UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An analysis of techniques to preserve agricultural land Roy, Denis A. 1980

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1980_A8 R69.pdf [ 4.14MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094887.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094887-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094887-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094887-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094887-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094887-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094887-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094887-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094887.ris

Full Text

it AN ANALYSIS OF TECHNIQUES TO PRESERVE AGRICULTURAL LAND by DENIS A. ROY B.Com. (Hon), The U n i v e r s i t y of Ottawa, 1973 M.Fisc.,, U n i v e r s i t e de Sherbrooke, 1975 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES School of Community and Regional Planning We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1980. © Denis A. Roy, 1980 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumb ia , I a g ree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s tudy . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s u n d e r s t o o d that c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i thout my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f Community and Regional Planning The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date May 7, 1980. ABSTRACT C o m p e t i t i o n f o r a l t e r n a t i v e uses of a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d has i n c r e a s e d c o n s i d e r a b l y over the p a s t 20 y e a r s . T h i s c o m p e t i t i o n has c r e a t e d demand f o r p u b l i c a c t i o n of some k i n d . The a p p r o p r i a t e government i n t e r v e n t i o n n e c e s s a r y f o r the p r e s e r v a t i o n of a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d v a r i e s between commu-n i t i e s due to t h e i r d i f f e r e n t needs and d e s i r e s t o c o n t r o l the growth p r o c e s s . In t h i s r e g a r d , t h e c t h e s i s a n a l y z e s and compares v a r i o u s t e c h -n i q u e s which a r e b e i n g used t o m a i n t a i n a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d . Methods u s i n g the concept of r e g u l a t i o n t o p r e s e r v e a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d a r e examined i n S e c t i o n I I . S e c t i o n ; J I I I s t u d i e s methods u t i l i z i n g the concept of compensation. S e c t i o n IV compares the C a l i f o r n i a Land C o n s e r v a t i o n A c t which u t i l i z e s compensation.?.arid:;the B r i t i s h Columbia A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission A c t which r e l i e s on l a n d r e g u l a t i o n s . The B r i t i s h Columbia A c t was found t o be more e f f i c i e n t i n the p r e s e r v a t i o n of a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d than i t s C a l i f o r n i a c o u n t e r p a r t , a d i f f e r e n c e due m a i n l y t o the mandatory s t r u c t u r e of the B.C. A c t as opposed t o the v o l u n t a r y n a t u r e of the C a l i f o r n i a A c t as w e l l as t o t h e d i f f e r e n t p r o c e d u r e s used t o implement t h e A c t s . Comparison o f the methods a n a l y z e d i n the study and recommendations f o r impr o v i n g the e f f i c i e n c y o f the B.C. A c t a r e p r e s e n t e d i n the C o n c l u s i o n s . PRECIS Durant l e s 20 dernieres annees, i l y a eu de nombreuses t e n t a t i v e s pour une u t i l i s a t i o n des t e r r e s a g r i c o l e s a d'autres f i n s . C e c i a cree une demande pour que l e gouvernement i n t e r v i e n n e dans l e processus a f i n de pre-server ces t e r r e s a g r i c o l e s . Puisque l e s besoins et d e s i r s des communautes d i f f e r e n t au s u j e t de t e l l e p r e s e r v a t i o n , i l en est de meme des methodes qui l'encouragent. Le but de c e t t e these est done d'analyser et de comparer ces d i f f e r e n t e s methodes. Les methodes qui u t i l i s e n t l e concept de reglementation sont analy-sees dans l e deuxieme c h a p i t r e , a l o r s que l e t r o i s i e m e c h a p i t r e etudie l e s methodes q u i indemnisent l e s p r o p r i e t a i r e s dont l e s d r o i t s sont a f f a i b l i s par l a presence de mesures r e s t r i c t i v e s . Le C a l i f o r n i a Land Conservation Act et l e B.C. A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act sont compares dans l e qua-tri'eme c h a p i t r e . La l o i c a l i f o r n i e n n e u t i l i s e une des methodes d e c r i t e s dans l e t r o i s i e m e c h a p i t r e , tandis que l a l o i de l a Colombie B r i t a n n i q u e a l e s p r o p r i e t e s d^une de c e l l e s d e c r i t e s dans l e deuxieme c h a p i t r e . La l o i de l a Colombie B r i t a n n i q u e est c e l l e q u i a l e plus repondu a son o b j e c t i f de preserver l e s t e r r e s a g r i c o l e s . Les p r i n c i p a l e s causes de c e t t e s u p e r i o r i t y sont 1 ' o b l i g a t i o n qu'a l a p r o p r i e t a i r e de l a Colombie Br i t a n n i q u e de se conformer a l a l o i tandis que c e l u i de l a C a l i f o r n i e en a l e choix a i n s i que l e s d i f f e r e n t e s procedures employees dans l a mise en operation des deux l o i s . Finalement, l a c o n c l u s i o n recommande c e r t a i n e s a m e l i o r a t i o n s a a p p o r t e r a l a l o i de l a Colombie B r i t a n n i q u e s e t compare l e s d i f f e r e n t e s methodes a n a l y s e e s dans c e t t e t h e s e . i v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i i PRECIS i i i LIST OF TABLES v i i I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. Problem Statement 1 B. Thesis Objectives 2 C. Methodology 3 D. Governments and Land Use Controls 5 I I . REGULATORY METHODS FOR PRESERVING AGRICULTURAL LAND 7 A. Minimum Lot Zoning 7 B. E x c l u s i v e A g r i c u l t u r a l Zoning 8 C. A g r i c u l t u r a l D i s t r i c t i n g . 9 D. Maximum Density Zoning 10 E. U t i l i t y E xtension Regulation 11 F. Easements 11 G. Compensable Regulation 14 H. E x p r o p r i a t i o n 15 I. Stewardship 16 J . Other Methods 17 I I I . COMPENSATORY METHODS FOR PRESERVING AGRICULTURAL LAND 18 A, Taxation Methods 18 1. P r e f e r e n t i a l Assessment 18 v 2. Deferred Taxation 20 3. R e s t r i c t i v e Agreements 21 4. Conclusions 22 B. Transfer of Development Rights 22 C. Purchase of Land Through a Land Trust 24 IV. ANALYSIS OF TWO STATES USING DIFFERENT SYSTEMS 2 7 A. The State of C a l i f o r n i a and the C a l i f o r n i a Land Conserva-t i o n Act 27 1. D e s c r i p t i o n 27 2. Advantages 29 3. Disadvantages 30 4. Conclusions 32 B. The Province of B r i t i s h Columbia and the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act 33 1. D e s c r i p t i o n 33 2. Advantages 37 3. Disadvantages 40 4. Conclusions 42 C. Comparison of C a l i f o r n i a and B r i t i s h Columbia Approaches. 43 V, CONCLUSIONS 47 A. Comparison of Methods Analyzed i n the Study 47 B. Recommendations 52 C. Pros and Cons of the Compensatory System and of the Regulatory System 60 BIBLIOGRAPHY 64 v i LIST OF TABLES Table 1 - Comparison of A g r i c u l t u r a l Land i n the ALR and T o t a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Land by Class 39 Table 2 - Comparison of C a l i f o r n i a and B r i t i s h Columbia Acts 44 Table 3 - Comparison of Methods f o r P r e s e r v i n g A g r i c u l t u r a l Land .. 48 v i i I . INTRODUCTION A land ethic reflects the existence of an ecological conscience, and this in turn reflects a conviction of individual responsibility for the health of land. Health is the capacity of the land for self-renewal. Conservation is our effort to understand and preserve this capacity. Aldo Leopold. A. Problem Statement Competition f o r a l t e r n a t i v e uses of a g r i c u l t u r a l land has increased c o n s i d e r a b l y over the past 20 years. This stems from s e v e r a l r e l a t e d f a c -t o r s which have a strong impact on land use. Indeed pop u l a t i o n growth, increase i n per c a p i t a income, t e c h n o l o g i c a l changes i n a g r i c u l t u r e , i n -crease i n l e i s u r e time and the process of u r b a n i z a t i o n have provoked an ever-growing conversion of land from a g r i c u l t u r a l to urban uses. Urbaniza-t i o n has s e v e r a l types of e f f e c t on farmland: f i r s t , i t can d i r e c t l y con-v e r t a g r i c u l t u r a l land to urban use; secondly, i t can lead to i d l i n g of a g r i c u l t u r a l land i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of f u t u r e conversion to urban uses e i t h e r through land s p e c u l a t i o n or through the s p i l l - o v e r e f f e c t s that i t generates; and t h i r d l y , u r b a n i z a t i o n can b r i n g about a change i n a g r i -c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s such as land s u b d i v i s i o n , switch-over to l e s s c a p i t a l i n t e n s i v e a c t i v i t i e s , or the l i k e . A t t e n t i o n has a l s o to be drawn to the f a c t that land has two under-l y i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , namely: that i t s t o t a l acreage i s g e n e r a l l y l i m i t e d 1 2 and i t s l o c a t i o n i s completely f i x e d . Because of i t s very nature which produces i r r e v e r s i b l e land uses through the c o n s t r u c t i o n of durable and c a p i t a l improvements on the land and because most of t h i s a c t i v i t y takes place on land prime f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l purposes, u r b a n i z a t i o n has caused the d e p l e t i o n of a g r i c u l t u r a l land at alarming r a t e s . For i n s t a n c e , i t was c a l c u l a t e d t h a t , p r i o r to the passage of the Land Commission Act i n A p r i l , 1973, the erosion of B r i t i s h Columbia's prime a g r i c u l t u r a l land by urban sprawl had reached 15,000 acres per year (B.C. Land Commission, 1975). On the other hand, there has been an e v e r - i n c r e a s i n g support f o r the view that farms and farmland ought to be preserved. Behind t h i s support l i e s e v e r a l f a c t o r s which are noteworthy: s u s t a i n i n g of the present l e v e l of food production, keeping up w i t h the growing p o p u l a t i o n , the p r o h i b i t i v e cost of r e s t o r i n g such a resource, p h y s i c a l damage to the resource, the con-t r i b u t i o n of a g r i c u l t u r e to the economy, the p r o v i s i o n of open space w i t h a l l i t s a e s t h e t i c values and the s o c i a l costs attached to the displacement of a g r i c u l t u r e onto l e s s f e r t i l e land engendering an increase i n production c o s t s , and hence i n p r i c e s of f o o d s t u f f s . Needless to mention the mainte-nance of r u r a l l i f e s t y l e and the r e t a i n i n g of an e c o l o g i c a l balance a l s o seem to be of importance i n t h i s r espect. B. Thesis Objectives In recent years, a number of:r!methods and s t r a t e g i e s f o r land use c o n t r o l s has emerged to deal with the c o n f l i c t s between a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v -i t i e s and u r b a n i z a t i o n . These land use c o n t r o l s have been imposed as a r e s u l t of the f e a r that these c o n f l i c t s would have advanced to such a degree that the i r r e v e r s i b i l i t i e s involved would lead to t o t a l d i s o r d e r unless there was government i n t e r v e n t i o n of some k i n d . The type of government i n t e r v e n t i o n which i s appropriate w i t h respectoto the p r e s e r v a t i o n of 3 a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d v a r i e s between communities as t o t h e i r needs and d e s i r e s t o c o n t r o