In general, I am against removing land from the alr, but in this case, it makes sense to do it. We want to expand the capabilities of the city, right?
metalman.

It seems that there is always a justifiable reason to remove land from the ALR. Usually for development reasons. On the other hand if a farmer wants to take out a small portion and develop it for some housing project, he gets a swift kick in the butt.

With a 1000 Hectares of land already being looked at in the Airport Area for light industrial, why do we need more, and why does it have to come out of the ALR. Of course you hear the politicians saying that this land is marginal farm land at best. How do they know this and where did they get the information. I suspect from the developer.

While one does not need agricultural land reservation designation in order to use land for agriculture, one needs to remove the designation to use it for more typical urban purposes.

I think all land within a city should be removed from the ALR automatically in the process of creating a municipality and when it expands its boundaries on occasion. That, I believe, is the time to decide what the new configuration of the urban-rural interface will look like.

Again, we have the concept of planning for future needs ahead of time. We do that through the OCP for the longer range and zoning typically in the shorter range.

In my opinion, the City should be ready at any time to have sufficient land to expand based on at the minimum10 years growth projections if not 20 years. Yet there are locations where there are still ALR designations in close proximity to potential land development needs and we have seen a couple of them recently because we are seeing some growth in land use.

BTW, having just looked at the GIS Map of the city to see where the ALR blocks still persist within the city limits, it appears that the airport is encroaching on ALR land to the south of the main runway. Maybe they are trying new experimental methods of growing concrete runways from agricultural soils.

;-)

Why All The Foot Dragging in ALR Land Request?
Its called planning. Its not difficult to see why our City is managed so poorly when council decides to override City planners and take matters in their own hands.

Taking a 1000 hectares out of the ALR should require more attention then one council meeting to jump off the cliff when it appears there exists enough industrial land in the area not in the ALR.

Cheers

I would rather see a specific proposal that justifies removal from the ALR.

Its too easy to buy ALR land on the cheep get it rezoned and become a millionaire. The land in question has some of the best growing soil in Northern BC. Anyone that has been through the area will notice from the mud boggs up there that it has at least 10 feet of rich top soil and excellent sun exposure.

If the plan is to create 3500 jobs then lets see the plan for planning purposes. If the plan is a developers wet dream like Airport plazza was then maybe we need to take into consideration the cities future stake in this land development.

I for one am set against any industrial development, light or not, that is within a kilometere of the cut bank overlooking the city and river. That strip of land needs to be protected for future livability purposes in this city, as well as potential tourism, and residential based projects.

I do however support taking land out of the ALR down wind from the pulp mill dioxin pollution in the Shelly area for future heavy industrial use and CN related activites.

Ahhhhh ----- get your head out of the sand Chadermando !! Who do you think is going to buy any of that land and grow hay, or wheat, or anything else for that matter.
Even zoned "agriculture", there's not enough money in the crops we can produce up here with the short season we live with, to make the investment worth it at today's prices. In the lower mainland, where they can get three crops a year, I can see where agriculture land is far more valueable than it is up here. Even the "Experimental farm" hasn't grown a crop or a carrot for years! If even they can't do it with "our" money, I don't know who can. Sure, there's some grandfathered farms around here that put out some decent hay crops each year, but go ask those farmers if they want to purchase the same amount of land that they already have at today land prices, and "double" their crop every year, and watch the reaction you'll get !
It'll stay "bush" forever, until we get some people on Council that have half an ounce of business sense!
Not that we don't need some "bush" to go play in either, but I think we're pretty rich in that department already.
Go build your house on the edge of the cutbank then. When it slides down on the tracks, you can blame the stupid government for taking the land out of the ALR and allowing zoning for a subdivision in an "unstable" area, city council for their shortsigtedness in doing the same thing, CN rail for causing "vibrations" that obviously resulted in cutbank erosion, and of course that awfull noise pollution, and rotten air quality from all those exhaust fumes they spew into the air as they pass by right below your house, and probably a dozen others I haven't thought of yet. Should be good for a couple million at least !

Actually my idea was to preserve the existing LC Gunn Park and its trail along the edge of the cutbank. Maybe have a street that runs parallel to the park with apartments, restaurants, and hotels motels on the other side of the street from the park overlooking the city for a safe and convenient location for tourists using the airport as well as coming into town from the two highways it would be connected to. A strip kinda like the beach in Penticton, but with a view rather than a lake.

Behind the hotels and motels on the next block they could start with light industrial till they run out of real-estate for all I care. Ideally they would remove that rich top soil from the area though for use elsewhere. Think of it as a subject to clause. Some places a truck will sink ten feet before it stops, so they will likely have to do that anyways.

I think it is a reasonable compromise that facilitates airport expansion while maintaining a liveable community and saving prime real estate for the betterment of this city in the future via tourism potential.

I think it is wholly unreasonable for a developer to think they should be allowed to build a blight on the community, overlooking the community on prime real-estate. Consideration does need to be taken into account for the land uses of other sectors of the economy.

BTW the experimental farm was gifted to the local native band that has let it rot since. Its not a matter of the lands ability to make a harvest.

Also I know the guy selling-sold the Airport land in question, so I do see both perspectives of the equation here.

Yeah, they'd have a really nice view of the jail there too !! Should make for some interesting comments when they get back home.