Why I love it here.
My five-year old son, Zachary, and I went for a bike ride today. We live out on Prairie Valley, and he wanted to head down to Giant’s Head School. He is just learning how to ride on the road, so we went down Dale Meadows instead of Prairie Valley. Round trip takes us about an hour, and it is always such an exciting experience! Today we spent quite a while checking out the goats and sheep, lambs and kids, jumping and playing. There are llamas too, and a great big turkey that gobbles his head off as we go by. There were two mallards sitting right on the road, the usual quail, and we also saw a killdeer and several red-winged blackbirds. We saw horses too, a miniature, and a new foal.
We rode by Grandma and Grandpa’s, past the corner store, to the school playground, then cut back through some fields, along Prairie Creek, and back home, just my five year old and I, and all inside of an hour. This is why I love Summerland. It’s small. It’s safe. It’s wonderful.
We rode by Grandma and Grandpa’s, past the corner store, to the school playground, then cut back through some fields, along Prairie Creek, and back home, just my five year old and I, and all inside of an hour. This is why I love Summerland. It’s small. It’s safe. It’s wonderful.
posted by Amie |
Permanent Link
9 Comments:
Great post, Amie. It sounds like an excellent way to spend an hour in a wonderful area.
By
Jeremy, at 9:08 a.m.
All of what Amie states is true but all this ambiance that everyone enjoys cost the property owner money and a great deal of time and effort - with very little returns. If it is so important to the citizens of Summerland, then lets propose a "green fee" that will supplement farmers so they can continue to provide the ambiance that everyone considers so important. I assume that this Amie is one of the "concerned citizens" so I challenge her to lobby council to propose a levy or "Parcel Tax" on all non-farm property to maintain the ambiance. Start a petition- Amie - let your name be the first one on it.
By
Anonymous, at 8:17 p.m.
Hello Anonymous,
I don't doubt that operating a farm does cost "a great deal of time and effort with very little returns" and I do appreciate farmers' efforts every single day! Perhaps our governments do need to consider more monetary support of agriculture, but simple development of the land is not the answer. There is tax relief for farmers; if you are operating a farm, then I assume you qualify for farm status, and thus already pay a lower rate of tax than your non-farming counterparts. And remember, there is always the option to sell the farmland, as farmland that will remain farmland. Farms sell every day and I sincerly wish I could afford one! I will not be starting a petition to propose an extra levy or Parcel Tax any time soon; however, I will lobby council to continue to be supportive of a viable and productive agriculture industry. I will lobby council to stop undermining the agricultural industry by continual, incremental, development of BC's farmlands. Death by a thousand cuts, so to speak.
By
Amie, at 2:39 p.m.
Amie I happen to be a very happy farmer or I would not have farmed for the past 30 years. I did not mention anything about developing the land. That was your "editorializing".
Farming is facing a far greater challenge than development. The first is the age of the farmers - the figure I have abtained is 55 as the average age of farmers in Canada ( Summerland is no different). The second challenge is the immediate family does not want to take over the farm and this leads to the greatest challenge of all- the high cost of buying a farm. If you don't inherit a farm you will not be able to own a farm in the future.
Check out the selling cost of farms in Summerland. The price today will be nothing compared to the cost in the next ten years - especially with the baby boomers retiring, the completion of four lanes between Summerland and Kelowna.
No one in their right mind is going to put out $500,000 - $600.00 for five acres of ALR land with a house and grow apples. Only the wealthy will be able to buy ALR land in the future and they will not "farm" it. They will do enough to get the farm classification but will not make a major contribution to Summerland's economy. It is happening now and will increase in the future. In fact they, by buying the property and doing the minimum to get the farm classification are actually negatively affecting the tax base for Summeralnd. Did you know that eighty six percent (86%) of Summerland's tax base comes from the residential sector and one and one half percent (1-1/2%) for a total of $59,000 comes from all the farms in Summerland?
The residential sector will be required to pick up an increasing percentage of taxes in Summerland. The first one will be the parcel tax the will be levied on every parcel of land in Summerland starting next year. This will be between $250 - $375. I assume you have a single lot with a house on it - you will pay the same same as every farmer will pay even if the have 5, 10, 1000 acres.
Why do you think there are so many happy hobby farmers in Summerland.
Keep expressing your concern, Amie but also keep paying your taxes so I can remain a happy farmer.
By
Anonymous, at 3:49 p.m.
I completely agree that farming is facing many great challenges in this day and age. All of the issues you mention need to be considered and some can not really be addressed by government, such as the fact that the farming lifesyle doesn't seem so appealing to young people. I know that farmland is very expensive now too, but that will only become worse if people think there is a chance of removal from the ALR as well as if there is less and less of it available as it is dwindled away.
I also realize that our property taxes seem to be going up in Summerland, but I also see that the servicing of existing farmland is not what is driving up these costs. It seems we are constantly behind the eight ball. We want all these new services. We want to push the sewer out to West Prairie Valley, we want to separate our water system, we want to repave roads and add sidewalks, the list goes on and on. Hey...Its not so bad here right now! And its not the farmers crying for all this new stuff. As more and more PEOPLE move to town, we think we need these sidewalks, new roads, more sewer etc. etc. If we get our finances in order, keep our costs down, grow slowly and responsibly, then maybe we don't have to sacrifice the farmlands to pay for all our WANTS.
