Let me start off by saying that farming has never been an easy gig. Even when land was cheap (or free!) back in the early settlers days it required personal sacrifice, hard work and dedication.
But let’s look at today, especially in British Columbia’s fertile Fraser Valley. First there are land prices. If you think housing is expensive in Vancouver, wait till you try to buy acreage. Today I perused a few listings - the cheapest bare land in Langley was just shy of $4m for close to 20 acres - that is $200k per acre without a house. But Langley is pretty popular with city folk who want to live the life of country gentry while they commute to their 6 figure jobs in Vancouver. So, how about Mission, North of the Fraser, last bastion of affordable homes and land. It’s where I live so I am pretty familiar with the area. My land value is assessed at about $225k per acre (excluding the house). Regular building lots are going for as much as $500k in the area. So the cost to buy land is out of range for most people.
But if you can afford the land that is just the beginning of the toll on your wallet. In my case I had to clear land, put in a driveway, put in septic, drill a well, get a house onto the property, fence the perimeter and cross fence (in my case about 1200 linear feet at $8/per foot!), reconfigure the land to mitigate water coming into my house, and then, start working on the soil because even though it was farmland with great light and plenty of water, it is not good growing soil. So all this added up to about $500k on top of the land cost and I am still living with plywood floors and bare drywall in areas.
When I bought my land, I thought I had done my research. I bought land that was zoned Small Scale Agriculture and had farm status. Little did I know that Mission has the most restrictive and borderline punitive zoning bylaws regarding farmland. Due to recent events I began looking at the bylaws in neighbouring areas. It gets rather confusing because each area defines and writes their bylaws differently so you have to dig to find information. In fact Mission does not even include the definition of small scale agriculture with the zoning bylaw. You have to go look for the definition. Mission has also been systematically eliminating ALR from the area. And this is not new - at least ten years ago 1000 acres was bought by Genstar for a major development. Recently Polygon took it over and started releasing their plans.
Mission has not followed any of the bylaw standards recommended by the Ministry of Agriculture nor has a committee to address farming issues like Maple Ridge. In fact the uses allowed for Small Scale Agriculture make it next to impossible to actually have a sustainable farm unless you break the law. Being zoned for Small Scale Agriculture only allows a farm to have 1 chicken hen (no roosters) per 375sqft of land, one horse or cow per .88 of an acre, and bees. So that means no goats, no sheep, no llamas, no alpacas, no ducks, no turkeys, no geese etc. A small scale farm is not even allowed to have a tractor or farming equipment. Meanwhile the local government has blythely ignored the bylaw guidelines put forth by the Ministry of Agriculture created to support sustainable farm practices.
But ignorance is bliss and fenced and cross fenced, started mounding for beds, built a greenhouse, planted an orchard (which I fenced in for my chickens) and built a coop as well as a shed on the bottom of my property. I also brought in goats to help clear the scrub trees and blackberries as well as add organic matter to my bottom two pastures. Meanwhile some people bought the land beside me and built a huge house on it. The house itself is massive and they sited it so it looks over my property resulting in me have no privacy at all. One of the recommendations by the Ministry of Agriculture is to have buffer areas between farms and residential land. Hopefully this can be addressed with trees I have planted and the orchard.
All was going kinda well, until the rooster crowed.
Since then they have filed complaints about my rooster (although he only crowed about 5-6 times per 24 hrs that was ruining their ability to have visitors), my chickens (who apparently went over the 5 ft fence and ate some of their blueberries), my shed (it ruins their view of my property), and my dogs (they ate some of their compost). I also was helping out a friend by having her mini donkey in my bottom fields while they dealt with predator issues. Although he was at least 150 feet from their house and I sent them an email that he was just here for a few weeks that resulted in them blasting me in writing and at my door at 5:50am on a Sunday (he had brayed once at 2am and once at 5am, likely because there was a bear (it has been leaving scat in the property on the other side of us). Meanwhile the only reason they stopped their dogs from coming onto our property and chasing our chickens (they told me I should move my coop so it would not be in the view of their dogs) is because they thought we would shoot their dogs (while it is my legal right to shoot a dog harrassing my livestock anyone who knows me would find this laughable).
Because of the multiple visits from bylaw officers I have since learned that bylaws are permissive. This means you are ONLY ALLOWED what is there in writing. Being zoned for Small Scale Agriculture only allows a farm to have 1 chicken hen (no roosters) per 375sqft of land, one horse or cow per .88 of an acre, and bees. Nothing else. Nothing. A small Scale farm is not even allowed to have a tractor or farming equipment.
Now lucky for me another neighbour has offered to store a tractor for me so hopefully I wont end up trying to hand till 2 acres - it is simply not possible. And a representative from the Ministry of Agriculture has stepped in and said any nuisance complaints by my neighbours must go through her from now on.
But if farms are unable to farm without breaking the law, what does that say about our local governments. It is patently obvious that they favour developers over farmers. Especially where I naively chose to put down roots.
