Brett Smyth asks “What about other farmers in NS?” (Letters, Jan. 25).
Smyth and all farmers should remember that half of revenue from the commercial development on Sandown for the first five years is earmarked for agriculture in general in North Saanich, which would include, but not be limited to, improvements to Sandown. It could be used to promote agriculture and support all farmers in North Saanich as well.
Other benefits to local farmers would be the opportunity to establish a full-time farmer’s market there, and possibly facilities to add value to farm products. And along with all North Saanich taxpayers, local farmers would also benefit from Sandown’s commercial tax revenue.
On “subsidizing” farmers: The purpose of subsidies is that they are meant to provide for a need that the normal market forces will not fill. That’s why we subsidize housing, education, medical care, community and fire halls, roads, sewers, recreation centres – and even agriculture.
In fact, our farmers already have to compete with U.S. farmers who are also subsidized. We cannot count on locally grown food being produced here if new farmers have to buy the land they farm – they simply can’t afford it.
However, there is no intention to subsidize farming at Sandown. Lease rates could be set at market rates. The irony here is that many North Saanich farmers are farming land that was bought by their parents or grandparents when land was still far more affordable than it is now.
If Smyth wanted to start farming in North Saanich today, he might even be a proponent of the proposal – it might be the only way he could afford to farm here.
Smyth’s farm is a model for what can be done at Sandown, and we need to support Smyth, and other North Saanich farmers.
But let’s not pull up the drawbridge now: Smyth’s farm is not big enough to support everyone who needs to eat from it.
However, if Sandown goes through, Smyth will be able to lease land there, too.
Peter R. Ellmann
North Saanich