l some of the growth p r o c e s s . One of the main o b j e c t i v e s of t h i s t h e s i s a i s c t o e n a b l e p o l i c y d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s , p l a n n e r s and communities t o get an o v e r v i e w of a v a i l a b l e t o o l s d e s i g n e d to implement a l a n d use p o l i c y and then to be more r e a d i l y d i s p o s e d to d e a l w i t h t h e i r own s i t u a t i o n s . I t a l s o a l l o w s any l e v e l o f government which has the l e g a l power f o r so d o i n g , t o know the r e l a t i v e s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses of each t e c h n i q u e and the stage of urban development most a p p r o p r i a t e f o r a p p l i c a t i o n . F i n a l l y , the study demonstrates t h a t a more d e s i r e d p a t t e r n of l a n d use might be a t t a i n e d by a b e t t e r u t i l i z a t i o n of the t a x a t i o n system a l o n g w i t h a combi-n a t i o n of methods a n a l y z e d i n the study. C. Methodology These o b j e c t i v e s w i l l be a c h i e v e d by d e s c r i b i n g , a n a l y z i n g , and comparing the v a r i o u s t o o l s which a r e b e i n g used t o m a i n t a i n a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d , and by e v a l u a t i n g them i n terms of t h e i r r e l a t i v e i n p u t s and i m p l i c a -t i o n s on a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d use p o l i c y as a whole, a l o n g w i t h t h e i r e f f e c t s on l o n g - r u n a g r i c u l t u r a l c o n s e r v a t i o n p o l i c y . T h i s study i s d i v i d e d i n t o f o u r s e c t i o n s . The f i r s t examines methods which use the concept of r e g u l a t i o n to m a i n t a i n a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d . In t h i s c o n t e x t , the term r e g u l a t i o n can be d e f i n e d as the power of one or a n o t h e r l e v e l of government to r e s t r i c t , i n a d i r e c t way, the a l l o c a t i o n of l a n d to a p a r t i c u l a r use. T h i s power, o f t e n c a l l e d the p o l i c e power, i n e l e l u d e s e i t h e r p r o h i b i t i o n of c e r t a i n uses o r p r e s c r i p t i o n of p r o t e c t i v e measures, and i s used to c o n t r o l t h e p a t t e r n s and q u a l i t y of l a n d d e v e l o p -ment . The second s e c t i o n i s devoted to methods u t i l i z i n g the c o n cept of compensation, which i m p l i e s t h a t a landowner must be compensated f o r any 4 l o s s e s i n c u r r e d through the l i m i t a t i o n o f h i s r i g h t s i n l a n d . I t a l s o i n -c l u d e s economic or f i n a n c i a l inducements p r o v i d e d by government, by means of s u b s i d i e s and t a x a t i o n which encourage a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d h o l d e r s to use t h e i r l a n d as a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d , but l e a v e them f r e e to d e c i d e c o n how to respond to the inducements. In the t h i r d s e c t i o n , a c a s e study compares two s t a t e s where those concepts a r e b e i n g used. The S t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a r e p r e s e n t s the compensa-t o r y c a s e . Through the C a l i f o r n i a Land C o n s e r v a t i o n A c t of 1965, the l e g i s -l a t u r e o o f C a l i f o r n i a has p e r m i t t e d c o u n t i e s and c i t i e s t o d e s i g n a t e a g r i c u l -t u r a l p r e s e r v e s , and has o f f e r e d p r e f e r e n t i a l or use v a l u e t a x a t i o n to owners of such l a n d s . On the o t h e r hand, the P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia c o n s t i t u t e s the example of the r e g u l a t o r y body. By e s t a b l i s h i n g a P r o v i n -c i a l Land Commission which was g i v e n z o n i n g powers t o p r e s e r v e a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d f o r farm use, the government of B r i t i s h Columbia has f o r c e d the i m p l e -m e n t a t i o n of mandatory a g r i c u l t u r a l d i s t r i c t s which thus g i v e s us a model of l a n d use r e g u l a t i o n s . The s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses of b o t h c o n c e p t s a r e s p e l l e d out. In the l a s t s e c t i o n , the p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e f e a t u r e s of the compensatory system and of the r e g u l a t o r y system are d i s c u s s e d . Moreover, the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of each method a r e compared w i t h each o t h e r i n terms of f i n a n c i a l c o s t p e r u n i t s e r v e d , t h e i r ease and term of i m p l e m e n t a t i o n as w e l l as t h e i r a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s to the l e v e l of u r b a n i z a t i o n e x p e r i e n c e d i n a p a r t i c u l a r r e g i o n . F i n a l l y , s e v e r a l recommendations are made w i t h r e s p e c t to the B r i t i s h Columbia's a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d use c o n t r o l i n an attempt to improve i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s . But b e f o r e g e t t i n g i n t o the mechanics of each method, i t i s u s e f u l to shed l i g h t on governments and t h e i r i n f l u e n c e on l a n d use c o n t r o l . 5 D. Governments and Land Use Controls In Canada, there are four l e v e l s of governing bodies which can exer-c i s e power with respect to land use c o n t r o l : the f e d e r a l , p r o v i n c i a l , r e -g i o n a l and l o c a l governments. However, the degree of involvement d i f f e r s depending upon the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s which have been given eachhlevel by the B r i t i s h North America Act. The BNA Act indeed sets the b a s i c r u l e s concerning land use c o n t r o l . S e c t i n 95 of the Act allows the l e g i s l a t u r e of each province to make laws i n r e l a t i o n to a g r i c u l t u r e , and Section 92 permits the l e g i s l a t u r e of each province to make laws e x c l u s i v e l y i n r e l a -t i o n to property r i g h t s i n the province. Howeve!r?rtheaParliament of Canada may, from time to time, make laws i n r e l a t i o n to a g r i c u l t u r e i n a l l or any of the provinces. With regard to l o w e r r l e v e l s of government, namely the r e g i o n a l and l o c a l bodies, t h e i r powers a r i s e from the f a c t that the'.legis-l a t u r e of each province may make laws i n r e l a t i o n to municipal i n s t i t u t i o n s t h e r e i n . P r o v i n c i a l 1 l e g i s l a t u r e s can then delegate t h e i r a u t h o r i t y and powers to these bodies of t h e i r own c r e a t i o n . The b a s i c p o i n t to be made here i s what l e v e l of government best e x e r c i s e s the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n land. I t has been argued that i t should be the l e v e l which most e f f e c t i v e l y represents the people a f f e c t e d by the d e c i s i o n . Thus, i n p r i n c i p l e , land use c o n t r o l may be shared among the d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of governing bodies according to the i n t e r e s t s which are a f f e c t e d (Parker, 1972). For example, i t would be i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r muni-c i p a l government to make d e c i s i o n s about land use where people outside the municipal j u r i s d i c t i o n could be affected,by such d e c i s i o n s . The management of renewable resources and the u l t i m a t e r e s p o n s i -b i l i t y f o r the a c t i o n s of m u n i c i p a l i t i e s (which are creatures of the province) l i e w i t h the p r o v i n c i a l government and i t cannot l e -g a l l y or morally abrogate those r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s (Krueger and M i t c h e l l , 1977, p. 144). 6 L i k e w i s e , n a t i o n a l and/or p r o v i n c i a l i n t e r v e n t i o n might be d e s i r a b l e where l o c a l needs are c o n f l i c t i n g w i t h s p a t i a l l y broader needs. For ins t a n c e , the increase i n l o c a l property tax base might f a i l to meet p r o v i n -c i a l needs such as an increase i n a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i v i t y . But some problems e x i s t as stated by E l l i c k s o n (1972, p. 706): S h i f t i n g land use planning power to s t a t e or r e g i o n a l u n i t s would reduce the present e v i l s of p a r o c h i a l i s m and b a l k a n i z a t i o n , but l a r g e r u n i t s are l e s s r e s p o n s i b l e and l e s s l o c a l l y knowledge-able than smaller ones and may d r a f t cruder ordinances. A t i e r e d system w i t h the s t a t e handling statewide issues and l o c a l i t i e s h andling l o c a l i s s u e s , i s p o s s i b l e , but increased costs of d e f i n i n g and p o l i c i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n a l l i m i t s would r e s u l t . On the whole, p r o v i n c i a l involvement i n land use c o n t r o l appears to be of paramount importance i n order to r a t i o n a l i z e the urban and non-urban competition f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l land. Since i t could be e a s i l y assumed that encouraging more s t a b l e a g r i c u l t u r a l land use w i l l r e q u i r e some f i n a n c i a l inducement, the p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l i s w e l l s u i t e d to meet t h i s need. 7 I I . REGULATORY METHODS FOR PRESERVING AGRICULTURAL LAND This s e c t i o n does not pretend, by any means, to cover i n depth each methoddavailable to c o n t r o l a g r i c u l t u r a l land use. I t does attempt however-y to look at those methods which have been somewhat s u c c e s s f u l i n the past and/or have an impact, whatever the degree, upon pr e s e r v i n g a g r i c u l t u r a l land. At t h i s p o i n t , a warning must be enunciated. The study has tended to focus upon those methods which, i n our o p i n i o n , have the best p o s s i b i l -i t i e s of g a i n i n g success i n the f u t u r e w i t h respect to the p r e s e r v a t i o n of a g r i c u l t u r a l land. The most f a m i l i a r form of land use c o n t r o l i s t r a d i t i o n a l zoning. In t h i s context, zoning aims at reducing non-farm development i n an economi-c a l l y and s o c i a l l y important farm area to the p o i n t at which i t produces no s i g n i f i c a n t negative e f f e c t on the f u t u r e of that a g r i c u l t u r a l land (Stockman, 1978). A. Minim'umiLoit Zoning Minimum l o t zoning or l a r g e l o t zoning i s a method whereby minimum acre requirements are imposed. I t tends to increase housing u n i t costs and thus to discourage s i n g l e f a m i l y home development. COn the other hand, r e -q u i r i n g a l o t to be at l e a s t 20 acres, f o r instance, may reduce the number of l o t s developed, but a l s o g r e a t l y increase the t o t a l farm area used up by such l o t s (Stockman, 1978). By f o r c i n g developers to use l a r g e l o t s f o r s i n g l e f a m i l y or low d e n s i t y housing, the r e g u l a t i o n forces them to chew up 8 much more of the landscape than they have to (Whyte, 1968). I t a l s o has to be mentioned that i n many cases the main e f f e c t of large l o t zoning i s to keep people away from any p o t e n t i a l development, e s p e c i a l l y poor people and r a c i a l m i n o r i t i e s (Lapping, 1977). This method of zoning has however been he l d v a l i d i n predominantly r u r a l areas where development i s not reasonably expected f o r 15 to 20 years. I t allows the farmer to r e t a i n an economic r u r a l use f o r the land at the time when there i s no urban use f o r h i s land. In such cases there i s no r l o s s of value to the farmer through the e x e r c i s e of t h i s zoning method. On the whole, minimum l o t zoning does not aim at permanent e x c l u s i o n of