman]

Cowman, land in this area sells for around $1000 an acre for farm land. The problem is that we are not a grain growing area, our main agriculture is cattle, cow/calf to be specific. Allowing ad hoc subdivision of farm land, and scattering country residential parcels around the area makes for many conflicts due to a complete lack of understanding of generally accepted farming practices .
If a farmer has to start selling of small parcels in order to continue farming then it may be in his best interest to sell his entire operation to someone who really wants to farm. In our area the legitimate farmers are asking for a change to the land use by-law, to only allow a first parcel out and as well as fragmented parcels that are separated from the quarter by a road, highway, creek etc.
I have only heard of one farmer that lives ten miles from town that wants to be allowed to take three subdivisions out of their land, and they are having severe financial problems .

[Horse]

Emerald1 I hope you dont mind my asking but what county do you live and are you a civil servant, Not trying to be nosey but sometimes I do wonder where you are coming from.
In case you are wondering about me I have done nothing but farm for the past 34 yr I moved from Red Deer then to barrhead then and took full time farming. I guess I fibed I have took a job for a day or two now and then for whiskey money.

[Horse]

Horse, hopefully my comments aren't so outlandish that you think I must be a civil servant !! Kidding !!!
I am not a civil servant but have been an elected official in the past. I keep myself current regarding land use issues, and legislation that affects agriculture and municipalities. I won't name the county where I reside in order to protect the INNOCENT !!! My views are my own, not those of any particular group or municipality. Hopefully, my views reflect some of the common sense I have acquired along the way in life.
I have never worked for Whiskey Money, but I will admit that there have been times during my 30 years in the cattle business that I have almost been driven to drink the stuff !!!! I am currently involved in other pursuits that keep me in close touch with the livestock sector.

[cakadu]

The Ag Viability Study took a look at what was out there in terms of agricultural enterprises that existed throughout the county. From that study recommendations were made regarding what should happen with agriculture in the future. The process of how the results were achieved in the 2 studies may have been different, but what is most important is the outcomes of the two studies which are at odds with one another.

I would bet, cowman, that the planning department will carry out the policies that are set by the Council. How they are interpreted and how much accountability from that department will be remain to be seen, however.

I wonder if the 4/3 split with respect to the first parcel out issue will continue to hold now that we have new councillors on board, 2 of which are brand new to this whole arena?

I question why a big bunch of money needs to be spent to expand the parking lot at the County offices so soon after it was built.

Emrald, I have to say that you are on the money with respect to selling off bits of land in order to keep farming. What are your thoughts regarding the sale of land down on the eastern slopes a year or so ago that was done for the reason you stated - he sold off the acreage so that he could have enough money to continue farming. It didn't matter that it was interrupting wildlife corridors and leaving other footprints.

More and more it is looking like the Natural Capital aspect will have to be brought into play when making some of these land use decisions.

Cowman, your statements regarding the amount of drilling that is, and is going to be, taking place in the County is quite disturbing. How much do we have to loose in the long term before we stop grabbing at short-term gain?

[cakadu]

Linda, the selling of lands on the Eastern Slopes without having regard for wildlife corridors is certainly and interesting issue. Any development eg: logging, mining, recreation within areas where there are wildlife corridors must be addressed, usually in an EIA. The paving of the parking lot issue is something I won't comment on but it would seem that the amount of parking required should have been addressed when the building design was approved. The attitude exhibited by the planning department of any municiplity is a direct reflection of the position of council with regard to planning matters. Unless, of course the council doesn't keep themselves informed about such things.
Never underestimate the power of the citizens in a municipality if enough of them share a concern similar to yours. A group can make a presentation to council on any issue, if planning issues are a concern across the county, I would certainly encourage a group to put a presentation together and make their concerns public.

[cakadu]

Interesting issue unfolding in my own municipality regarding and application to subdivide a 4 acre parcel that is within the Minimum Distance Separation of an existing feedlot that has a permit for 2000 head of feeders. The feedlot is full to capacity and also has a 750 cow/calf operation on the same land.
I am an adjacent landowner and had the application sent to me for any comments or concerns. I called the Development Officer yesterday to ask about the philosophy of the county with regard to approving these sort of parcels when doing so will cause any application by the feedlot to expand to be denied. I asked the development officer what the required set back distance is from a feedlot to the nearest dwelling and he didn't know, not only that but he proceeded to make numerous rude comments about why I wanted to know, and what business it was of mine etc.
I advised him that I was in the cattle business and having feedlots locally bidding on my calves was a benefit to me. He was completely ignorant of the provincial legislation that governs feeding operations. The parcel being applied for contains what was built as a shop to repair motor bikes etc. The owner had a condition on his development permit that he could not have any living quarters in his building, but went ahead and built an apartment and lived in it. When the feedlot applied to the county for their permit, it was approved because NO-ONE was permitted to live in the shop across the road.
Last year the development officer recommended that the planning commission give a development permit to the shop owner because in his words he had done major renovations and the shop was now a house with an attached garage !
This is total BS, as the building is a two story building with the bottom story used as a repair shop.
By approving the darn building as a house, and approving a subdivision the county will effectively stifle the growth of the feedlot unless the opporator chooses to request and NRCB Board hearing some time in the future if he wishes to expand.
I sent a lengthy note to the county manager about the attitude of his staff member. Many people would be intimidated by that sort of conduct and not raise any objections or concerns they may have with development.
I plan on attending the Planning Commission meeting as an adjacent landowner and asking what the required set back is from the feedlot,just to see if the jerk actually did check and see what it is.
I do happen to know that the actual distance to the shop/house from the feedlot pens is 150m and the required distance is 575m.
I did suggest to the development office that it might be a good idea to have all that information in front of the planning commission when they were deliberating whether or not to approve the subdivision, he said he would 'thank me not to tell him how to do his job'.

