Rezoning issue win-lose

To the Editor:



Re: “Zoning changes could be win-win: Hennigar�, by Kirk Starratt, The Advertiser, Tuesday, Oct.17, 2006.

As a 20-year resident of Greenwich, I disagree with Doug Hennigar’s analysis that, “Zoning changes could be a win-win for agriculture and for residential growth.�

I am open to being further educated on the matter. Currently, I’m skeptical.

Why does Hennigar think this? And why is it that municipal councillors are approaching the potential loss of hundreds of acres of Canada’s best agricultural land with so little concern? And why did they ignore their consultants’ recommendation for more planning and consultation with residents?

To-date, the majority of Greenwich farmers heard from sound suspiciously self-serving. Farmers speaking in support of residential development are poised for great financial gain if, and when, hundreds of their acres are rezoned. Their arguments are suspiciously lacking in agricultural considerations.

In contrast, one Greenwich farmer’s position heard at the only public consultation meeting held is that agricultural land in Greenwich deserves to be banked toward future food production. This opinion belongs to the owner of Noggins Corner Farm.

Ironically, this farm’s zoning, unlike that of Hennigar’s and Elderkin’s, permits the sale of residential lots. Yet, its owners oppose the loss of any agriculture land in Greenwich. I understand they would willing have such land rezoned solely agricultural. This could be a very good thing.

Once land is gone, paved over and lived upon, it’s unlikely ever to be be farmed again. In the last several years, local food movements have flourished. Fueled by consumer concerns about the negative impacts of factory farming for our health and local economies, these movements are growing. Small specialty and organic farming is one of the fastest growing segments of agriculture.

In the years to come, isn’t it possible that the lack of suitable land could limit the possibility of Kings County being self-sufficient in producing food for its own citizens? There is certainly no better place to showcase healthy farming practices than on the land located along Highway 1 in Greenwich where thousands of families from urban settings are already being reacquainted with food production.

Creating a strip of housing and subdivisions pales by comparison. Over 20 acres of land was sold recently in Greenwich. It is under development and likely dozens of lots will soon be sold.

This loss is sufficient and tragic. From this point forward more, not less, value needs to be placed on our rural heritage.

The land under dispute was likely granted at little or no cost to early settlers willing to plant and produce food. At some level this land was given by government on behalf of its citizens and premised on the need to create food security.

When did it become okay for agriculturists to become land developers? The trust placed on farmers to provide stewardship for agriculture land is something worthy of more discussion. Saying no now to zone changes that limit our capacity to retain agricultural land for future generations makes sense to me.

The zoning changes surging forward represent a situation that is win-lose. Farmers who convert agriculture land to residential lots will gain wealth. Future agriculturalists will lose the capacity to produce healthy local food for local people.

Additional coverage on this crucial issue in the weeks and months ahead is sorely needed.



Pauline Raven

Greenwich