Minister of Small Business and Revenue Rick Thorpe announced this week that he is calling for a review of the policy.
“By committing to this review, our government is recognizing the important contribution farming makes to our communities and the fabric of British Columbia,” said Thorpe. “Farming contributes to the success of the Eat BC! campaign and is instrumental to the 100 mile diet concept, all supporting our commitment to climate action and green communities.”
The review will address concerns expressed by the mayors of both Richmond and Saanich that their agricultural land zonings could be undermined by current policy.
"It has become apparent to me and the board of BC Assessment that the current regulations do not reflect the realities to today," he said. "The mayors do not want small farms put in a situation where they may not be viable as small farms, therefore significantly altering the makeup of their communities."
Saanich Mayor Frank Leonard said, “This is excellent news for local farmers in every community…I know this will be welcome news to our local farmers who are such an integral part of Saanich.”
“With the increased awareness in British Columbia on the importance on buying local, it is important government supports farmers,” said Steve Thomson, executive director of the British Columbia Agriculture Council. “This review shows government’s commitment to a sustainable, agriculture sector.”
“As a strong advocate for buying local, this review will ensure our farming community continues to be vibrant and strong,” said Valerie Roddick, MLA for Delta South and Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture. “As Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, I fully support this review.”
“BC Assessment is committed to providing our customers with fair and equitable service,” said Lillian White, BC Assessment board chair. “On behalf of the BC Assessment Board, I am pleased government has agreed to review the farm status assessment policy.”
According to the Ministry, the review will be conducted by a review panel, of local government, a cross section of British Columbia’s agriculture community and the ministries of Agriculture and Lands, Small Business and Revenue, Finance, Community Services and the board of BC Assessment.
We’re told the review panel will undertake a “comprehensive consultation with local government and a cross section of British Columbia’s agriculture community in all regions of British Columbia.”
We’ll know more detail about this process at the end of January.
Recently, on Vancouver Island, a BC Assessment Authority review of about 200 properties outside the Agricultural Land Reserve found some were no longer being farmed and some others were only partially farmed. As a result, they face sharp increases in property taxes.
Some small farmers face potentially "significant increases" in their property taxes as a result of complex regulations that no longer reflect today's realities, Thorpe said in an interview with the Vancouver Sun.
"Property owners were quite distressed by that," said John Berry, communications manager with BC Assessment. "They were losing farm-class status on the full property and there are tax savings for people who are getting full farm-class status. Most municipalities have very low tax rates for farm class."
Thorpe said the review will simplify farm assessment rules so that they are clear and understandable and make sure that the small farm in British Columbia survives and prospers.
While the cheerleaders for the move have hit the airwaves, there are some who would caution the public about Thorpe’s and the government’s sincerity about saving the small farm.
Last week the North Okanagan Livestock Association met in Vernon. There are rumblings of discontent from producers who have a hunch that the new meat processing regulations may be part of a bigger plan for the province to further clamp down on local unregulated food production and the cash transactions that occur.
Tampering with farm status right now simply grows speculation as to what might be questionable motivation.
There’s good reason to examine the provinces motives with caution.
In the past few years the government has allowed the erosion of the Agricultural Land Commission by allowing removal of land from the ALR based on the often questionable “community need” clause. This hasn’t helped with efforts to secure a local food supply next to urban areas.
Minister Thorpe has been an eager influence to create the super regional district concept for the Okanagan, which could see the elimination of rural electoral areas throughout, the region which would pretty much remove food producers from the local decision making process.
While the government is talking-the-talk of promoting locally produced food, it’s walk is quite different. At present the Okanagan doesn’t have a local food security plan, we really don’t know what our situation is regarding our ability to produce food for ourselves in the future.
And then there’s a process that opens the door for changing property tax laws that allows the BC Assessment Board to influence the outcome of a new formula.
It must be noted that this present board has 11 members of which 5 are tied to real estate development and property management, and the others being from the financial management sector, there doesn’t appear to be one food producer on the board.
One would think that of 56,000 legal parcels of farm-class land representing about 20,000 farm operations that a seat at the BC Assessment Authority would only make sense.
The province may be tampering with the Farm Status formula because they see the potential for gathering more property tax from those who have the ability to pay more tax by further examining farm classification on a case by case basis.
The system is full of anomalies, but one wonders if we’re not applying a multitude of bureaucratic layers that may at the end of the day give us less locally produced food, and fewer food producers.
One anomaly cited by Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie is that farms of two acres or less have to generate $10,000 in income to retain farm classification, while larger farms only have to produce $2,500 in income.
"To me that's a clear anomaly and I'm sure other anomalies exist - if it is really farming, then give an assessment break. If it is not really farming, if it is just a big house or something, then don't."
So if the governments motives are to help secure the future of food producers with this and other policies which could encourage food production in terms of the 100-mile diet, that would be great news.
But if it’s to place pressure on agricultural land for the benefit of expanding cities, that would be tragic indeed.
(30)
