November Follow-Up

Hello Everyone,

     This post has just a couple of entries that are as follows:

     Firstly, the assoc. has written and submitted a letter to the Morning Star paper.  Specifically, the editorial letter column.  As we are anxiously anticipating it's publication, here it is on the 'down low'.
-----------------------
Re:  Unification
     Recently, a lot of media focus has been on a petition to amalgamate the District of Coldstream, Regional District Areas "B" & "C" with the City of Vernon, or to create a new municipality, under the guise of streamlining regulations when dealing with more than one of the above jurisdictions.  The Society for the Future Governance of Greater Vernon is the body that is forwarding the results of this petition to local and provincial authorities for their consideration to undertake a study to examine these possibilities.
     While the dream may be entertaining, in reality, it would be a nightmare.  For the most part, people live in different jurisdictions by choice.  People who feel more comfortable by what a city may afford them live in the city.  Likewise, people who prefer a rural lifestyle live in the country.  There is no recognizable gain for residents of Electoral Areas to amalgamate with the City of Vernon or any newly formed facsimile.  Taxes would certainly increase and services provided would probably not change very much, if any.  There is far too much history about both small and large annexations, by the City of Vernon, in the recent past to come to any other conclusion.  Also, if there are policies within these four jurisdictions that are truly hampering investment in this area, they can probably be streamlined, without the need to re-invent the municipal wheel.
     Mr. Peter Moore stated in one article in the Morning Star,  "It would be wise for them to ask to have the question on the ballot so they can vote no once and for all."  Well, I would like to point out that the residents of the Regional District Areas have said no before, regarding annexation, when it was put to a referendum back in 2008.  As published in the Morning Star article that year "Area B (BX/Swan Lake) reported 76% of respondents were opposed to a change in governance while 24% were in favor.  Area C (BX/Silver Star) the question resulted in 74% being against any change while 26% were if favor.  For Area D (rural Lumby) 85% wanted to keep the current system while 15% want a change.  Area E (Cherryville) residents were the loudest in their support for status quo - 95% - while only 5% wanted change."  I understand that Areas D and E are not being sought in this unification petition question.  However, the percentages reported are worth mentioning while on the governance topic.
     The petition is estimating approximately 4000 signatures to be considered a success.  The City of Vernon has a population of 38,150, while its metropolitan region, Greater Vernon, has a population of 58,584 as cited from the Canada 2011 Census.  So if the 4000 residents come from all areas as claimed, then it is only 6.8% of the population desiring this change in governance.  Hardly a majority and less than 1 in 10.  As reported on Monday, November 4th 2013 by "107.5 KISS FM" radio station "they had 1,637 online supporters, with an estimated 1000 written at last count."  This actually comes to only 4.6% of the Greater Vernon population.
     In conclusion, Re:  Unification.  All residents should exercise a measured, pragmatic approach rather than an emotionally reactive response.  And if the Society for the Future Governance of Greater Vernon desires for more direct input, then possibly they should consider a run for Mayor and/or Council of the respective jurisdictions.

Chris Edwards
President, B.X./Swan Lake Community Association
-----------------------
One detail that isn't in the letter is the published numbers from the S.F.G.G.V. was a total of approximately 2900 or so.  The published result turns out to be an even 5% of the Greater Vernon area population.  As for the published percentages, just because some property owners didn't vote doesn't mean they didn't pay the taxes.

If anyone would like a copy of the above letter.  Please email the assoc. at 'bxslca@hotmail.com'.

     Secondly, the G.M.O. issue is generating a lot of discussion.  Recently, the British Columbia Fruit Growers' Assoc. has "asked the federal government for an immediate moratorium on the genetically modified apple, known under the trademark Arctic apple."  ( http://www.vernonmorningstar.com/news/232053381.html )  Also, in the article the President of the B.C.F.G.A. comments "“If 76 per cent of people say the Canadian government has not provided adequate information to the public on GM foods, how can the government then approve these products for introduction to an unprepared marketplace?” said Dukhia.  Also the (2012 national) survey carried out by the B.C.F.G.A. and the Quebec Apple Producers Association resulted in "69 per cent of Canadians are not in favour of GM food and 91 per cent said GM labelling should be mandatory."

Please leave your comments/thoughts below in the comment section.  As we generally accept and leave all comments (except those that may be inappropriate due to profanity or liability.)

Of course, the second issue could be paraphrased in thirty words or less by the old addage "You are what you eat."

Until next time,

November Update

Greetings Bloggers,

     This will be short and sweet.  Update on the gravel pit petition.  The petition drive now has approximately 1000 signatures and there is an online petition available for anyone that is interested.  It is at the link below:
http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/agriculture-land-commission-of-bc-turn-down-the-request-to-allow-nonfarm-use-a-gravel-pit-on-the-agricultural-land-known-as-5801-brentwood-rd-in-the-bx-ravine-vernon-bc 
     There are 30 signatures out of 70 needed.  I am not sure how the total number of 70 was arrived at, but if your interested please fill out the required information.  One signer, the farthest away is out of Lakeland, Florida. Others cite Calgary and others cite Langley as their locale.
     There is more information or developments ongoing and we will post the information when available.

      Speaking of the A.L.C., the "Globe and Mail" article http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/sacrosanct-agricultural-land-commission-eyed-for-breakup/article15306864/?cmpid=rss1  is quite concerning.  As the points below were reported to be from "confidential government documents"

•     Create two A.L.R. areas with different rules.

•     Change the A.L.C.’s legislative mandate, in one or both ALR areas

•     Remove some decisions from the A.L.C.

•     Community growth applications decided by local governments.

•     Modernize A.L.C. operations by moving the A.L.C. into the Ministry.

From the link within the article ( http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-government-documents-summarize-proposal-to-dismantle-agricultural-land-commission/article15322690/ )
The proposed changes, if approved, will:

     1) Dismantle the Agricultural Land Commission – staff and their functions will move into the Ministry of Agriculture. There will be regional panels but decisions will be able to be appealed to a third party and overturned.

     2) Change the mandate of the ALC – the ALC will be required to give equal weight to economic development as well as agriculture.

     3) Create two classes of ALR – one area will be status quo – this will be the Okanagan and Fraser Valley-Vancouver Island. The other area will cover the Interior, Kootenays and everything north of the Okanagan, where the rules will be “anything goes.”

     4) Change what local governments can and can’t do around land use decisions.

     5) Make oil and gas decisions the priority land use decisions and the Oil and Gas Commission the primary authority.

Please share your comments below or with your provincial representative (M.L.A.) as this doesn't really help the agriculture culture in British Columbia.

Thanks for your interest, until next time.