There is more to the ALR than potential development profits
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Vancouver Sun
In an Oct. 20 Vancouver Sun article, Steve Lornie goes after the Agricultural Land Reserve. Prosperous societies like Canada do not face, he believes, any problem of food security. He goes on to argue that "One of the most damaging of the food security arguments is the one that supports the Agricultural Land Reserve. This 35-year old legislation has less to do with food security than it has to do with protecting high real estate values and controlling growth in semi-urban areas."
With all due respect to Steve Lornie, he's wrong on both counts.
The ALR may raise urban land prices somewhat. That is a minor problem compared to the ALR's benefit in limiting urban sprawl. Low-density urban sprawl in cities like Los Angeles makes public transit too expensive to organize and condemns people to get about by car. He's also wrong to dismiss the value of preserving good agricultural land for farming.
Obviously, farmland in Metro Vancouver cannot provide us with total food security. In fact, B.C produces only 50 per cent of the food we eat. Because B.C. imports much of its food, it does not follow we should ignore our natural capital in farmland.
Farmland in the Fraser Valley is among the most productive in Canada. Mild climate, excellent soils and available water make it an agricultural jewel. Even the strongest free market proponent should argue that we do not destroy a resource for which we have a comparative advantage.
Our natural capital, of which Fraser Valley farmland is a key component for B.C. citizens, cannot be measured in terms of the price that either farmers or property developers might pay for it. A recent Ipsos Reid poll and a study led by SFU and the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands found that 95 per cent of people in Metro Vancouver support preservation of farmland. This is not because they see farmland through a private sector lens, but because they recognize that farmland in a community provides more than a source of food or land for future development. Urbanites recognize that farmland is a critical part of a well-rounded, sustainable community. Access to locally produced food is a component to that sense of sustainability. There is much more: Most urbanites value the existence of rural farmland, open spaces, wetlands for wildlife, and so on as part of what makes B.C. a good place to live.
Lornie's premise, taken to the extreme, would see all the land in Metro Vancouver covered with houses or commercial development. He offers no reason to preserve urban parks, to oppose building condos in Stanley Park. Not even the most ardent free enterprisers would go that far, but if we value open space, why so? The pertinent question is: What is the correct balance between preserving farmland and urban development.
In an effort to begin this dialogue, a recent study was done to estimate the public, non-market, benefits of farmland in Metro Vancouver. The estimated public value of farmland was much higher than the private sector or market value of the farmland. This is not surprising. After the 2006 windstorm that blew down trees in Stanley Park, with little solicitation, the public provided $10 million to restore the trees, trees that had a market value of only $1 million.
Analysis that assumes all markets work perfectly ignores things like the irreversibility of land use changes. Once farmland is paved over for other uses, it does not easily go back to farmland. The recent study also shows there are many benefits from farmland that people living in the region value. These benefits are not sold in the market place.
The public amenity benefits add up to millions of dollars. What we ask is that a fair comparison be made between the values of our agricultural land in different uses, using values based not solely on the market price at the moment, but also on the broader social, environmental, and public interest values that make our region rich in natural areas as well as those developed for housing, commerce and industry.
Nancy Olewiler and John Richards are professors in Simon Fraser University's Public Policy Program.
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/There+more+than+potential+develo…
With all due respect to Steve Lornie, he's wrong on both counts.
The ALR may raise urban land prices somewhat. That is a minor problem compared to the ALR's benefit in limiting urban sprawl. Low-density urban sprawl in cities like Los Angeles makes public transit too expensive to organize and condemns people to get about by car. He's also wrong to dismiss the value of preserving good agricultural land for farming.
Obviously, farmland in Metro Vancouver cannot provide us with total food security. In fact, B.C produces only 50 per cent of the food we eat. Because B.C. imports much of its food, it does not follow we should ignore our natural capital in farmland.
Farmland in the Fraser Valley is among the most productive in Canada. Mild climate, excellent soils and available water make it an agricultural jewel. Even the strongest free market proponent should argue that we do not destroy a resource for which we have a comparative advantage.
Our natural capital, of which Fraser Valley farmland is a key component for B.C. citizens, cannot be measured in terms of the price that either farmers or property developers might pay for it. A recent Ipsos Reid poll and a study led by SFU and the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands found that 95 per cent of people in Metro Vancouver support preservation of farmland. This is not because they see farmland through a private sector lens, but because they recognize that farmland in a community provides more than a source of food or land for future development. Urbanites recognize that farmland is a critical part of a well-rounded, sustainable community. Access to locally produced food is a component to that sense of sustainability. There is much more: Most urbanites value the existence of rural farmland, open spaces, wetlands for wildlife, and so on as part of what makes B.C. a good place to live.
Lornie's premise, taken to the extreme, would see all the land in Metro Vancouver covered with houses or commercial development. He offers no reason to preserve urban parks, to oppose building condos in Stanley Park. Not even the most ardent free enterprisers would go that far, but if we value open space, why so? The pertinent question is: What is the correct balance between preserving farmland and urban development.
In an effort to begin this dialogue, a recent study was done to estimate the public, non-market, benefits of farmland in Metro Vancouver. The estimated public value of farmland was much higher than the private sector or market value of the farmland. This is not surprising. After the 2006 windstorm that blew down trees in Stanley Park, with little solicitation, the public provided $10 million to restore the trees, trees that had a market value of only $1 million.
Analysis that assumes all markets work perfectly ignores things like the irreversibility of land use changes. Once farmland is paved over for other uses, it does not easily go back to farmland. The recent study also shows there are many benefits from farmland that people living in the region value. These benefits are not sold in the market place.
The public amenity benefits add up to millions of dollars. What we ask is that a fair comparison be made between the values of our agricultural land in different uses, using values based not solely on the market price at the moment, but also on the broader social, environmental, and public interest values that make our region rich in natural areas as well as those developed for housing, commerce and industry.
Nancy Olewiler and John Richards are professors in Simon Fraser University's Public Policy Program.
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/There+more+than+potential+develo…
More from this campaign
