It is abundantly clear that not all land uses are created equal. Pressure is being brought to bear throughout the Lower Mainland in an effort to ensure our finite amount of real estate is put to what is often characterized as its best or highest use.
There's an ever-growing push to convert property, often agricultural, to industrial purposes as well as to turn what have been single-family zones into higher density pockets. It's argued, and there's certainly validity to it, that people need jobs as well as places to live.
We recognize such evolution in land use is simply the nature of the beast when dealing with a burgeoning population, but the argument seems to be somewhat selective. We also require schools and parks and land to grow the food we eat.
We have a great many needs when it comes to land use, everything from transportation corridors and shopping districts to recreational amenities and natural areas.
That's not to say those areas have necessarily been overlooked, but the urgency to address any deficiencies in those sectors doesn't appear to be as great as it is in others.
If you're in a charitable mood and willing to offer the benefit of the doubt, then perhaps there are certain needs that rank higher on the pecking order than others, so maybe providing homes and employment opportunities should take precedence over everything else.
But when it comes to changing land use, are we catering to society's needs or simply catering to the almighty buck?
Yes, jobs and homes are of the utmost importance, but we can't lose sight of those other factors, including ones that directly contribute to our quality of life.
The livability of the region depends on our ability to make that distinction.