urban use but r a t h e r at buying time and h i n d e r i n g premature development while other c o n t r o l s are being considered f o r the best p o s s i b l e f u t u r e use of the areas of concern. This method has t h e r e f o r e to be c a r e f u l l y a p p l i e d to s p e c i f i c areas of land since i t tends to accentuate s c a t t e r a t i o n r a t h e r than d i m i n i s h i t . B. E x c l u s i v e A g r i c u l t u r a l Zoning This form of zoning allows only f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l uses w i t h i n the region or l o c a l i t y that i s being taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n . E x c l u s i v e a g r i -c u l t u r a l zoning i s j u s t i f i e d on the b a s i s that a g r i c u l t u r a l land, e s p e c i a l l y prime farmland, must be protected as a unique and v a l u a b l e resource - or on the b a s i s of the p r e s e r v a t i o n of a g r i c u l t u r a l character i n a community. There are advantages to t h i s technique. Since the value of the land i s e x c l u s i v e l y derived from i t s p o t e n t i a l f o r farming, the problems of assess-ment based on non-farm use are e l i m i n a t e d (Lapping, 1977). I t a l s o makes sure that a s u f f i c i e n t stock of a g r i c u l t u r a l land i s being h e l d to meet f u -ture consumers' demands and needs. Moreover, i t helps keep the s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e of r u r a l communities and maintain the farmer's status w i t h i n the 9 s o c i e t y as a whole since the continuance of a g r i c u l t u r e may be assured f o r the foreseeable f u t u r e . On the other hand, many shortcomings have to be considered. F i r s t of a l l , there w i l l almost i n e v i t a b l y be p a r c e l s of land i n the zoning area not s u i t a b l e f o r a g r i c u l t u r e , and these p a r c e l s w i l l be r e l e g a t e d i n t o r e l a t i v e uselessness (Lapping, 1977). Secondly, the farming community a d j a -cent to urbanized areas w i l l not be able to s e l l t h e i r e s t ate at market value (the use value of the land as a g r i c u l t u r a l land plus the incremental value caused by the p o s s i b i l i t y of developing the land when there i s no such r e g u l a t i o n ) , when they want to r e t i r e . T h i r d l y , p o l i t i c a l pressures from developing s p e c u l a t o r s , and farmers can become too intense to e f f e c t i v e l y implement e x c l u s i v e a g r i c u l t u r a l zones ( C i t i z e n s ' Advisory Committee, 1976). C. A g r i c u l t u r a l D i s t r i c t i n g There are two ways of d i s t r i c t i n g a g r i c u l t u r a l land. The f i r s t i s completely mandatory w h i l e the second s t a r t s on a v o l u n t a r y b a s i s but be-comes mandatory when the i n i t i a l requirements are being met. In the former, the province of s t a t e r e q u i r e s each m u n i c i p a l i t y or r e g i o n a l board to create an a g r i c u l t u r a l d i s t r i c t w i t h i n i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n . The province, i n t h i s i n s t a n c e , has the r o l e of a d v i s o r , as w e l l as the r o l e of e s t a b l i s h i n g c r i -t e r i a and l i m i t a t i o n s . Each m u n i c i p a l i t y or region i s then r e q u i r e d to designate an a g r i c u l t u r a l reserve c o n t a i n i n g a minimum percentage of i t s prime land s p e c i f i e d by the province. This a g r i c u l t u r a l reserve becomes part of the l o c a l government's master p l a n , and only a g r i c u l t u r a l p u r s u i t i s allowed there (Miner, 1975). The second form of a g r i c u l t u r a l d i s t r i c t i n g s t a r t s at the grass-roots l e v e l where the s t a t e or the county i s being asked by farmers to create an a g r i c u l t u r a l d i s t r i c t when a minimum acreage s i z e has been 10 obtained. A f t e r the i n i t i a l step has been completed, a s e r i e s of f u r t h e r steps and requirements have to be f u l f i l l e d before g e t t i n g approval from the s t a t e . The a g r i c u l t u r a l d i s t r i c t does not n e c e s s a r i l y l a s t f o r e v e r and i t must be reexamined by the st a t e at c e r t a i n time i n t e r v a l s . The advantages and weaknesses of t h i s method resemble to a l a r g e ex-t e n t , those of e x c l u s i v e a g r i c u l t u r a l zoning w i t h the exception that the p a r c e l s of land not s u i t a b l e f o r a g r i c u l t u r e can be l e f t out of the a g r i c u l -t u r a l d i s t r i c t , and urban land uses can, i n t u r n , be channelized onto the land l e s s f a v o r a b l e f o r a g r i c u l t u r e . With regardoto the second form, another advantage can be mentioned as i t i s put by Lapping (1977, pp. 280^281): The a g r i c u l t u r a l d i s t r i c t program [ i n New York] won wide-based support, as w e l l as l e g i s l a t i v e approval, because i t put emphasis on i n i t i a t i o n of c o n t r o l on the l o c a l l e v e l ... With t h i s heavy emphasis on the l o c a l i n i t i a t i o n pfothe program, much of the h o s t i l i t y created i n r u r a l areas by the word "zoning" and the tferm "land use c o n t r o l s " has been e l i m i n a t e d . In s h o r t , a g r i c u l t u r a l d i s t r i c t i n g provides a p r o t e c t i o n f o r i n v e s t -ment i n farm undertakings as w e l l as f o r agribusinesses which can r e l y on a s t a b l e market i n the area. D. Maximum Density Zoning This type of zoning places a l i m i t on non-farm development per des-ignated p a r c e l of land. This technique has s e v e r a l advantages. I t prevents a developer from p l o t t i n g 100 l o t s c o n s i s t i n g of f i v e acres each, thereby removing a l a r g e amount of a g r i c u l t u r a l land from production (a d i s t i n c t disadvantage i n minimum l o t zoning, see I I . A ) . I t allows the farmer to have the opportunity to s e l l o f f a l o t or two, i n order to r e l i e v e h i s cash f l o w problem or accommodate a r e l a t i v e . F i n a l l y , i t can hinder the conversion of good farmland i n t o other uses by p e r m i t t i n g b u i l d i n g s i t e s on those t r a c t s of land which are not a g r i c u l t u r a l land, such as wooded areas or waste land. 11 As i n a l l techniques, t h i s method has some imperfections b u i l t i n t o i t . One a r i s e s when only rone non-farm l o t i s allowed i n a given p a r c e l of land. Who w i l l be the one to b u i l d on i t ? The f i r s t one who does so w i l l p r o h i b i t anyone e l s e owning land i n t h i s p a r c e l from doing i t (Stockman, 1978). Another problem i s r e l a t e d to the den s i t y which would be appropriate to maintain a given a g r i c u l t u r a l area on a f a i r l y permanent b a s i s , yet a l l o w f o r a degree of non-farm development d e s i r e d by the l o c a l i n h a b i t a n t s . This technique works best and i s most appropriate i n areas i d e n t i -f i e d as having prime land and beginning to experience non-farm development pressures. E. U t i l i t y Extension Regulation This r e g u l a t i o n s t a t e s that no development should be allowed unless connected to municipal u t i l i t i e s . The l o c a l government could i n e f f e c t con-t r o l development through u t i l i t y extensions ( C i t i z e n s ' Advisory Committee, 1976). The purpose of t h i s r e g u l a t i o n i s to discourage development i n the r u r a l areas u n t i l a l l of the areas w i t h i n the e x i s t i n g m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have been developed. This r e g u l a t i o n may be e f f e c t i v e i n c o n t r o l l i n g growth i n the urban f r i n g e i f i t i s s t r i c t l y enforced by the community concerned. However, t h i s technique does not help areas which are l o s i n g a g r i c u l t u r a l land beyond the immediate f r i n g e area. But t h i s could be avoided by g i v i n g r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t s or counties power to i n s i s t on u t i l i t y connections p r i o r to development. F. Easements There are two cl a s s e s of easements. One c l a s s i s p o s i t i v e easement: that i s , the p r o v i n c i a l , r e g i o n a l or l o c a l governmenttacquires the r i g h t to-do something with part of the farmer's land such as p u b l i c access, water 12 r i g h t s , r i g h t s of way, and the l i k e . The other category i s negative ease-ments. In t h i s case, the government buys from the landowner h i s r i g h t to develop the land. This concept l i e s behind the f a c t that land ownership contains a bundle of r i g h t s from which each r i g h t can be separated without a l t e r i n g ownership to any great extent. This form of r e g u l a t i o n i s o f t e n c a l l e d purchase of development r i g h t s . Through t h i s scheme, the farmer continues to farm or use the land j u s t as he has done before; one of the main aims of the easements, indeed, i s to encourage him to do j u s t that (Whyte, 1968). In s h o r t , t h i s technique allows the government to acquire, e i t h e r on a v o l u n t a r y or mandatory b a s i s , the less-than-fee-simple development r i g h t to land which the government wants l e f t undeveloped f o r the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n exchange f o r the d i f f e r e n c e between the market value and the a g r i c u l t u r a l use value. Therefore, by p r o h i b i t i n g c e r t a i n uses, a g r i c u l -t u r a l land can be preserved. A l s o since easements run w i t h the land, t h e i r c o n d i t i o n s apply i n p e r p e t u i t y to subsequent owners of the property. There are s e v e r a l advantages with respect to t h i s technique f o r both the government and the landowner. On the one hand, since the l a n d -owner can continue to put the land to p r o d u c t i v e , though l i m i t e d , use, the government does not have to assume the burden of maintaining the property (Lapping, 1977). On the other hand, the landowner gets a decrease i n h i s property tax base because thecencumbrance causes the assessment to decrease. Another b e n e f i t to the owner i s that he keeps h i s land and gets a c e r t a i n amount of money f o r the r i g h t he has given up, and the proceeds can be used to enhance farm business as operating and/or investment c a p i t a l . Most importantly, the p r i d e of ownership i s maintained and the farmer has not been reduced to being a tenant on the land he cherishes. To a l e s s e r extent, another b e n e f i t i s the f l a n k p r o t e c t i o n that landowners get. They do not 13 have to worry about the l o s s of the a e s t h e t i c r o l e of t h e i r surroundings since the easement can a l s o be t a i l o r e d to the n a t u r a l features which are present i n the area (Whyte, 1968). This l a s t advantage leads us to the s p e c i f i c i t y of easement r e g u l a t i o n . Land use p r o h i b i t i o n s , through the use of negative easements, can be adapted to the a g r i c u l t u r a l values to be p r o t e c ted. An a c q u i s i t i o n p lan by the government or i t s agency could s p e c i f y p a r t i c u l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of land which i t sought to p r o t e c t , depending on a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system determined by p u b l i c w i l l . Thus ease-ments are very f l e x i b l e l e g a l agreements which may be t a i l o r e d to both the i n t e r e s t s of the landowner and the s p e c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the property i n order to p r o t e c t the n a t u r a l value of the property (Roe, 1976). F i n a l l y , the a c q u i s i t i o n of development easements i s not expensive when i t i s being used i n r u r a l areas r a t h e r than i n urbanized areas but s t i l l c o s t l y i f compared t o t p r e f e r e n t i a l assessment techniques. There are however se v e r a l l i m i t a t i o n s to p u b l i c a c q u i s i t i o n of con-s e r v a t i o n easements. F i r s t of a l l , a c q u i s i t i o n cost i n urbanized regions can be very expensive. Since the value of the easement i s the d i f f e r e n c e between what the property i s worth without the r e s t r i c t i o n s , and what i t i s worth w i t h them, the cost of a c q u i r i n g development r i g h t s on a piece of prime land i n an area which i s s u i t a b l e f o r development might be q u i t e immodest. The owner i s g i v i n g up a major part of the value of h i s property and he wants a f a i r p r i c e f o r t h i s t a k i n g (Whyte, 1968). Secondly, another l i m i t a t i o n i s the c a r r y i n g charges r e l a t e d to p u b l i c a c q u i s i t i o n of conser-s e r v a t i o n easements. As stated by Roe, (1976} p. 436): Large sca l e p u b l i c a c q u i s i t i o n c a r r i e s considerable costs f o r purchase, a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , and enforcement. The most l o g i c a l source of f i n a n c i n g i s the s t a t e because r e l i a n c e on l o c a l f i n a n c i n g would severely l i m i t the scope of any development r i g h t s a c q u i s i t i o n program to the p r o t e c t i o n of only small t r a c t s ^ at best of c r u c i a l l y important lands. 