Editor:
Re: Claims of poor farmland have been refuted, letter to the editor, May 25 I have a question for Greg J. Edwards: Has he read the soils report on the Southlands? I am willing to bet I am amongst the very few Tsawwassenites that have actually read the report.
The report says the soil per square metre is 1 to 5, the poorest to the best in each square metre. It also deteriorates the further east you go towards Boundary Bay as the salt chuck increases. To be good soil for farming, one needs the soil to be consistent over the property and hopefully of the better kind. That is not this property.
Can it be farmed? The answer, of course, is yes, but can one make a profit farming it?
Why has Delta asked the owner not to put greenhouses on the property, which would be one of the few methods of making a profit on farming this property.
Could it be that greenhouses offend our sense of green space and/or our views?
One probably could farm it, but it would take a lot of expensive improvements to the soil and the property.
Where is the money going to come from to do the improvements to make it viable?
One source is to allow the property to be developed. Another, of course, is the overburdened taxpayer. Another alternative is to allow it to remain fallow, unfarmed to provide Tsawwassenites with the green space they so want to protect at the cost to the property owner.
The objections are not about preserving farmland but about preserving the so coveted green space at no cost to the taxpayer.
Regarding the so-called experts that supposedly have testified over the years that it is good to excellent farmland, I practiced law for awhile and I would have no trouble in finding you an expert to support whatever opinion you desire. It is only a matter of how much you are prepared to pay.
I would seriously doubt that any of the supposed experts ever read the soils report because if they did, their opinions were either not based on the report or their interpretation of the report strains credulity.
Curtis MacDonald
