Dear Editor,
The ongoing “mega home on farmland” debate has often obscured the main objective of the bylaws proposed in the initial city staff report on the problem — to preserve as much farmland as possible for the farmers of tomorrow, so that it isn’t built upon or contaminated, thereby taking it out of production forever.
The staff report showed how this objective could best be met by limiting farmland house size to 5,382-square-feet and ensuring that the setback from the road does not unduly encroach on farmland.
Instead, council voted to approximately double house size limits and increase the setbacks.
When speaking to council, the farmers of today are wearing two very different hats. They are both farmers and landowners.
Several of them were honest enough to say that their prime concern is keeping farmland prices high to provide for their retirement when they eventually sell or to provide a large inheritance for their children or to serve as collateral in obtaining large loans from a bank.
An understandable sentiment shared with many other landowners, but it has nothing to do with farming.
While the councillors spoke of “supporting our farmers” and minimizing any impediments to their farming, these dramatic increases in house sizes have nothing to do with facilitating farming and will only result in more prime farmland being taken out of production forever.
We need to reverse city council’s decision to ignore the staff report and increase farmland house sizes and setbacks.
John Roston
Steveston
