Re: Woodwynn Farm and Sidney Crossing ALC decisions:
I wonder if any other readers noticed the strong dichotomy on page A5 of Wednesday’s PNR.
In one article, we learn that the Woodwynn Farm had requested permission from the ALC to allow two acres of land to be used to house and feed human beings, who in turn, would work the farmlands.
This request was summarily denied by the ALC, because “the ALC was designed to preserve agricultural land”. To me, housing farm workers on the land is and has been a traditional practice worldwide, and does preserve the agricultural land.
Then, in the flower-laden article detailing the progress of the Sidney “Crossing”, we find that the VAA had already worked with the ALC to remove a portion of the site from the ALR. So, already, and under our noses, a portion of the proposed site has been removed from the ALR.
The ALC ruling that it was not okay to allow two acres of land to be used for temporary housing on one site, and the ALC ruling that it was okay to remove acres of land from the ALR on another site, which acres will be permanently covered with asphalt, and cemented, bricked and mortared for perpetuity, is a pretty strong juxtaposition.
I would like to know why the statement from the ALC in the Woodwyn Farm case was not also applicable in the Sidney Crossing case, as I do not believe that building a modern day shopping center will preserve agricultural land.
Annie Grossnickle
Central Saanich
