Here is the petition:

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-the-land-application-of-biosolids-in-the-crd.html

Background (Preamble):
On May 25th 2011, the CRD will decide the future of our local environment and food safety and security on the South Island. Let them know that safe food and farming practices and our natural environment matter to you by signing this petition against the application of sewage-based biosolids in the CRD!

However, on April 21st, 2011 the Saanich Peninsula Waste Commission passed a motion to start a pilot-project that would see huge amounts of Class A biosolids applied to Saanich farmland producing hay and feed for animals.

Petition:
We, the undersigned, hereby express our support of the current CRD CALWC ban on the land application of biosolids, and strongly oppose plans by the Saanich Peninsula Waste Commission to conduct a pilot-project of large-scale biosolid application to regional farmland.

Please keep Unsafe Human Waste Off BC’s Lands, Waterways and Dinner Plates!

UN expert calls for farming changes

“GENEVA, Oct 16, 2010 (AFP) – The United Nations top official on the right to food called for wholesale changes in farming methods to safeguard the environment and ensure everyone has enough to eat.

“De Schutter said the emphasis on chemical fertilisers and a greater mechanisation of production was “far distant from the professed commitment to fight climate change and to support small-scale, family agriculture.”

In addition, “giving priority to approaches that increase reliance on fossil fuels is agriculture committing suicide,” he said.

“Instead there should be a global promotion of low-carbon farming, he said, adding that “agriculture must become central to mitigating the effects of climate change rather than a large part of the problem.”

http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/expert+calls+farming+changes/3683043/story.html

http://greenlangford.ca/alr

for more details.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/okanagan_similkameen/kelownacapitalnews/news/96696429.html

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Canada/BC/ID=1480357889

(note: link will automatically load and play, proceeded by a 10-15 second ad)

“Hi Bea. No decision yet. The Commission is planning to hold a public meeting. I will provide details later when we have a better idea of the arrangements.
Roger Cheetham, Regional Planner
Ph 604 660 7020
FAX 604 660 7033

—–Original Message—–
From: Bea McKenzie
Sent: Monday, January 4, 2010 9:15 AM
To: Cheetham, Roger ALC:EX
Subject: Langford ALR

Good Morning Roger:

Please let me know the Dec.17th – 18th decision for the Langford ALR
exclusion applications results.

These people may be the first to go hungary if they can’t figure out the easy stuff.

Happy New Year to ALL, and here’s hoping 2010, with the many local, regional, provincial, country-wide and world-wide issues and decisions that are to be considered, that many more citizens will find their voices and work very hard to ensure that those elected to represent them are serving their interests justly. I think with the ground swell of world-wide awareness and knowledge of the complexities of dealing with climate change science and the politics of creating an agreement, or lack-there-of by-in-large thanks to Canadian elected representatives, in Copenhagen, has awaken a populace that had been lulled to sleep in the false belief that those we put in charge were acting in our best interests. There are many issues to be dealt with in 2010, on the world and national front climate change solutions, the Afgan detainee issue, nationally the passage of HST law, provincially the 2010 Olympics, funding cuts to social and health program, HST, and regionally sewage solutions, sites and costs, and locally – take your pick – parkland in Floence Lake to be sold off and developed? 10 applications to the ALC to exclude ALR land within Langford approved or not? outstanding loans the City of Langford has not been repaid, money needed for the City’s 1/3 portion for City Centre Park to match the promised infrastructure funding from the provincial and federal governments from where and how? There are many more I have failed to cover that I believe all citizens need to be aware of, as its their home, their community, big or small, locally or as a world-citizen.

Point of Fact: We currently rely on ferries to bring us our food, but we are not totally reliant on these forms of transportation. There are terminals on Vancouver Island that can load and unload rail cars, containers and bulk goods. It is also quite possible to load and unload vehicles and supplies directly from barges at any number of locations around the islands. It is a complete myth that we islanders are totally reliant on ferries, and we would not be reliant on them in the event of an emergency.

I always think, as an island, we islanders are totally reliant on ferries and planes to bring us our food. Most estimates peg 85% of the food consumed on Vancouver Island comes from off the island. Longterm that is neither economically nor environmentally sustainable. We need to find out how and where we can grow food, and get on with it. The market is there. Local farmers have no shortage of customers – just shortages of land they can afford, land they can farm, labourers to help staff the farm and farmers willing to farm! Most farms do not even need to get their produce to market, the custmers will happily come to them for locally grown fresh produce if they know how to find the farmer, because a local farm and a local farmer are a rare breed.

——————————————————
“Investors see farms as way to grow Detroit”

By P.J. Huffstutter
Los Angeles Times
December 27, 2009

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-detroit-farms27-2009dec27,0,7336715.story

“Detroit, they say, needs to get back to what it was before Henry Ford moved to town: farmland.”

“Farming is how Detroit started,” Score said, “and farming is how Detroit can be saved.”

“Local leaders say they are encouraged by the idea of farm jobs coming to Detroit, which could help ease the region’s grim economic situation: The Detroit-Livonia-Dearborn area had an unemployment rate of 17.7% in October, the highest in a region of 1 million residents or more, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.”