14 T h i r d l y , governmental a c q u i s i t i o n of conservation easements reduces the tax base of l o c a l governments which are h e a v i l y dependent on property taxes. While a g r i c u l t u r a l landowners w i l l pay taxes on the assessed value of t h e i r land, the piece of property encumbered by an easement w i l l b e n e f i t from reduced t a x z r a t e s according to the degree of use r e s t r i c t i o n . G. Compensable Regulation The compensable r e g u l a t i o n method has borrowed i t s main features from both zoning r e g u l a t i o n and conservation easement methods. As st a t e d by Roe, (1976, p. 427): " i t i s a method of e x e r c i s i n g s t r i c t p u b l i c c o n t r o l over land use by p r o v i d i n g compensation f o r property value l o s s e s (sometimes termed wipeouts) due to r e g u l a t i o n . " Under t h i s scheme, before land i s re g u l a t e d , each p a r c e l i s assessed and a guaranteed value e s t a b l i s h e d . A f t e r the r e g u l a t i o n has been made e f f e c t i v e , the landowner i s immediately compensated i f , and to the extent t h a t , the r e g u l a t i o n reduces the value of the land f o r uses being performed at the time the r e g u l a t i o n i s a p p l i e d . In the event that i t does not occur, the landowner i s s t i l l compensated f o r the l o s s of the r i g h t to develop h i s property but compensation i s not made u n t i l the property i s s o l d . When the property i s s o l d , the landholder can put i n a c l a i m to recover the l o s s i n market value because of the r e s t r i c -t i o n s imposed on such land. The r a t i o n a l e i s that he has i n c u r r e d no l o s s before he s e l l s . A major d i s t i n g u i s h i n g f e a t u r e of the compensable r e g u l a t i o n method i s that i t s costs may not be i n c u r r e d as soon as are those of a conservation easements a c q u i s i t i o n program. On the other hand, compensa-t i o n r e g u l a t i o n l i k e any zoning r e g u l a t i o n i s subject to zoning v a r i a n c e s , p o l i t i c a l d e a l i n g , and misuse while easements are normally acquired i n p e r p e t u i t y (Lapping, 1977). 15 The compensable r e g u l a t i o n approach i s somewhat e f f e c t i v e i n pre-s e r v i n g a g r i c u l t u r a l land i n urban "fringes and i n more r u r a l areas. But, i f the area i s r i p e f o r development, i t may not be more expensive f o r a province or a m u n i c i p a l i t y to acquire property i n t e r e s t s than to compensate f o r r e g u l a t i o n s (Roe, 1976). H. Expropr i a t i on This method i s not o f t e n used w i t h respect to a g r i c u l t u r a l land. I I t i s , n e v e r t h e l e s s , a t o o l a v a i l a b l e to any l e v e l of government and w i t h i n i t s sphere of powers since there i s i n Canada no c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e that p r i v a t e property cannot be taken without due process of law. As to the question whether Parliament has the power to expropriatealand f o r p u b l i c purposes without compensation, there cannot be any doubt. The L e g i s l a t u r e s have the same powers as Parliament, and there would be no n e c e s s i t y f o r compensation to be g i v e n . ( C h a l l i e s , 1973, p. 75). However, the general r u l e of law i n e x p r o p r i a t i o n cases i s and has long been that compensation i s given, and any s t a t u t e p r o v i d i n g f o r e x p r o p r i a t i o n must be expressed i n the c l e a r e s t and most unequivocal terms ( C h a l l i e s , 1973, p. 77). In the matter of e x p r o p r i a t i o n , no landowner can be e n t i t l e d to compensation f o r the value of the land taken. Since the power to expro-p r i a t e land without compensation i s not e x e r c i s e d , we then assume that the landowner i s compensated f o r the t a k i n g of h i s land. Although t h i s method i s very e f f i c i e n t i n p r e s e r v i n g a g r i c u l t u r a l land from any non-compatible use, some problems are inherent to i t s use. F i r s t , o u t r i g h t purchase i s a very expensive method to p r o t e c t l a r g e t r a c t s of a g r i c u l t u r a l land. I t i m p l i e s an opportunity cost which has to be h e a v i l y considered. Secondly, since much of the r u r a l land i s a g r i c u l -t u r a l l y p r o d u c t i v e , i t should be r e t a i n e d , f o r the most p a r t , i n p r i v a t e use (Roe, 1976). T h i r d l y , p u b l i c l y owned a g r i c u l t u r a l land may be 16 v u l n e r a b l e to some i n t e r e s t groups who favor p o l i c i e s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h farming p r a c t i c e s (Lapping, 1977). F i n a l l y , the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the scheme along w i t h the maintenance of p u b l i c p r o p e r t i e s where these are not leased back to farmers f o r farming, could be very p r o h i b i t i v e . I . Stewardship The concept of stewardship or minimum maintenance requirements has been included i n the a n a l y s i s not because i t d i r e c t l y preserves a g r i c u l -t u r a l l a n d , but because i t i s a r e g u l a t o r y means to exert pressure toward proper land use and a l s o because i t i s a reminder of the c o l l e c t i v e i n t e r -est i n the use and husbandry of the land (Beaubien, 1977). This i s a concept whereby an annual maintenance f e e , payable i n cash or worked o f f i n management, i s l e v i e d upon any landholder who owns land s u i t a b l e f o r a g r i -c u l t u r a l use. The purpose of e s t a b l i s h i n g minimum management standards f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l land i s to r a i s e b a s i c l e v e l s of maintenance. This r e q u i r e -ment should s t i m u l a t e a more productive use of land w i t h o p o s i t i v e b e n e f i t s to the community and the landscape of the r e g i o n . Good land management might i n c l u d e crop r o t a t i o n , wee! c o n t r o l , f e r t i l i t y maintenance, and the l i k e . But how much, and what use w i l l de-pend upon the c a p a b i l i t y of the land. In order to set standards f o r minimum maintenance, the e s s e n t i a l p r o d u c t i v i t y of the land i s to be determined. A simple system could be worked out to make i t expensive to hold good a g r i c u l t u r a l land i n low p r o d u c t i v i t y , which would pressure poor users or non-users to improve t h e i r per-formance or to lease t h e i r land to somebody who i s able to improve the land use (Beaubien, 1977, p. 76). This r e g u l a t i o n can be phased i n by p a r t i a l a p p l i c a t i o n e i t h e r i n terms of l e v e l of enforcement, c a t e g o r i e s of owners, c l a s s e s of land use, or some combination of p a r t i a l a p p l i c a t i o n (Royal Commission on Land Ownership arid Land Use, 1973). 17 J . Other Methods There are a number of o t h e r methods which might be i n s t r u m e n t a l i n the p r e s e r v a t i o n of a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d . S i n c e they a r e v a r i a t i o n s of those a l r e a d y d i s c u s s e d , o r a r e f a i r l y minor i n a c h i e v i n g a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d p r e s e r v a t i o n , i t i s not worth d o i n g more than m e n t i o n i n g them. Among these a r e : i n v e r s e p a r c e l s i z e o r s l i d i n g s c a l e method p e r m i t t i n g a g i v e n number of non-farm developments based on the s i z e o f the f a r m l a n d ; s p e c i a l z o n i n g r e g u l a t i o n s such as c o n t r o l on l o t depth and/or w i d t h ; i n t e r i m z o n i n g c o n t r o l s whereby development i s p r o h i b i t e d f o r a r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t p e r i o d of time; and bonus and i n c e n t i v e s z o n i n g i n which the l o c a l government a l l o w s the d e v e l o p e r to i n c r e a s e d e n s i t y i n r e t u r n f o r p r e s e r -v a t i o n o f s m a l l a g r i c u l t u r a l a r e a s . 18 I I I . COMPENSATORY METHODS FOR PRESERVING AGRICULTURAL LAND A. T a x a t i o n Methods H i s t o r i c a l l y , t a x a t i o n schemes have been implemented to make i t l e s s c o s t l y t o use l a n d f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l purposes i n the urban f r i n g e a r e a s . The r a t i o n a l e was t w o f o l d : f i r s t , as a r e s u l t of urban d e v e l o p -ment r e g a r d l e s s of the a c t i v i t y c u r r e n t l y b e i n g c a r r i e d out on the p a r -c e l of l a n d , the a s s e s s e d v a l u e of the l a n d was i n c r e a s e d t o c o n s i d e r i t s p o t e n t i a l development v a l u e . Then f a c i n g an i n c r e a s e i n p r o p e r t y tax which, i n many c a s e s , shrank h i s income e x t e n s i v e l y , the farmer was f o r c e d to s e l l h i s land because i t was no l o n g e r p r o f i t a b l e f o r him t o devote h i s l a n d to an a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t y . S e c o n d l l y , i t was argued t h a t i t was i n e q u i t a b l e f o r the f a r m i n g community to pay f o r s e r v i c e s such as r o a d s , s c h o o l s and m u n i c i p a l s e r v i c e s f r a n w h i c h i t d i d not bene-f i t . T h e r e f o r e , by r e l i e v i n g the farmer of tax burdens and then a l l o w i n g him to c o n t i n u e f a r m i n g , i t was b e l i e v e d t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t q u a n t i t i e s of l a n d would be kept i n a g r i c u l t u r a l use which would o t h e r -wise be s h i f t e d . 