Even the Fraser Institute has declared war on farmers. Here is an excerpt from The BC Agricultural Land Reserve: A Critical Assessment:
"British Columbians have grappled with land use restrictions that rank among Canada’s most severe since the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) was established in 1973. The rationale for denying citizens the full use of 4.7 million hectares of property has shifted over time, from rescuing the “family farm” to preserving “green space” and, most recently, protecting the “local” food supply. The costs of this social engineering, which include soaring housing prices resulting from a scarcity of land for development and the incalculable loss of property owners’ economic freedom, are substantial. This paper examines some of these costs in order to promote a re-evaluation of the government’s excessive interference in the agricultural sector.
Champions of the ALR claim that the land use controls are necessary to ensure a “local” food supply. But BC consumers have shown an undeniable preference for greater choice. The vast majority of BC consumers buy great quantities of imports and base their purchase decisions on a range of legitimate factors, including price, variety, and convenience, rather than product origin alone. Indeed, after three decades of the ALR regime, BC farmers produce just one-third of the food needed in the province to meet the standards of a “healthy” diet (British Columbia, Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, 2006)."
In other words, we should eliminate the ALR and reduce farming because we need housing and people would rather import their food from places like China and Mexico.
Hmmm. I am trying to grapple with this while I look at the giant luxury home beside me with an acre of grass that they cut with a rider mower. According to the Fraser Institute this kind of housing is integral to our economic well being. Forget the idea of farmers growing and raising food that does not have to be trucked thousands of kilometres or brought by shipping tanker from China. Let’s just add more Co2 to the atmosphere in the name of luxury because they pay higher property taxes.
But here’s another excerpt from the Fraser Institute document:
"Researchers have discovered that the most significant “cost” of food miles, by a large margin, is consumers’ shopping trips to the store and not the commercial distribution of food. Furthermore, the more consumers rely on unprocessed, locally grown agricultural products—thereby necessitating more frequent trips to the store and longer trips to farms and farmers’ markets—the more food miles increase."
So apparently we should all be eating processed food that we import in order to be more environmental. Hmmm.
Meanwhile the Provincial Government implemented a new law that all farmers are required to register their wells and pay to use them. The average well costs about $30k plus there are costs to filter the water plus run and maintain the wells. Now before you start going on about aquifers being over used etc, you should know that not all wells access aquifers. Mine is what is known as a rock well so it just gets filtered ground water. So asking a small scale farmer to pay more just seems petty. What really concerns me though is that a company like Nestle can get a license for the water on my land and there is nothing I can do about it.
It all comes down to money - big business and luxury homes rule. We should all be importing processed foods, revering luxury homes over farms, and not worrying about food security or food sovereignty. There’s lots of food in China and Mexico and they have cheap labour. So let's just head to Walmart or Costco rather than the farmers market, it is far better for the environment.
Farmers are not getting rich from their investment in land, infrastructure and time. Most farm families have at least one income coming from another source. Is it no wonder the average age of a farmer is 56 and most do not have a succession plan? The Federal govenment proposed tax changes last year that will increase the tax burden facing family farms, and more than anything, increasingly complicate intergenerational farm transfers. So passing on the family farm might not be a viable option even if there are children who want to take it over.
At the rate all this is going I simply do not see how small scale farms, who do not do factory farming, will survive.
I think it is time that we changed that.
Throwing away history
It is November 29, 2017. My husband would have turned 63 yesterday. It has taken me two years to get to a point where I can start sorting through our life together and let go. I have almost finished clearing out the last storage locker and I am horrified by how much money I have spent storing things that I am now selling for peanuts, donating or tossing into the landfill.
All these things are a part of my history. Some I am happy to dispose of, others cause me great angst. All the records the govt says we have to keep for 7 years. The dat tapes, CDs, DVDs, floppy discs, and Zip discs with years of work on them that can never be recovered because technology thrives on change and even if I could plug in the drives and pull off the files, the current programs won't recognize them. Samples of work that are really just ink on paper. Awards. Oh what to do with the awards. I don't really feel like hanging them up. I can't bring myself to throw them away. So they are in the back of my SUV and will likely find their way into the house. Maybe I can pull them out of the frames so they don't take up space. Tuck the trophies into a corner - maybe use them as doorstops.
None of it matters anymore.
It is the past.
Which makes me think of how our society seems hell-bent on erasing history - the good and the bad. On the news, people are screaming to pull down statues. In our homes new generations scorn antiques that have survived 100 years and buy "contemporary" furniture made of bits of wood held together by enormous quantities of glue. Furniture that will off-gas, burn in a flash, and contaminate our landfills with its toxic contents. Yet we all scream sustainability. What is sustainable about our any of this.
Have we learned nothing from history?
Seems we don't really want to. We are a throw away society. We do not want "baggage". Clearly, ignoring all the things we don't want to think about or admit makes life much more palatable. It is easier to live a nomadic lifestyle where there is no need to move belongings because they have a lifespan of 2-3 years. But what does it say about us as people. Where are our roots. Are we just as willing to toss our friends and neighbours?
