Final TAPC Meeting
The last of five public Tsawwassen Area Plan Committee meetings was held this past Saturday. The Southlands and agriculture ‘at the edge” were the topics of discussion. The event was very well attended (eight hundred or so?)
The presentations by Kristine Taybe and Ron Plowright were very interesting indeed. Unfortunately some rude people had to butt in with unnecessary cat calls towards the end of Ron’s presentation. Perhaps they were frightened by some of the truisms as they relate to food and community?
Sean gave a good presentation as well, and reminded the attendees that the process has been a long and detailed one thus far.
Wendy Holm wrapped up the presentations with a discussion of soil capability of the lands and offered some thoughts on how the land could be used for mentoring new farmers via some sort of co-operative amongst universities which would somehow be funded by the UN or government or somebody. I didn’t really get that part.
Anyway, it was interesting to see that education seems to be a parallel thought process.
What did you think? Here is what was said in the October 31 Optimist.
Comments
propaganda
I find it both disrespectful and dishonest that this website consistently discredits Wendy Holm, who is a well-respected Agronomist, not some kind of kook like you make her out to be. I have heard her speak on several occasions. Her ideas are excellent and valid, and she is a passionate advocate for the kind of agriculture we absolutely need. Our current system has failed us. The evidence is overwhelming, and will become even more so in the years ahead.
The UN is indeed looking for a collaboration with BC educational institutions to form a new institute for sustainable agriculture. Just because an idea is new, does not make it ridiculous.
Usually when one so blatantly attacks someone with an opposing viewpoint it is because he or she knows that person is right, and is afraid that others might start listening. Although this process has been going on a long time, it is not over, and you must be willing to listen to differing viewpoints.
If you want to be honest and seriously are looking for input from the public, then one possible outcome of the design charrette MUST be to do absolutely no residential development on the lands at all. If you are not interested taking public input seriously, then the charrette is nothing but a bunch of developer propaganda designed to trick people into agreeing with you.
Please stop the rude comments. There is no need to be childish here.
Wendy Holm
Not sure what you are referring to Shane? Let us know if you have some insight here, In particular I would like to hear about the UN initiative for the "Spetifore Lands".
Also, if you have some time, perhaps you could compare Holms' analysis of the Spetifore lands with the analysis that was provided during the Charrette. This way, the public could see that that the public process that occurred during 2008 put the question of soil suitability to bed. It is clearly on record.
Thanks, Mike
TAP last one
I think time may be on our side.
With further positive information being circulated those sitting on the fence will recognise what a good deal our plan is for the community. When you consider that existing residents will have no costs out of their own pockets for drainage, irrigation, remediation of the soil I don't see how they can turn it down.
Good Deal ?
What is so good about taking non-renewable farmland out of circulation?
Have you read the posts on http://comeshowme.com/v-web/smf/index.php?board=28.0 that show the other side of the coin?
Sides of a coin
There are lots of comments on this site from all perspectives. You just have to poke around a little or use the search function.