1. P r e f e r e n t i a l Assessment A p r e f e r e n t i a l assessment t a x a t i o n scheme i s one where l a n d i s a s s e s s e d upon the b a s i s of i t s v a l u e a c c o r d i n g to i t s : ; c u r r e n t use r a t h e r t han i t s market v a l u e . C a p i t a l i z a t i o n of income and s o i l p r o d u c t i v i t y 19 r a t i n g s are the most commonly accepted approaches used to assess farmland; the former i s derived by d i v i d i n g the farmer's f u t u r e stream of net i n -come by a percentage representing a f a i r r e t u r n on investment. Since current usage alone does not d i f f e r e n t i a t e between bona f i d e farmers and speculators who can b e n e f i t from the scheme by conducting very minimal farming operations, most st a t e s and provinces have t r i e d to i n c o r -porate i n t o the program one or s e v e r a l of the f o l l o w i n g requirements: ( i ) a minimum number of acres must be farmed; ( i i ) a minimum gross income must be derived from the land; ( i i i ) a c e r t a i n (portion of the owner's i n -come must be o r i g i n a t e d from the l a n d ; and ( i v ) land must have been i n q u a l i f y i n g use f o r a minimum number of immediate past years. Several advantages u n d e r l i e the p r e f e r e n t i a l assessment tax scheme. The approach encourages farmers to keep t h e i r land i n the a g r i -c u l t u r a l business and thus decreases development pressures on these lands. A l s o , as s t a t e d by the C e n t r a l Fraser V a l l e y Regional D i s t r i c t Planning Department (1972, p. 64): I t i s g e n e r a l l y regarded tlat p r e f e r e n t i a l assessment w i l l help to keep r i s i n g food p r i c e s down by i n s u r i n g that food pro-duction areas can continue to remain c l o s e to metropolitan areas, where they can serve c i t y r e s i d e n t s economically w i t h f r e s h , wholesome, s u f f i c i e n t and high q u a l i t y products at the lowest p r i c e s . I t has a l s o been argued t h a t , because of the tax r e d u c t i o n , people wishing to buy a p a r c e l of land f o r farming can l e s s e n t h e i r p o t e n t i a l c a r r y i r i g r c o s t s so that they can a f f o r d to pay more f o r the land and compete with developers. On the other hand, d i f f e r e n t i a l assessment i s l i k e l y to r a i s e ottier property owners' tax b i l l s i f p u b l i c servides have to be maintained at the same l e v e l (assuming the area includes a r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e acreage of farm-land) unless there i s some k i n d of f i n a n c i a l a i d fromthe upper l e v e l s of 20 government. Secondly, since i t i s not a compulsory scheme, p r e f e r e n t i a l assessment might not be e f f e c t i v e i n r e t a i n i n g land i n a g r i c u l t u r e where farmers have to r e s i s t high development pressures as w e l l as a p o t e n t i a l -l y l a r g e c a p i t a l gain;; then, under such circumstances, the scheme may prove to be incapable of i n f l u e n c i n g the p a t t e r n of development. F i n a l l y , the approach a l s o has weaknesses w i t h respect to a d m i n i s t r a t i v e matters. The determination of use value can indeed be very d i f f i c u l t i n s e v e r a l cases, because of the l a c k of p e r t i n e n t i n f o r m a t i o n . Further d i f f i -c u l t i e s may a r i s e on the determination of whether or not a p a r t i c u l a r p a r c e l of land i s being used i n farming. 2. Deferred Taxation Deferred t a x a t i o n can be defined as p r e f e r e n t i a l assessment which features a r o l l b a c k tax p r o v i s i o n . In t h i s case a r o l l b a c k tax i s one which i s l e v i e d against the tax savings which r e s u l t from assessing farm-land at i t s use-value r a t h e r than at i t s market value. I t i s imposed when the land use i s converted from a g r i c u l t u r a l to an u n q u a l i f i e d use. As s t a t e d by Keene (1977, p. 36), these deferred t a x a t i o n and conveyance tax p r o v i s i o n s have two p r i n c i p a l o b j e c t i v e s : (a) they are designed to capture some of the tax revenues l o s t because of the d i f f e r e n t i a l assessment program; and (b) they are designed to deter owners of land which have recei v e d tax b e n e f i t s from converting t h e i r land. However, i t must be pointed out that the i n c l u s i o n of the r o l l -back p r o v i s i o n c o n f l i c t s with the aforementioned aim of p r o v i d i n g tax b e n e f i t s to farmers. The r o l l b a c k tax may f o r c e the farmers to forgo the b e n e f i t s deried from the scheme by not e n r o l l i n g since the mere de-f e r r a l of property taxes might not be a s u f f i c i e n t motive to t e n t e r the program. On the other hand, f o r those farmers who do enter the program, the recapture of taxes by m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i s u s u a l l y q u i t e smallv r e l a t i v e to the l a r g e c a p i t a l gains which stem from s e l l i n g or converting farmland, and thus has a minimal impact on farmer's d e c i s i o n . However, i t could be argued that a r o l l b a c k tax i s a necessary p r o v i s i o n from the standpoint of e q u i t y . Without a r o l l b a c k p r o v i s i o n , p r e f e r e n t i a l assessment might provide a f r e e r i d e f o r the speculator (depending on the scheme r e q u i r e -ments), at the cost of others whose taxes are increased to make up f o r the lo s s i n municipal revenue (Keene, 1977). 3. R e s t r i c t i v e Agreements Since t h i s scheme i s discussed i n Section IV through the C a l i f o r -n i a Land Conservation A c t , i t i s here t r e a t e d only b r i e f l y . R e s t r i c t i v e agreement i s a program whereby the s t a t e or l o c a l government enters i n t o an agreement w i t h an a g r i c u l t u r a l landowner. The agreement s t i p u l a t e s that the landowner must r e s t r i c t the use of h i s land to a g r i c u l t u r e f o r a given p e r i o d of time, i n r e t u r n f o r d i f f e r e n t i a l assessment. As i t i s put by Lapping (1977, p. 279): " i n e f f e c t land owners are t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e i r development r i g h t s , f o r a f i x e d p e r i o d of time, i n exchange f o r a favorable assessment of taxes." An und e r l y i n g advantage of the scheme i s that i t ensures that land i s kept i n a g r i c u l t u r a l use f o r a s p e c i f i c number of years. Since the agreementso.are g e n e r a l l y made f o r a minimal pe r i o d of ten years, they tend to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between bona f i d e farm-ers and speculators and, hence, increase the b e n e f i t s going to the former r e l a t i v e to sp e c u l a t o r s . 22 4. Conclusions The o v e r a l l e f f e c t s of changes i n property t a x a t i o n through the aforementioned approaches do not seem to i n f l u e n c e the p r e s e r v a t i o n of a g r i c u l t u r a l land to a great extent. Since these approaches cannot con-t r o l the timing and p a t t e r n of development, they have to be l i n k e d to other land use c o n t r o l measures i n order to increase the inducements to farming and d i r e c t urban growth to n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l land. This problem i s d e a l t w i t h i n the Conclusion and Recommendations s e c t i o n of t h i s study. As Whyte (1968, p. 116) has s t a t e d : My own guess i s that p r e f e r e n t i a l assessment i s going to do very l i t t l e to h a l t the conversion of open space. Even i f the speculator i s weeded out and only the true farmer b e n e f i t s , the true farmer i s going to do what anybody e l s e would do. When the p r i c e i s r i g h t , he i s going to s e l l out, low taxes or no. And why should he not? He i s not going to forswear a l a r g e c a p i t a l gain so suburbanites w i l l have p r e t t y scenery. Unless there i s some compelling i n c e n t i v e , he i s going to r e l o c a t e . B. Transfer of Development Rights Transfer of development r i g h t s i s a r e l a t i v e l y new technique which i s being used i n c r e a s i n g l y i n the United S t a t e s . The mechanics of the technique are q u i t e simple, although t h e i r implementation through a market system makes i t l e s s a t t r a c t i v e , but s t i l l v a l u a b l e . Under the program, a zoning d i s t r i c t designates areas where development i s p r o h i b i t e d , and others where development can s t i l l occur. The d e n s i t i e s of development i n developable areas are made higher than those allowed under the previous zoning system by t r a n s f e r r i n g the development r i g h t s of the areas which have l o s t t t h e i r p o t e n t i a l r e s i d e n t i a l development to the developable areas. As i t i s put by Nieswand, A i r o l a and Chavooshian (1974, p. 15): Landowners i n the preserved areas, who w i l l continue to own t h e i r land, may s e l l t h e i r r i g h t s to f u r t h e r development to other landowners or b u i l d e r s who wish to develop those areas i n which development i s agreed on. 23 F o r i n s t a n c e , a d e v e l o p e r o r b u i l d e r who i s w i l l i n g t o i n c r e a s e the d e n s i t y of h i s p a r c e l of l a n d t o the new c e i l i n g r e s u l t i n g from the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of the p r e s e r v e d zones, must purchase development r i g h t s from owners of the s a i d a r e a a t a market-determined p r i c e . The market can be of two k i n d s : a p r i v a t e market i n which the p r i c e of development r i g h t s i s determined by s u p p l y and demand f o r c e s , or a p u b l i c market system i n which a p u b l i c body a c t s a s c b o t h buyer and s e l l e r of d e v e l o p -ment r i g h t s . A major advantage of the t r a n s f e r a b l e development r i g h t s scheme l i e s i n the f a c t t h a t i t a l l o w s owners of r e g u l a t e d a r e a s to be compen-s a t e d f o r the l o s s of a b a s i c r i g h t a t t a c h e d to land ownership. I t thus c u r t a i l s the f i n a n c i a l i n e q u i t i e s which stem from the s e v e r i t y of the r e g u l a t i o n r e s t r i c t i o n . I t does n o t a l t e r the l e v e l of o v e r a l l d e v e l o p -ment which was g r a n t e d to the community through the p r e v i o u s z o n i n g p r o v i s i o n ; i t o n l y m o d i f i e s the r a t e o f development i n one a r e a and t r a n s f e r s i t to a n o t h e r . Moreover, the farmer keeps ownership of h i s l a n d and hence, t h e r e i s no d i s r u p t i o n o f f a r m i n g a c t i v i t i e s and t e n u r e . The c o s t t o m u n i c i p a l t a x p a y e r s i s v e r y low s i n c e t h e r e i s no a c q u i s i t i o n by the l o c a l government except f o r the z o n i n g and p l a n n i n g which i s e s s e n t i a l t o e s t a b l i s h the s u p p l y and demand f o r development r i g h t s . F i n a l l y , i t makes the p r o v i s i o n o f p u b l i c s e r v i c e s much e a s i e r s i n c e the p a t t e r n o f development can be e a s i l y c o n t r o l l e d t hrough z o n i n g d i s t r i c t s . A l t h o u g h the t e c h n i q u e has s e v e r a l advantages a t t a c h e d t o i t , t h e r e a r e a l s o many d i f f i c u l t i e s t o be overcome to make i t implementable. F o r i n s t a n c e , i t i s v e r y h a r d t o determine the v a l u e of development r i g h t s s i n c e the market may not work p r o p e r l y . As mentioned by L a p p i n g , B e v i n s and Herbers (1977), a p o s s i b i l i t y e x i s t s t h a t t h e r e w i l l be i n s u f f i c i e n t demand f o r the development r i g h t s ; the d e v e l o p e r o r b u i l d e r 24 might d e c i d e n o t to opt f o r h i g h e r d e n s i t i e s i n d e v e l o p a b l e a r e a s and thus not purchase the r i g h t s . By the same token, even i f they were b u y i n g development r i g h t s , they would be a b l e t o p i c k the landowner i n the p r e -s e r v e d a r e a who i s w i l l i n g t o s e l l h i s r i g h t s f o r a lower p r i c e . Conse-q u e n t l y , the landowner would n o t get a f a i r p r i c e f o r h i s development r i g h t s and t h e d e v e l o p e r or b u i l d e r might end up w i t h w i n d f a l l b e n e f i t s from the d e a l . F i n a l l y , the t e c h n i q u e i s f a c e d w i t h another problem. A l t h o u g h i t d e a l s w i t h the p a t t e r n of development, i t does n o t address the t i m i n g of such development, C s i n e e i . i t i s l e f t up t o the d e v e l o p e r and/or b u i l d e r t o d e c i d e when they w i l l take advantage o f the program. As t o whether t r