[cowman]

Emerald: I suspect your municipality will be quite happy to charge the garage owner residential rates instead of just the rate for a shop? I also suspect how any rule goes will depend on who has "pull" and who is just your average Joe? Usually in these type of cases(in my county) you can almost count on the farmer losing out to residential! Which I used to think wasn't very fair...but in fact we need to skid these stinking factory farms out of the developed areas?...Or maybe all livestock, for that matter?
Linda: I'm not sure what happened with the added parking space thing. I believe the long range plan was always to buy the land to the south...council just needed to have some time to let any anger over the new office(the Taj Mahal) blow over? I don't think it ever even came up in the election, so maybe they figured it was "Katy bar the door" and they could go hog wild with blowing more money? I mean they only bought 4 acres for around $375,000! Chicken feed for a big operation like Red Deer county, right?...hmmm remember the sweetheart deal the county got on the original land?
It will be very interesting to see what happens in Mountain View County(Olds) as the new council put a stop order on their own little palace before construction got going full bore?
The methane gas exploration in the eastern part of the county is scary to say the least. A group is trying to set up a surface rights association in the area right now. We had a very well attended meeting Dec. 22 at Pine Lake and are proceeding from there. Of probably 200 landowners in attendance the vote was unanimous to proceed with setting up an association. These methane boys are not like your typical oil companies! If you think the old oil companies were sleaze bags you have no idea how low these dogs are!
What really bothers me is they seem to be wanting to do their really dirty work in the sparsely populated areas along the Red Deer river out east. If you've never been there, it is without a doubt the most beautiful place in the county.
Because I am involved in this surface rights group I recently asked our Reeve what was the sense of the land use forums, if the methane gas companies were going to destroy the land and water for both development and agriculture? He had no clue what these companies were like or the damage they could do! So obviously I "educated" him and he is now a believer and has verbally pledged to get behind this surface rights association! We'll see I guess?

[cowman]

cowman, if Mountain View has put a stop order on the building what is going to happen with what they have already managed to construct ? It will be interesting to see if the contractor that was awarded the bid to construct the building will sue !!
As for allowing the development parcel in my county it is designated as a house with an attached garage so there will be no possible avenue to have commercial assessment.
It was a non compliant use before and was in the corner of a farm so it was classed as a farm shop, and there again, there was no increase in assessment until the county found out there was an apartment in it, then they were assessed residential tax, but were still not in compliance with the land use bylaw, or the fire by law which did not allow for residental quarters in a shop used for repairing equipment etc.
The county development officer should have pushed for a stop work order instead of trying to bend every rule in the book to get the darn thing approved.
My view as a taxpayer is that if the council does not welcome expansion of feedlots nor encourage new ones they should set it out in their Municipal Development Plan rather than allow ad hoc subdivisions that will virtually stifle expansion of existing operations without the operator having to bear the cost of what might be an expensive hearing if he chooses to expand. The feedlot I refer to is one hell of a long way from a factory farm. There are setbacks in the Provincial legislation that set out the distance any new feeding operation must be from residential development, and municipalities can include buffers within their Municipal Development Plan that also indicates where confined feeding operations are able to locate within their jurisdiction.

[cakadu]

Cowman, don't you think that if the county is going to allow all of this methane gas exploration, then it is incumbent upon the councillors to make themselves aware of the costs and benefits of allowing all of this exploration? Given that this methane gas thing has been newsworthy for about 2 years now, don't you think it a bit odd that those that will be making the decisions for the entire county are unaware of the consequences? We can't just look at the benefits and the revenues it will bring.

Emrald, it always seems as though those that continually skirt the rules are rewarded for their actions and those that play by the rules, are in some fashion punished for adhering to the rules.

Wasn't the whole point of establishing regulations regarding CFO's to ensure that the rules were applied equally and consistently across the province? How can there be such continued deviation from what is set out? I know that everything is subject to interpretation, but shouldn't there be limits to how much latitude is given in terms of interpreting legislation?