I start today with a quote, because I figure it’s easiest to let someone who knows what they’re talking about do the recap for you.
Remember? Remember how I was learning about City Hall? I know you guys are probably now experts, and all caught up in that sexy City Centre Airport debate, but let me take you back for a moment to the Municipal Development Plan (MDP). Here’s the Coles notes for those of you who weren’t with us previously:
When it crossed councillors’ desks back in the fall of 2008, it looked like the MDP was going to include references to the City protecting agricultural land or property – while also encouraging community and personal gardening as a means of achieving food security (meaning: it looked like some of the existing land at the edge of Edmonton was going to be protected for agriculture – plus we’d all be encouraged to start gardening). By the time June rolled around, the document only referenced community and personal gardening. So what happened?
Well, based on my communications with several city councillors (alas, the Greater Edmonton Alliance (GEA) didn’t return my email) there were a couple of explanations. Here goes:
Councillor Linda Sloan, via e-mail: “The change re: agricultural lands in the MDP I suspect came about as a result of fierce lobbying to protect private property owners rights.“
Councillor Amarjeet Sohi’s executive assistant, Logan Mardhani-Bayne, via email: “During November’s Public Hearing, City Council passed several motions intended to address concerns about food security … Council’s intent was not to remove protection from the northeast agricultural area, but rather to incorporate agricultural use and food security into our overall development plan.
So basically, we’re never going to know exactly why it changed. It’s a very complex issue, and there are a lot of fingers in the proverbial pie – but for me, it seems pretty plausible that people who bought land that was zoned for agriculture became less than thrilled with the MDP suggestion that it would ALWAYS be zoned for agriculture.
This one was pretty much the same across the board, in that the general consensus from all councillors was that no one actually expects Edmonton to develop food security through community gardening – although talking on the phone with Councillor Dave Thiele, I found out how much he loves gardening (possibly more than I have ever loved anything in my life). He thinks you will too:
“We had about 500 people show up. I threw the challenge out to many people. I said, well you’re here challenging us, and I threw it back, I said what are you doing in your place?”
“I had six vegetables or something that I was eating…and it [wasn't] even July yet. I said, there’s lots you can do yourself in container gardens on decks, or if you’ve got a property.
Councillor Karen Leibovici, via telephone: Our land base isn’t sufficient to meet the needs of the population within the city of Edmonton.
Mardhani-Bayne: Community gardening is potentially an effective way to integrate agricultural land into residential communities, and to enhance the sustainability of our food supply without compromising other necessary land uses. City Council has not made a commitment to this approach; it is simply on the table at this point.
Sloan: The community gardener approach I agree is not comprehensive and puts the onus on individuals to strive towards food security. I believe governments at all levels have responsibilities to ensure sufficient infrastructure for food security is part of our strategic planning.
That would be…no. Or, sort of no.
Sloan: Historically, cities/municipalities have not had the legislated ability to take land for agricultural preservation at the planning, subdivision stage. Such entitlements do exist for land for schools, drainage ponds, environmental preservation, but not for food security.
Mardhani-Bayne: While land may be zoned for agricultural use now, the City frequently uses agricultural zoning as a placeholder for future re-zoning when lands are ready for development. Council has heard that some of the landowners in the northeast bought their lands with this understanding. What is the City’s obligation to these landowners?
Leibovici: The reality is that the city doesn’t own the land. The vast majority of the land is owned by private developers and so it obviously has to be a joint process in looking at having lands dedicated for agricultural use.
Sloan: Municipalities have purchased land previously (in fact the city buys and sells land all the time) but again historically this practice has not included agricultural land for the purpose of food production.
Mardhani-Bayne: I think it would be more effective, and more in keeping with the way the City typically operates, to deal in good faith with all stakeholders to try to come to a solution that meets as many needs as possible. The MDP and Area Structure Plan processes provide opportunities to ensure that land use is appropriate to the City’s priorities, and I think these processes are preferable to a wholesale shift in the City’s planning process.
Last word goes to Councillor Dave Thiele: “When we’re looking at the remainder of our agricultural lands, not just in Edmonton, but in the whole province, we need to really identify them and make sure that we can try to save them and use them for the best purposes that we can.”
So there you have it. We’ll have to let this one rest for now, as the council is taking a summer break after the vote on all this City Centre Airport craziness – but we can pick this back up in the fall. As for me, I have to return to my hectic schedule of reading blogs and watching youtube. You’re welcome, Edmonton!
I’m consistently impressed with the level of effort and professionalism on this website. You do a better job with these types of stories than the MSM does.
Good on you and keep it up!