a n s f e r o f development r i g h t s s h o u l d be implemented i n Canada, the e x p o s i t i o n i s l e f t t o a b l e r pens: The p r i m a r y r e a s o n [ f o r i t s r e j e c t i o n ] i s t h a t i n Canada the r i g h t t o develop i s not an ownership r i g h t , but a p r i v i l e g e g i v e n t o a few by government t o meet the p u b l i c ' s r e q u irement f o r changes i n l a n d use. A t t h i s s t a g e , t o g r a n t the r i g h t of development to landowner would be a backward s t e p i n t h a t i t would p l a c e s e r i o u s a d d i t i o n a l problems on o r d e r l y development and l o n g - r a n g e p l a n n i n g . ( A l b e r t a Land Use Forum, 1976, p. 100). C. Purchase of Land Through a Land T r u s t The l a s t t e c h n i q u e t o be f u l l y d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s study i s c a l l e d l a n d b a n k i n g . A l t h o u g h l a n d b a n k i n g can come i n t o e x i s t e n c e through the c r e a t i o n o f t h r e e d i f f e r e n t types o f t r u s t s x ( p r i v a t e , p u b l i c and commu-n i t y l a n d t r u s t s ) , the study assumes t h a t whatever the type of t r u s t i s c r e a t e d , the same advantages and d i s a d v a n t a g e s would r e s u l t . In t h i s approach, the l o c a l o r p r o v i n c i a l government e s t a b l i s h e s a p u b l i c c o r p o r a -t i o n which i s g r a n t e d power to a c q u i r e the f e e s i m p l e r i g h t s t o l a n d b o t h through purchase on t h e open market and by e x p r o p r i a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s . The l a n d b a n k i n g c o r p o r a t i o n can be f i n a n c e d e i t h e r d i r e c t l y by government i n the form of g r a n t s and l o a n s , by b o r r o w i n g or by b o t h . 25 T h i s approach has been implemented: ( i ) to ensure the a v a i l a b i l -i t y of s i t e s needed f o r development; ( i i ) t o c o n t r o l the t i m i n g , l o c a t i o n , type and s c a l e of development and, ( i i i ) to p r e v e n t urban sprawl (Fishman, 1975) but i t c o u l d be geared toward c r e a t i n g a permanent a g r i c u l t u r a l r e s e r v e . The advantages r e l a t e d to t h i s scheme are s e v e r a l . F i r s t , i t ensures t h a t a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d i s r e t a i n e d i n i t s p r e s e n t use, thus s e c u r i n g an a d e quateesupply of f a r m l a n d . T h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o rtant i n the urban f r i n g e a r e a s , where l a n d i s u s u a l l y the most s u i t a b l e f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t y and most s u s c e p t i b l e to developemnt p r e s s u r e s . Second, i t compensates owners whose l a n d has been purchased by the c o r p o r a -t i o n and r e s t r i c t e d to a g r i c u l t u r a l use. T h i r d , the l e a s e back of p u r -chased l a n d on a l o n g - t e r m b a s i s to farmers or c o r p o r a t i o n s w i l l i n g t o farm would e i t h e r l e s s e n a c q u i s i t i o n c o s t s o r compensate f o r the l o s s of p r o p e r t y t axes no l o n g e r l e v i e d upon the l a n d . I t a l s o a l l o w s f o r a d e f e r -ment of f a r m l a n d maintenance c o s t s . F i n a l l y , a d d i t i o n a l l a n d s r e q u i r e d by a farmer who does not wish t o a c q u i r e the f e e s i m p l e r i g h t s can be made a v a i l a b l e by t h e l a n d bank c o r p o r a t i o n . On the o t h e r hand, l o c a l government involvement i n such a program i s not always e c o n o m i c a l l y f e a s i b l e . S i n c e l a n d b a n k i n g o p e r a t i o n s r e q u i r e a l a r g e i n i t i a l o u t l a y of p u b l i c funds and a d e c r e a s e i n tax base, (which, i n i t s e l f , c o u l d e n t i r e l y o f f s e t the o b j e c t i v e s of the scheme), l o c a l government may not be a b l e to cope w i t h such an investment q u i t e a p a r t from the c o s t s of c a r r y i n g a l a n d i n v e n t o r y . F o r these r e a s o n s , the p r o v i n c i a l government may be the most s u i t a b l e g o v e r n i n g body to under-take a program of t h i s k i n d s i n c e i t has a g r e a t e r f i n a n c i a l c a p a c i t y and can compensate m u n i c i p a l i t i e s f o r p r o p e r t y t axes no l o n g e r c o l l e c t i b l e . 26 Another major a r e a of c o n c e r n r e s t s upon the f a c t t h a t the farmer l o s e s ownership o f h i s l a n d . Not o n l y must t h i s be weighed a g a i n s t the advan-tages of the program, but i t c o u l d a l s o be d e t r i m e n t a l t o the r u r a l commu-n i t y as a whole s i n c e i t s t i e s t o l a n d have been c o n s i d e r a b l y r e d uced. Furthermore, i t would be f u t i l e to expect h i g h l e y e l s of investment i n farm equipment on the p a r t of farmers who have now become t e n a n t s on the l a n d . On the whole, l a n d b a n k i n g can be j u s t i f i e d on the b a s i s t h a t i t c o u l d be the b e s t means a v a i l a b l e t o g o v e r n i n g b o d i e s to p r e s e r v e key ar e a s which are i n the p r o c e s s o f b e i n g l o s t t o a g r i c u l t u r e . IV. ANALYSIS OF TWO STATES USING DIFFERENT SYSTEMS''J A. The State of C a l i f o r n i a and the C a l i f o r n i a Land Conservation Act 1. D e s c r i p t i o n The C a l i f o r n i a Land Conservation Act (often r e f e r r e d to as the Williamson Act or CLCA) was enacted by the L e g i s l a t u r e of C a l i f o r n i a i n 1966. In i t s present s t r u c t u r e , the Williamson Act has three major obj e c t i v e s : (a) to preserve the l i m i t e d supply of a g r i c u l t u r a l land f o r the maintenance of the a g r i c u l t u r a l economy of the s t a t e and f o r the assurance of an adequate food supply f o r fut u r e r e s i d e n t s of the s t a t e and n a t i o n ; (b) to discourage the premature and unnecessary conversion of a g r i c u l t u r a l land to urban uses because urban sprawl increases the costs of community s e r v i c e s ; (c) to preserve lands i n a g r i c u l t u r a l production because they c o n s t i t u t e an important p h y s i c a l , s o c i a l , a e s t h e t i c and economic asset to e x i s t i n g or f u t u r e urban developments. In order to r e a l i z e these o b j e c t i v e s , CLCA au t h o r i z e s counties and c i t i e s to enter i n t o c o n t r a c t w i t h landowners i n which the l a t t e r agree to l i m i t the use of a g r i c u l t u r a l land to a g r i c u l t u r e or other compatible uses. To q u a l i f y , the land must meet c e r t a i n a g r i c u l t u r a l c r i t e r i a and be lo c a t e d w i t h i n an area designated by a c i t y or county as an a g r i c u l t u r a l preserve. The c o n t r a c t i s f o r a pe r i o d of no l e s s than ten years and i s renewed each year a u t o m a t i c a l l y f o r an a d d i t i o n a l year unless the landowner gives n o t i c e of non-renewal. In r e t u r n f o r the o b l i g a t i o n of r e s t r i c t i n g land 28 to a g r i c u l t u r a l use, the county or c i t y agrees to assess the land on the b a s i s of i t s use value r a t h e r than on that of i t s market value, thereby reducing property taxes. I f the county or c i t y or the landowner gives n o t i c e of non-renewal, the c o n t r a c t remains i n e f f e c t f o r the balance of the remaining p e r i o d . When the owner gives such n o t i c e , the assessed value of h i s land i s to be increased according to a complex formula enunciateddin the C a l i f o r n i a Revenue and Taxation Code (Section 426). During the f i r s t year, land i s assessed at approximately 60% of what i t would be i f i t was assessed on the b a s i s of i t s market value, g r a d u a l l y i n c r e a s i n g u n t i l , at the end of the runout p e r i o d , i t reaches f u l l assessed value which, i n C a l i f o r n i a , i s 25% of the market value. The owner may a l s o p e t i t i o n the board or c o u n c i l f o r c a n c e l l a t i o n of the c o n t r a c t . The board or c o u n c i l may approve the c a n c e l l a t i o n i f they deem that i t i s i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . The Act goes i n t o g r e a t e r 2 d e t a i l s by mentioning that an opportunity, f o r another use of the land as w e l l as the uneconomic character of the e x i s t i n g a g r i c u l t u r a l use should not be s u f f i c i e n t reason f o r the c a n c e l l a t i o n of a c o n t r a c t . A c a n c e l l a -t i o n fee, equal to 12.5% of the land's market value must be paid as de-f e r r e d taxes upon c a n c e l l a t i o n , unless a waiver i s obtained from the county board or c i t y c o u n c i l and approved by the Secretary of the State Resource Agency. In additon to the c a n c e l l a t i o n f e e , an amendment was made to the Act i n 1978 r e q u i r i n g the payment of a d d i t i o n a l ; d e f e r r e d taxes, which or any p o r t i o n thereof may a l s o be waived. These a d d i -t i o n a l taxes are based upon the number of years f o r which the land has been under co n t r a c t according to a complicated formula ( C a l i f o r n i a Government Code, Section 51283.1). The c a n c e l l a t i o n fee, however, should be subtracted from the a d d i t i o n a l deferred taxes. 29 So as to r e l i e v e school d i s t r i c t s and l o c a l government of the a d d i t i o n a l burden supported by them through a decrease i n property taxes due to the implementation of the A c t , the State of C a l i f o r n i a has estab-l i s h e d a subvention program which provides payments to p a r t i c i p a t i n g county and c i t y governments f o r a p a r t i a l recovery of the estimated decrease i n property taxes. At t h i s j u n c t u r e , o t h e r o p a r t i c u l a r i t i e s of the CLCA must be pointed out. F i r s t , a l l successors 'in i n t e r e s t of the owner are bound by the c o n t r a c t . Secondly, a c o n t r a c t between an owner and a county can be voided by a c i t y which wishes to annex any land w i t h i n one mile of such c i t y , at the time the c o n t r a c t was i n i t i a l l y executed. L i k e w i s e , a c i t y can p r o t e s t the forthcoming execution of a c o n t r a c t between a county and an owner, which includes land w i t h i n one mile of the e x t e r i o r boundaries of s a i d c i t y . 2. Advantages The C a l i f o r n i a Land Conservation Act has been a f i r s t step toward the p r e s e r v a t i o n of good a g r i c u l t u r a l land. By c r e a t i n g a statewide l e g a l s t r u c t u r e , i t has helped maintain the a g r i c u l t u r a l economy of the s t a t e . As s t a t e d by Schwartz, Hansen and F o i n (1975, p. 131): By i n c r e a s i n g current income, CLCA c o n t r a c t s could induce some landowners i n areas s u i t a b l e f o r development to farm t h e i r land much longer than they would otherwise. The CLCA would be viewed as having s u c c e s s f u l l y prevented ."premature conversion" on these lands ... Since the term of the c o n t r a c t i s ten years and longer, CLCA encourages the farmer to p l a n and i n v e s t i n t o a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s w i t h more c e r t a i n t y , and thus allows a greater s t a b i l i t y of land use. A l s o the f i n a n c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the State through subvention programs has expanded the base of f i n a n c i a l support r e c o g n i z i n g that the s t a t e , 30 as a whole, b e n e f i t s from the p r e s e r v a t i o n of a g r i c u l t u r a l land and open space. 