Dear Editor,
I don’t buy the cultural argument with respect to the size of farm houses. This is about money and investment and what Richmond will look like in 30 years.
Limitations on the size of houses on farmland is a reasonable regulation. My mom and dad were born on farms with multi-generational families living under one roof and those houses were typical farm homes.
Although times, standards, expectations and land values have changed, a limit on the square footage of houses on farmland, even if it allows for somewhat larger houses, is reasonable.
Times have also changed in that farmland is being purchased, speculated on, developed and, in some cases, not farmed.
One additional point is that the mega mansions contribute significantly to the spiralling cost of farmland. It’s a vicious cycle.
Farmland prices skyrocket partly, if not largely, because wealthy investors, both local and offshore, buy land for their estates. The price per acre becomes way, way, way too high for a farmer to purchase and actually make any money.
So, farmers are priced out of the market by the very “investor class” that caused the prices to go so high in the first place. Then, the investor can say, “look, nobody is farming the land (in a real sense, not just for the tax break).”
It’s left to all of council to act and I hope it will place a limit on farmland house size that helps to keep farmland prices a little bit down and sends a message that Richmond’s farmland really is for farming.
It is long past that Richmond should act on this issue as have other jurisdictions.
It’s time for council to act.
Andy Hobbs
Richmond
