Editor: Farms or ports? That is the question. Or is it? Unfortunately, the two sides are routinely presented as mutual exclusives. One evokes considerable local sentiment, as it involves preservation; the other evokes fear and uncertainty, as it involves change. But is the reality so binary? From a historical perspective, the farms are fairly new here; the port is even newer. Both leverage the unique location and attributes of Delta, and both struggle for viability in a global marketplace. Many places would love to boast one of them.
In this duel, the voices championing farmland preservation are essential. Too often the citizenry become resigned to the organized forces that shape our regional identities. For every Clayoquot Sound success, there is a tale of paternalistic intervention that has "administered" havoc on a society.
Local activists appear to be fighting for the responsible stewardship of farmland, primarily through limiting port expansion. The implication is that by curtailing one, they will encourage the other. However, anyone who has read the Delta Agricultural Plan knows that "industrial expansion" is but one obstacle (irrigation, processing and entrybarriers all play a part).
Meanwhile, Port Metro Vancouver isn't really fighting. Not yet. Perhaps it's because it has federal paramountcy on its side, or provincial allies similarly buoyed by the prospects of subsidized trade infrastructure.
As a Canadian taxpayer, I would like the opportunity to stress-test the business case for expansion. As a Delta resident, I would also like to make sure that, if there is growth, it falls beneath the umbrella of sustainable economic development.
But what does that mean? Good question. I think it means: if there are impacts, they are balanced through specific measures that strengthen - rather than threaten - the ongoing health of the local environment, economy and population.
Specifically, in addition to habitat enhancements, this could involve higher truck emission standards, local job density or intensified industrial developments that rely on less land. Some communities have even negotiated "linkage payments" or similar impact fees, which involve creating a fund to support strategic community priorities (like agriculture).
My concern is that with so much energy devoted to galvanizing a stance ("Spetiforing" in local vernacular), little attention is being paid to the innovations or mitigations that could be happening. And the port is unlikely to kickstart such conversations. Delving into the grey area might entail less valour, and more homework, but no one said evolution was easy.