3. Disadvantages Since the C a l i f o r n i a Land Conservation Act i s permissive l e g i s l a -t i o n , i t does not impose a duty on each c i t y and county having a general plan to implement the Act's p r o v i s i o n s . R e f e r r i n g back to the o b j e c t i v e s of the Act, as s t a t e d on page 27, i t i s worth a n a l y z i n g whether the CLCA has met i t s o b j e c t i v e s . To begin w i t h , i t should be pointed out that few owners of prime a g r i c u l t u r a l land have e n r o l l e d i n the program. Of theel5,000,000 acres under the program i n the 1976-77 f i s c a l year, only 4,557,000 acres were considered prime land - which represents about 30 percent of the t o t a l acreage e n r o l l e d and about 23 percent of the t o t a l potential;?prime a g r i c u l -t u r a l land acreage i n the State of C a l i f o r n i a (Regional Science Research I n s t i t u t e , 1977). This non-enrollment might e a s i l y be r e l a t e d to two main f a c t o r s : the a t t r a c t i o n of large c a p i t a l gains near growing c i t i e s and the i n s u f f i c i e n c y of adequate tax b e n e f i t s derived from the program. The l a t t e r stems from the f a c t that the more productive a p a r c e l of land i s , the higher i t s use value and, t h e r e f o r e , the smaller the property tax reduction ( t h i s i s d e a l t w i t h i n greater d e t a i l i n Section V). With respect to the former, Hansen and Schwartz (1975) have demonstrated through t h e i r research that development expectations were important i n the d e c i -s i o n to accept a CLCA c o n t r a c t . Our d e t a i l e d s p a t i a l a n a l y s i s c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s t h a t , w i t h few exceptions, CLCA p a r c e l s i n a l l three areas are l o c a t e d away from development a c t i v i t y - the h e a v i e s t enrollment being found i n the most d i s t a n t f o o t h i l l l o c a t i o n s . Much smaller average p a r c e l s i z e and acreage per owner f o r non-enrolled p a r c e l s were observed i n each study area. This r e s u l t could be a t t r i b u t e d to the greater development p o t e n t i a l of these p a r c e l s , since p a r c e l s i z e s were smaller c l o s e r to developing areas, (pp. 345-346) On the whole, there i s l i t t l e evidence that the Williamson Act has met what i t intended to'do. Indeed, i t has p a r t l y preserved the l i m i t e d supply of a g r i c u l t u r a l land and p a r t l y discouraged the premature and unnecessary conversion of a g r i c u l t u r a l land to urban uses. Another problem to be mentioned i s the c r e a t i o n of a v i c i o u s c i r c l e which seems to be b u i l t i n the s t r u c t u r e of the program. No doubt, the greater the l e v e l of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the program, the l e s s d e s i r a b l e f o r n o n - p a r t i c i p a n t s to enter i n t o c o n t r a c t . Sinceathescontract i s made on a voluntary b a s i s , one can argue that a landowner would be i n c l i n e d not to enter i n t o c o n t r a c t because of the i n c r e a s i n g p r o b a b i l i t y of development that i s r e l a t e d to a decrease i n the a v a i l a b i l i t y of land f o r development. This phenomenon can be viewed as a d i r e c t cause to urban sprawl: by l e a p -forgging e n r o l l e d lands, development may extend f a r beyond the route i t would normally have used without the program. A f u r t h e r weakness of the Williamson Act a r i s e s out of the r o l e of both the State and the county or c i t y i n the implementation of the program. Besides i t s r o l e of f i n a n c i n g part of the decrease i n property taxes, the State of C a l i f o r n i a does not p l a y any other r o l e . This had l e d to an i n c o n s i s t e n t implementation of the program throughout the s t a t e (as of 19.75, eleven of the 58 counties d i d not o f f e r i t at a l l ) , to a ' l a i s s e z f a i r e ' approach w i t h respect to timing and p a t t e r n of development, to an inadequate supply of i n c e n t i v e s to both the l o c a l governments and the landowner to get more land i n t o c o n t r a c t s , and to an i n a b i l i t y to d i f f e r -e n t i a t e between c l a s s e s of landholders. As reported by Goodenough (1978, p. 295): 32 F i n a l l y , d e s p i t e the o r i g i n a l i n t e n t of the a c t to b e n e f i t the s m a l l independent, d e d i c a t e d farmer f a c e d w i t h r i s i n g l a n d v a l u e s on prime l a n d n e a r the urban f r o n t i e r , the f a c t i s t h a t the t e n l a r g e s t b e n e f i c i a r i e s a r e v a s t c o r p o r a t i o n s o f t e n h o l d i n g non-prime l a n d i n l o c a t i o n s some d i s t a n c e from urban a r e a s . By the same token, the r o l e o f l o c a l governments has been l i m i t e d c o n s i d e r i n g the i n f l u e n c e t h a t they c o u l d have had on the d i r e c t i o n and depth of change. The l i m i t a t i o n stems from two r e l a t e d f a c t o r s : the f i r s t b e i n g r o o t e d i n the p e r p e t u a l b e l i e f by l o c a l government t h a t the expan-s i o n of the tax base might r e s o l v e any f i n a n c i a l problems w i t h which i t i s f a c e d , and the second, the l a c k of i n c e n t i v e s g i v e n to the l o c a l b o d i e s t o c a r r y out t h e i r d u t i e s i n an e f f i c i e n t and o r d e r l y manner. 4. C o n c l u s i o n s The S t a t e as w e l l as the county o r c i t y may have some c a r d s t o p l a y i n o r d e r t o solve-, 1 o r a t l e a s t , l e s s e n , the problems, weaknesses and d i f f i c u l t i e s e n c o untered b o t h i n the im p l e m e n t a t i o n st a g e and i n the c o n s e -quences o f the CLCA. In the f i r s t p l a c e , one can argue t h a t the S t a t e s h o u l d get much more i n v o l v e d i n the p r o c e s s . A l t h o u g h i t was t h e e i n i t i a t o r , i t s c o n t r o l o v e r the p r o c e s s and the m o n i t o r i n g a s s o c i a t e d w i t h i t has been d e f i c i e n t i n many r e s p e c t s . As we have seen e a r l i e r , i t d i d n o t a t a l l r e s o l v e the s t r u g g l e between t h e ^ p h y s i c a l growth of the S t a t e t o accommodate a growing p o p u l a t i o n , and the need t o p r e s e r v e a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d so as to f e e d t h i s p o p u l a t i o n . The s m a l l p r o p o r t i o n o f prime a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d near u r b a n i z e d a r e a s e n r o l l e d i n the program c o n f i r m s t h i s statement. The S t a t e ' s degree of involvement has a l s o t o be r e l a t e d t o the n o t i o n of e q u i t y . S i n c e the CLCA b e n e f i t s a l l p e o p l e i n the s t a t e as w e l l as p e o p l e who a r e f e d by the output of a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t y , the take over of the program's f i n a n c i a l l i a b i l i t y by the s t a t e s h o u l d i n v i t e : 7 l i t t l e r e b u t t a l . The c i t y o r county 33 would then be more i n c l i n e d to c o n t r a c t farmland and i t would a l s o be more eq u i t a b l e to counties which experience a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of a g r i c u l t u r a l land but a small tax base. B. The Province of B r i t i s h Columbia and the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission  Act 1. D e s c r i p t i o n In 1973, the L e g i s l a t u r e of B r i t i s h Columbia enacted the Land Com-mission A c t , which empowered a p r o v i n c i a l commission to designate l a n d , i n c l u d i n g Crown land, s u i t a b l e f o r farm use and to e s t a b l i s h a g r i c u l t u r a l land reserves (ALRs) throughout the province. At the outset, the A g r i c u l -t u r a l Land Commission had four major o b j e c t i v e s : (a) to preserve a g r i c u l t u r a l land f o r farm use; (b) to preserve greenbelt land i n and around urban areas; (c) to preserve land banks f o r urban and i n d u s t r i a l development; (d) to preserve parkland f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l use (Land Commission  Act , S e c t i o n 7 ( 1 ) ) . However, i n 1977, the Act was amended to apply only to a g r i c u l t u r a l land and the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission's o b j e c t i v e s were narrowed down and now, read as f o l l o w s : (a) preserve a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d ; (b) encourage, the establishment, maintenance and p r e s e r v a t i o n of farms, and encourage uses of land i n an a g r i c u l t u r a l land reserve compatible w i t h a g r i c u l t u r a l purposes; and (c) advise and a s s i s t m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t s i n the preparationf.arid production of land reserve plans. In order to c a r r y out i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , the Commission was given zoning and r e g u l a t o r y powers. The c r e a t i o n of a g r i c u l t u r a l land reserves was done through the involvement of r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t s . Each of the 28 34 r e g i o n a l d d i s t r i c t s was given the duty of i d e n t i f y i n g , d i s c u s s i n g and des i g n a t i n g an a g r i c u l t u r a l land reserve w i t h i n i t s boundaries, w i t h the advice and f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e of the Commission. The l a t t e r c ould amend the plan i f necessary, and had to submit i t to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council f o r approval, a f t e r having h e l d a p u b l i c hearing. The a g r i c u l t u r a l land reserves were designated on a s c i e n t i f i c ba-s i s u s i n g the Canada Land Inventory (CLI). The CLI provides b a s i c informa-t i o n i n terms of c a p a b i l i t y of the s o i l s f o r a v a r i e t y of p o s s i b l e uses. I t c l a s s i f i e s a r a b l e land throughout B r i t i s h Columbia i n t o seven c l a s s e s , according to t h e i r p o t e n t i a l f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l use, with the highest rated s o i l s designated as Class 1; the f i r s t three c l a s s e s arecconsidered f i t f o r sustained production of commonly c u l t i v a t e d crops; the f o u r t h i s marginal f o r sustained a r a b l e c u l t u r e ; the f i f t h and s i x t h are s u i t a b l e f o r hay or improved pasture and f o r grazing r e s p e c t i v e l y , and the seventh c l a s s i s u n s u i t a b l e f o r a g r i c u l t u r e . As reported by Manning and Eddy (1978, pp. 13-14), the a g r i c u l t u r a l land reserves were designated according to the f o l l o w i n g method: 1. A l l c l a s s 1 to 4 Canada Land Inventory land that was not i r r e v e r s i b l y developed, regardless of ownership or tenure, was included i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves; 2. S u f f i c i e n t land was excluded from A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves to a l l o w f o r roughly f i v e years growth of urban areas i f n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l land was not immediately a v a i l a b l e f o r urban expansion; 3. Land of lower a g r i c u l t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y ( classes 5 and 6) was included i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves where h i s t o r i c a l land use patterns i n d i c a t e d that such land could be e f f e c t i v e l y used f o r a g r i c u l t u r e i n conjunction w i t h the c l a s s 1 to44 lands; 4. Small pockets of n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l lands ( c l a s s 7) were included i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves wherever e x c l u s i o n of such land might a l l o w undesirable i n t r u s i o n of incompatible uses i n an area of predominantly a g r i c u l t u r a l use. 35 Land uses w i t h i n the ALRs are regulated by the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission as determined by the Act and the r e g u l a t i o n s . Besides the use of land as farm land, c e r t a i n non-farm a c t i v i t i e s can be allowed w