As I donate his belongings and throw away paperwork from his various businesses, his school projects, memorabilia from high school and his first marriage, my husband slowly fades from view. I will keep a few photos and his Little League trophy from when his team competed for the world championship but most of his life is secreted away in a computer that I do not have the password for.
Life will go on. His children will marry and start lives he will never be a part of. His future grandchildren will never meet him. I feel I need to keep some parts of him so they can catch a glimpse of who he was. Otherwise he is just dust.
Death, Fear and Drowning
Another post, from over a year ago, that deserves to be read.
I am sitting here in a half finished house with my son and his friend watching a movie and thinking about everything I have to get done. It is alot. I have learned to have patience. I have learned to forgive myself for not getting everything done that I need to. But I am coming to the understanding that I have been drowning.
First I was drowning in chaos and the fear of losing my husband and having to sell our home. I would cry alone in the shower hoping that he and the boys would not hear me. I went to a councellor who helped me accept things I did not want to, especially that it was his life and he did not have to include me in his choices of treatment. I did my best to make moving away from our home a great adventure. Moving a log house and creating a modern version of a homestead. It was exhausting trying to distract myself from real life.
When Wes died, part of me was relieved that he was no longer suffering and that we could hopefully find some solid ground to rebuild our lives on. But I was drowning in loss. Spiralling down into a place where I could barely keep up. Over the years I had been so focussed on work, family and serving on committees to make our neighbourhood safer, that I had lost touch with all but a few friends spread across the country. With the exception of one sister, my husband's family had never accepted me so they were mostly distant and sometimes cruel. Six months after our first move and a few weeks after Wes died, I managed to move our home again, get my son to school, and finally to the dentist, and squeeze in a few playdates. The local hospice helped with getting him involved in some great programs. A friend came and helped me repack all the belongings we had used in our temporary home. Every bit helped. A year after his death I was able to gather some family and friends together to remember my husband. I still have not finished all the paperwork as a result of his death, or gone through all his things and I am still in a battle with CRA who is coming after me for his tax debt even though we had no shared assets. I still cry sometimes, but the pain comes and goes rather than continuously coursing though my veins.
Now I am drowning in fear. Will I be able to get the farm running with so many setbacks - bad existing soil, more bad soil that I bought to amend the existing soil, trades that take months to get onsite, the financial costs of delays that have added up to thousands of dollars in storage fees for items I will likely just sell or donate once I have time to see what my husband put in there. Will I be able to bring in more paying work while I am busy trying to raise a child, finish the house and get my farm set up. Will I be able to afford to build my barn? Will I have the mental and emotional strength it is going to take?
I guess time will tell. For now I am going to go build some shelves in my office and storage closet so I can start organizing. Then I will go pull some weeds, feed the chickens and spread some compost. Distraction is exhausting, but if handled properly it helps get things done.
Another thought on affordable housing.
I wrote this in June of 2016 but never got around to posting it due to reasons I will post about another time.
I am not a developer, or a builder, but I am a serial renovator. And I am currently 2/3 of my way though a renovation project that would wilt some of the hardiest souls out there. So I have a different perspective on at least one factor effecting housing costs.
I want to talk a little about red tape, engineers who overbuild and a building code that adds more layers instead of fixing the broken ones.
When I applied for my building permit I got in just before the new code came into effect. According to my builder who worked on my foundation and framing, the new code would have added at least $20k to my costs (about 10%). As it was, an engineer (who I wish I had fired) decided I needed to add support to almost all the beams in the existing house which will likely end up costing me between $10-15k (5-7%). The fact that there is a house built in 1956 with the exact same building structure and beams that is .5km away and at the same elevation not withstanding. Apparently my identical yet newer beams would not be able to withstand the snow load. And, in case you are wondering, engineers trump code. So even if you house is to code, if you need an engineer's stamp you are at their mercy.
Fact is, many engineers now overbuild so a new structure should be able to withstand a 500 year event. Why? Because they are afraid of being sued. In fact, engineers are becoming hugely expensive because they have enormous liability insurance costs. Which comes back to one of my favourite pet peeves - people's need to blame others for their misfortune. Forget mishaps or accidents, it is always somebody's fault.
What also gets me is that there are wood houses that are over 100 years old and still in good shape. I understand the need for creating more energy efficient homes but sometimes it seems like the building code can cause more issues than it fixes - take the condo crisis of the '90s for instance. From what I learned, the buildings were sealed up in a way that water could get in but not out.
The building code can also be an impediment to innovation in building. How does it deal with container houses, or some of the new prefabs being developed. The building code is often different between municipalities that share the same environmental factors (go figure). Some municipalities won't even let you build a house that is under 500 square feet. Why not?
So maybe, just maybe, if we sat back and assessed the need to build more efficiently and be innovative and created an entirely new building code we might actually come up with a way to cut the cost of building a house. Every step towards affordable housing is a step in the right direction.