Perhaps nothing should surprise me when it comes to politics, but I have to admit, I did a double-take when I read a city councillor’s quote in Wednesday’s story about house sizes on farmland.
At issue is the fact Richmond has minimal restrictions when it comes to the size of home one can build on land in the Agriculture Land Reserve. As well, agricultural land is taxed less than residential or even industrial land.
This might have been OK at one time, but throw into the mix a red hot housing market and mind-boggling sums being spent on global land speculation, and we have little old farmhouses selling for upwards of $8 million and being replaced with a 22,000-square-foot mansion.
Suddenly, (well, not so suddenly, this has been brewing for awhile), the notion of a farmhouse owned by hardy folks plowing the fields out back is under attack.
While the city mulls over what to do, councilors voted on Monday to put a pause on ALR developments. At least, most did. The motion passed 8-1 with Alexa Loo being the lone opponent. The fact Coun. Loo opposed the moratorium isn’t a big surprise. She appears to be staking out a position even to the right of other right-wing city councillors of late. What was a head-shaker was her comment that she opposed this “heavy handed” move because “we’re not a communist country.”
Say what?!
I get the point about state verses individual rights, but to imply a city council doesn’t have the right to determine some measure of building restrictions makes me wonder what she thinks she was elected to do. And let’s remember, there are far more laws and restrictions that work in favour of property owners. Are those “heavy handed?”
Regardless, her communist comment was outdone by her observation that people are “freaking out about a bunch of dirt.”
Some of the most prime agricultural land on the continent — a bunch of dirt? OK, but I should think that if droughts in California continue, that “bunch of dirt” could come in rather handy.
That said, Loo has a point. While some view these homes as obscenely large, if the concern is farming, their size may not make much difference in terms of how much a given farm can yield. She also notes there are other issues challenging farmers. True enough, but property price is one of them, and house size relates to that.
To drive the point home, Coun. Harold Steves presented council with a real estate ad: 6.5-acre lot sells for $7.9 million with a “maximum future building envelope” of 22,225-square-feet.
It’s hard to see how this kind of sale will grow anything but a lot more land speculation.
