A clarification

Published: January 04, 2011 7:00 PM   Editorial

For the record, I did go to journalism school and have been in the business for more than two decades now. However, there are times when I demonstrate that I am completely human. I have made spelling mistakes and bungled figures. There are times when I could use more clarification on specific details. That was apparently the case when I used this column last week to express concerns about Coldstream council recommending a covenant on part of the land next to the college so the Agricultural Land Commission will give its blessing to a sports complex. I assumed the five acres covered by the covenant meant the land would be left undeveloped, while the rest of the 10-acre site would be used for the entire sports complex. I found out, once again, what happens when you assume something.

“The recommendation to place a covenant on the land outside the buildings and track on the college site does not alter the sports facility plan,” said Jim Garlick, Coldstream mayor, in an e-mail to me. “It keeps the land from being paved or additional buildings. It will allow the grass playing field that is planned for that area to go ahead if approved by the ALC. It does not leave it in weeds.” I appreciate Garlick clarifying the situation, and I now understand that it will only be the running track and a grandstand on five of the acres, while the five acres recommended for a covenant would only contain a grass field. That means that parcel could easily be used for agricultural purposes in the future. 

But even with a better understanding of what the municipality is proposing, I am left wondering why such steps are necessary at all.  As I mentioned last week, anyone I’ve talked to doesn’t remember any of the 10 acres actually being used for farming since, at least, the 1960s. Only weeds have flourished.
Once again we have to consider why that site hasn’t been put into intensive production.  First off, is the ALC’s soil classification for the property accurate? Can crops easily be grown there? There are many examples in the North Okanagan where lines for the Agricultural Land Reserve were just drawn on a map and no consideration was given to soil.  And even if ground conditions are suitable, there is the matter of economics.  Most farmers will tell you that the industry has always been a challenging one in which to make a living, and it’s getting worse all of the time. Establishing an orchard, winery or another operation would be a significant financial investment and it’s unlikely that many are going to be willing to take the plunge.  That’s why I believe a covenant on the five acres to preserve it for future agricultural uses is unnecessary. In fact, seeking non-farm status for the entire 10 acres is completely suspect when outright removal from the ALR makes sense.  If developed properly, that entire site could meet the long-term recreational needs of Greater Vernon, and that may include structures where the covenant is intended. There will also be ongoing pressure on Okanagan College to expand its buildings and parking.

I understand that Coldstream is trying to ensure plans for the sports complex proceed by pacifying the ALC’s mandate to preserve farm land. But while the community depends on a solid land base for a sustainable source of food, saving everything isn’t realistic.We have to pick our battles and the goal should be to ensure the viability of land that has an established track record of growing crops or raising livestock. What will be achieved by the ALC hanging on to a tract of land that has only sprouted rocks and weeds?I now have a better understanding of what Coldstream is trying to achieve at the college, but my original concerns still stand.