If you are not suggesting the developing of farmland as an option,then there is no quibble here. I do recognize the problems. I would truly like to contibute to the solution.
By
Amie, at 1:00 a.m.
Amie, please remember that a farmer is first and foremost a small business and, as such, owes their first allegiance to their stockholders. In this respect that stockholder is the farmer himself. If that individual cannot make a living with the business conditions as they are, in particular the demand for their product low, then that farmer must do what is right for the business. In this scenario what is right is selling their land for the maximum return possible. If they had a store that sold socks on Main Street and had to close down you would not blame them, would you? The math is all the same.
The fact remains Amie, that you are expecting that the farmers should be fighting to preserve the ALR and that would go a long way to preserving the Summerland lifestyle that you are enjoying so much. While that is a wonderful fantasy it is unfortunately not a possibility. As stated above the farmer ultimately owes nothing to anybody but himself or herself, so we need to remove their decision from the equation. Lets look at the town of Summerland, they owe it to their population to create the highest standard of living that is possible. This costs money. In this part of the world the money is no longer coming from agriculture and there is no indication that the market for products such as Canadian apples will significantly increase. So now we have two options, let the land sit there as either un-used or under-used doing no good to anyone, or develop the land in a responsible manner and have it produce funds that can be invested back into the town.
Once again Amie, I think that you have forgotten that at one point someone decided to develop this land for farming so that they could make money. At that time somebody else probably sat back and said that they would loose what they love about their wonderful community. Now it is time to look into new ways to use the land that will give future Amies something to fight for and preserve.
By
Anonymous, at 9:31 p.m.
Hello Anonymous,
Let’s see, I disagree with you on so many levels, I barely know where to begin. I’ll start with the facts. You say that the town has a responsibility to do what is in the best interest of the community, creating the highest standard of living, and using the land to produce funds for re-investment. The FACT of the matter is that for every $1.00 of taxes collected on residential properties, up to $1.50 is spent on services and infrastructure. For every $1.00 of tax collected on agricultural land, only $0.30 to 0.50 is spent on services, etc. That farm creates a net gain for the municipality. The fact is that residential land use produces a NET DRAIN on government finance. In order to avoid this scenario, it is critical that new development and population growth must adhere to certain guidelines, including decreasing sprawl, creating higher densities in the town core, and creating multi-use buildings. The development of farmlands does not fit! We need to get creative and think outside the box!
Next, I recognize that the operation of a working farm is a business, and let’s face it, that business paradigm is changing. Farmers can still make a living in this day and age, but it’s probably true that not many are going to strike it rich. The changing economics of farming; however, don’t mean eventual development of the land. Yes, that would be lucrative, but it is a FACT that in this province, we have an Agricultural Land Reserve. It was created for a reason and that reason has only become more important! Sure, I wouldn’t begrudge a sock storeowner the opportunity to close up shop; however, I would begrudge him the chance to start up a brothel, just because it’s more lucrative. Nobody is saying that the farm owner has to keep farming. However, it has been determined that the land use decisions regarding agriculturally viable lands are important to the whole of the province, indeed, the country. That’s the reality. Farms are selling “as is” for a pretty penny and that option is always available.
I guess one viewpoint is that the agricultural landowner owes nothing to anyone but him or herself. I would hope that landowners are starting to recognize that the preservation of agricultural land is important to everyone. Everyone seems to recognize the global importance of the rainforests, and the sheer tragedy of their destruction. I am sure those rainforests are owned by someone, yet the owners rights need to be balanced with the greater good. I view this country’s farmlands in much the same light. Once they are developed into row upon row of housing, they are lost forever. They will never be reclaimed for farming, and one day, we may all regret it. I also have a problem with your assumption that a farm lying fallow for a few years isn’t doing anyone any good. I think it is doing plenty of good. Just the presence of green space has value! The potential yield of that farm has value! It also has value in what it ISN’T. It isn’t more urban sprawl, more traffic, more pollution.
Perhaps you view the preservation of Summerland’s special lifestyle and character as a “wonderful fantasy”, but I see it as an attainable reality. With some thought, creativity, patience and prudence, we have the opportunity to see Summerland’s economic vitality grow without sacrificing its rural roots and small town charm. It just takes some guts.
By
Amie, at 9:54 p.m.
Well said, Amie. Your side of this discussion is well argued and passionate.
Your correspondent, unfortunately, is too afraid to sign their name and appears to be trying to bait you. This strikes me as somewhat cowardly and not particularly productive.
It seems to me after poking around on MLS that any farmer can do the equivalent of "closing up their sock store" and sell their land for up to $100,000/acre. Arguing that the ALR artifically depresses the price is pointless -- the ALR is what it is and the owners knew that when they inherited/bought the land. It seems like many could enjoy quite a return on their investment.
By
Jeremy, at 3:12 p.m.
As a part-time orchardist I agree with some of the problems faced by Anonymous. My family thinks I'm nuts (words like "senility" crop up regularly) because I spent a hefty proportion of outside wages earlier on, and now a similar porportion of my pension from those wages, to subsidize the orchard. But, I am hoping that 50 years down the road my great, great etc. grandchildren will benefit directly or indirectly from the fact that I did not sell my orchard to the first developer or "hobby" farmer that came along, just so that I could finally "retire."
Frank Martens, Part-Time Orchardist
By
Anonymous, at 8:06 a.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home