Don’t give incentives to destroy farmland

Re: “Don’t bury our farmland,” editorial, Dec. 22.

Prime agricultural land such as the Stanhope property is a scarce resource. It makes no sense to use it to erect buildings.

Central Saanich and the Agricultural Land Commission have to get this right. Land such as this has to be preserved for future land-based agriculture, with the additional goal that it can be used to support farmers and farming infrastructure.

The Agricultural Land Reserve regulations are failing us when they allow greenhouses, riding facilities, estates with long driveways and construction storage on farm land. ALR land is less expensive and easy to build on, so it is natural that nonfarm uses are attracted to it. That is a political mistake.

The question should be simple. Does the activity or structure support land-based agriculture, and is the scale appropriate to the piece of land? It might be OK to have a bed and breakfast on a farm, but it isn’t supporting farming to put a hotel on 10 acres.

The same with greenhouses. If the scale is appropriate to grow plants to transplant onto fields, it makes sense. If they are used to control climate or extend the season, without damaging the land, that makes sense, too.

Removing the topsoil to build large hydroponic structures ruins good land.

I hope the ALC will review the allowed uses in the ALR, increase the qualifying limits, and remove the tax break on land not farmed and not kept in a natural state. We should not be giving incentives to people to destroy farmland.

John Buchanan, farmer Metchosin