“And in a city where there are no major grocery store chains, and more than three-fourths of the residents buy their food at convenience stores or gas stations, the idea of having easy access to fresh produce is appealing.”

Here are some contacts you may find helpful:

Premier Gordon Campbell – premier@gov.bc.ca

John Horgan, MLA for Juan de Fuca – john.horgan.mla@leg.bc.ca

Agriculture Critic Lana Popham – lana.popham.mla@leg.bc.ca

Jane Sterk, Leader of BC’s Green Party – office@greenparty.bc.ca

Roger Cheetham,, Regional Planner, ALC- Roger.Cheetham@gov.bc.ca
(Ph: 604 660-7020 FAX: 604 660-7033)

Erik Karlsen, Chair, Agricultural Land Commission – erik.karlsen@gov.bc.ca

Dear Mr. Bednard

Proposed Exclusions of 3398 Luxton Road and 3639 Happy Valley Road From the Agricultural Land Reserve.

I am writing to request that the Panel reject these two applications (as well as the applications on which I wrote earlier, that is, 3577, 3579, 3569, 3660, 3622, 3634 Happy Valley Road 935 Latoria Road and change in use at 3420 Luxton Road.

These excisions will harm to agriculture today and tomorrow, not only on these lands, but also on other lands.

Located in a flood plain, these lands have high agricultural potential. This is demonstrated by the viable small farms elsewhere in the same flood plain. All that is lacking is farmers’ effort. With rising food and transportation costs, we may be certain that regional markets for local produce will expand. Retaining a capability to meet these demands is a matter of simple food security. A situation in which less than 10% of food consumed on the island is produced here is simply unsustainable in the medium and long term.

The panel should take explicit account of the fact that excision of these parcels will reduce the potential of other parcels in the area. The excisions are sought basically to allow high density residential development. The new residents are certain to protest (successfully) agricultural “nuisances” (smells, sounds, dust), and, to add injury to injury, cause actual damage themselves through vandalism by children and depredation by pets.

I look forward to hearing that the Panel will prevent the irreversible damage which would arise from these excisions.

In the meantime, please also keep me informed of the date and place of the panel hearing on these applications.

Yours sincerely,

Frank Mitchell

These 2 applications will be, I presume, forwarded by the City of Langford to the ALC shortly for consideration. If you wish to express your opinion on these exclusion applications, or find out if the ALC will be holding any hearings on these properties, you can write to, or email:

Land Use Planner, ALC
Gordon Bednard
Vancouver Island
Tel: 604 660-7011
Gordon.Bednard@gov.bc.ca

Provincial Agricultural Land Commission
133-4940 Canada Way
Burnaby, BC V5G 4K6
CANADA
Tel: 604 660-7000
Fax: 604 660-7033

Be sure to note the specific property addresses you are making a submission about, and address the issues of land use and the capability of the land to produce food and/or support agriculture, and whether there is a net benefit to agriculture, as I believe these are the factors the ALC commissioners take into consideration.

At the previous AAC meeting, March 30th, 2009, Langford’s AAC considered these same two properties and there was no agreement on the committee if or what compensation could be made for the loss of the ALR lands within Langford. At that June 10 meeting the committee spent considerable time attempting to come up with a formula for a contribution to the City of Langford’s Agricultural Land Reserve Fund as some sort of compensation for the loss of ALR land within Langford. The committee suggested a formula should be designed by those more knowledgeable of land and property values then themselves, perhaps by the Planning and Zoning Committee or Langford Council but did suggest a possible formula of 20% of the property value at the time of rezoning, recognizing the vast increase in the value of land as soon as it is excluded from the ALR, meaning a windfall profit for the landowner. However, this same effect means that attempting to use the Langford Agricultural Land Reserve Fund to buy land suitable for agriculture (flat, open, good drainage, and good top soil or top soil that can be remediated) is incredibly expensive, because that also describes properties that are a developers’ or a builders’ dream.

p. 65/119 PDF Monday, August 17th 7PM Council Meeting Agenda
CITY OF LANGFORD
RESOLUTIONS OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
Wednesday, June 10, 2009

a) 3398 Luxton Road ( File No. ALR-06-05)
b) 3639 Happy Valley Road (File No. ALR-09-01)
- submit a letter report to the Agricultural Land Commission stating
that the City would support the exclusion
- City of Langford will request a cash contribution to
the City’s Agricultural Land Reserve Fund at the time of rezoning in an amount
that represents a percentage of the fair return on the increased value of the land
as determined by Council, and that this is suggested to be at least 20% of the
value of the land, as determined by appraisal, at the time of rezoning:

“The City would not object to the removal of land at 3622 Happy Valley Road
Note change, property is not forwarded until bylaw concerns are addressed:
Agricultural Advisory Committee amend its recommendation of January 5th, 2009 with regard to 3622 Happy Valley to stipulate that the ALR application be set aside until bylaw enforcement issues with respect to that property are resolved.”