i t h i n the ALRs. B.C. Regulation 93/75 e s t a b l i s h e d two c a t e g o r i e s of uses, namely: o u t r i g h t uses and c o n d i t i o n a l uses. The former includes accessory b u i l d i n g s and s t r u c t u r e s necessary f o r farm use, e c o l o g i c a l reserves and p u b l i c parks, g o l f courses, and the l i k e . The l a t t e r i s permitted i f , i n the o p i n i o n of the Commission, the proposed use and manner of development thereof do not m a t e r i a l l y reduce the f u t u r e a g r i c u l t u r a l p o t e n t i a l of the land, or i s i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . This includes the processing of a g r i -c u l t u r a l products, a d d i t i o n a l d w e l l i n g u n i t s and b u i l d i n g s f o r j o i n t tenants or tenants i n common, e l e c t r i c a l t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e s and u t i l i t y i n s t a l l a t i o n s , trunk sewer and trunk water l i n e s , s a n i t a r y land f i l l s , open land r e c r e a t i o n uses, g r a v e l p i t s over two acres i n area, schools and other p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s , or the l i k e . Since the Act does not apply to land of l e s s than two acres i n area, the Commission a l s o has to deal w i t h s u b d i v i s i o n of land w i t h i n the reserves i n order to impede both the r e d u c t i o n of options f o r crop production and the increase of the pressures upon e x i s t i n g adjacent commercial farm operations ( B r i t i s h Columbia A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission, 1978). In June of 1978, the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission adopted new g u i d e l i n e s w i t h respect to homesite severance. But, i n order to provide an opportunity f o r r e t i r i n g farmers to subdivide from the farm a r e t i r e -ment homesite when t h e i r land would be s o l d , the Commission has developed s p e c i f i c s t i p u l a t i o n s so as to r e s t r a i n the new program from being abused. In i t s present s t r u c t u r e , the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission has to administer the S o i l Conservation Act (1977) which s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o h i b i t s the removal of t o p s o i l from, i n c l u d i n g the placement of f i l l on lands 36 w i t h i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves. Furthermore, of the myriad of st a t u t e s enacted by the L e g i s l a t u r e of B r i t i s h Columbia since i t s b i r t h , the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act i s subject only to the Environment and Land Use Act and the P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l Act. Nor can any M i n i s t e r , M i n i s t r y of Government, or agent of the Crown e x e r c i s e any power granted under any other Act or r e g u l a t i o n i f i t contravenes the e x e r c i s e of any power granted under the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act. On the other hand, the Act does not have any l e g a l c o n s t r a i n t s whatsoever on f e d e r a l a c t i v i t i e s concerning land uses i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission has to deal w i t h a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r i n c l u s i o n or e x c l u s i o n of land fromtthe A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves. The procedures are s p e l l e d out i n Se c t i o n 9 of the Act. Subsection 9(1) allows f o r a m u n i c i p a l i t y , r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t , the Commission or Cabinet i t s e l f to s o l i c i t the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council f o r an exclusion-^of land from the ALR. Through subsection 9 ( 2 ) , an owner of land aggrieved by a d e s i g n a t i o n by the Commission of h i s land as pa r t of a reserve, may apply to the Commission to have i t excluded from the ALR and, r.if t t n i s a p p l i c a t i o n does not come about, the land owner may appeal to the En v i r o n -ment and Land Use Committee (ELUC) i f leave of appeal i s granted e i t h e r by any two members (out of seven) of the Commission or by the M i n i s t e r of Environment. There are no p r o v i s i o n s i n the Act a l l o w i n g the landowners i n -cluded i n an A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve to be compensated f o r the l o s s of value a r i s i n g from the l i m i t a t i o n s imposed upon development by the Act. Section 16 of the Act e x p l i c i t l y deals w i t h t h i s matter by s t a t i n g that land i s not being taken, or i n j u r i o u s l y a f f e c t e d by reason of the designa-t i o n by the Commission of that land as an a g r i c u l t u r a l land reserve. As i t i s put by G.G. Pearson (1975, p. 70): 37 In f a c t , there i s no b a s i s i n law f o r compensating i n d i v i d u a l s f o r perceived l o s s e s due to zoning. To recognize the p r i n c i p l e of compensation i n zoning mat-t e r s would create an impossible f i n a n c i a l burden f o r tax payers. However, subsection 26(3) of the Assessment Act (S.B.C. 1974, c. 6) allows farmland to be assessed at i t s a c t u a l value as a farm without regard to i t s value f o r other purposes, but the improvements on the farm have to be assessed at the percentage of a c t u a l value set by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. This r a t e was f i x e d at ten percent i n 1980. (B.C. Regulation 463/79). 2. Advantages The A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act has proved to be c l e a r l y e f f e c t i v e i n preventing land use change w i t h the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves. I t has i n f l u e n c e d p o s i t i v e l y the l e v e l of farmland s i z e as w e l l as of c a p i t a l investment i n a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t y , and lessened the spread of urban sprawl. These b e n e f i t s w i t h regard to p r e s e r v a t i o n of a g r i c u l t u r a l land stem from s e v e r a l f a c t o r s . As st a t e d by Runka (1975, p. 21), the use of an independent commission as a v e h i c l e to implement land use c o n t r o l s i s an important f a c t o r of success: By nature they [commissions] can be f l e x i b l e enough to give a sympathetic ear to l o c a l concerns while at the same time consider how a p a r t i c u l a r land use a c t i o n 2 f i t s i n w i t h a r e g i o n a l or p r o v i n c i a l p l a n . ... An independent commission can t r e a t p r i v a t e and p u b l i c i n t e r e s t without b i a s . But i n order- to becsuccessful a commission must have broad powers; i t must a l s o be able to balance conservation;;with e s s e n t i a l develop-ment and e c o l o g i c a l p r i n c i p l e s w i t h economic, s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l r e a l i t i e s . 38 A second f a c t o r c o n t r i b u t i n g to i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s has been the compulsory p r o v i s i o n b u i l t i n t o the Act which, i n t u r n , has had s e v e r a l side e f f e c t s . As of January, 1979, 11,647,980 1 acres have been included i n an A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve throughout B r i t i s h Columbia. As shown i n Table 1, 67.88% of the t o t a l acreage a v a i l a b l e i n Classes 1 to 4 i s i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve. With respect to side e f f e c t s , i t can be argued that the A g r i -c u l t u r a l Land Reserves have f o s t e r e d the development of land w i t h i n a l t e a . ready developed areas, through the i n - f i l l i n g of vacant l o t s and/or the increase i n p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y . The consequence has been a more compre-hensive and i n t e g r a t e d land use planning and thus, the constant improve-ment i n the p r o v i s i o n of municipal s e r v i c e s i n urban areas. Another f a c t o r d i r e c t l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the Act has been the harmonization of d e c i s i o n making process r e l a t e d to land uses at each l e v e l of government. Indeed by i n t e g r a t i n g l o c a l governing bodies i n the implementation stage of the process, as w e l l as i n the monitoring and appeal process, the Act has insured the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of every community at each stage of the process. I t a l s o seems that r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t s have had an educating r o l e to p l a y by e x p l a i n i n g ALRs and the procedures of the Commission to the general p u b l i c and have c o n t r i b u t e d to the general a c c e p t a b i l i t y of the s t a t u t e . Another p o s i t i v e f e a t u r e of the scheme l i e s i n the f a c t that the Land Commission Act has p r i o r i t y over the p r o v i n c i a l s t a t u t e s . As pointed out by Baxter (1974,/p. 18): This f i g u r e d i f f e r s from the one shown i n Table 1 because the d i v i s i o n of acreage i n ALR i n t o c l a s s e s was not a v a i l a b l e from the A g r i -c u l t u r a l Land Commission. The study had then to r e l y on the f i g u r e s provided by the S e l e c t Standing Committee on A g r i c u l t u r e . 39 TABLE 1 - COMPARISON OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE ALR AND TOTAL AGRICULTURAL LAND BY CLASS A g r i c u l t u r a l Land C a p a b i l i t y Class Land d i s t r i b u t i o n i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve ( i n Acres) ( 1) Land D i s t r i b u t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia (Improved) ( 2) ( 3) Land i n ALR as a Percentage of T o t a l Land i n B r i t i s h Columbia 1 T o t a l 130,765 714,272 1,710,154 3,481,837 3,627,675 1,066,385 413,991 11,145,099 172,840 982,673 2,470,418 5,267,772 15,167,517 13,329,190 36,818,812 74,209,222 75.66% 72.69% 69.23% 66.10% 23.92% 8.00% 1.12% 15.02% Class 1 - 4 Land i n ALR as a Percentage of T o t a l Class 1 - 4 Land i n B r i t i s h Columbia Class 1 - 4 Land i n ALR as a Percentage of T o t a l Land i n ALR 6,037,028 8,893,703 6,037,028 11,145,099 67.88% 54.17% ( 1) Source: S&ect Standing Committee on A g r i c u l t u r e (1978). ( 2) Improved land means land on which i r r i g a t i o n and/or drainage improvements could be made. I t does not i n d i c a t e , however, whether or not such improvements e x i s t at present. ( 3) Source: B.C. Environment and Land Use Committee S e c r e t a r i a t (1976) 40 ... the Commission i s i n a good n e g o t i a t i n g p o s i t i o n i n di s c u s s i o n s of the a c t i v i t i e s of various departments as they r e l a t e to farmlands. Before any new development by another p r o v i n c i a l agency i s commenced, t h e i r plans w i l l be vet t e d by the Commission. This w i l l enable the Commission to ensure that a l l reasonable a l t e r n a t i v e s are explored before a g r i c u l t u r a l land i s a l i e n a t e d f o r such purposes, and that the negative impact of these developments on a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i v i t y are minimized. Moreover, by amalgamating the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of both the A g r i -c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act and the S o i l Conservation A c t , the B.C. L e g i s l a t u r e has allowed a b e t t e r i n t e g r a t i o n of a g r i c u l t u r a l land r e g u l a -t i o n s since these Acts are c l o s e l y associated w i t h each other. The use of CLI c l a s s i f i c a t i o n has permitted a b e t t e r acceptance of the Act since i t i s based on s c i e n t i f i c grounds ra t h e r than on a r b i t r a r y zoning p r a c t i c e s . F i n a l l y the e x c l u s i o n of s u f f i c i e n t land to a l l o w f o r about f i v e years growth of urban areas has a l l o c a t e d r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t s and m u n i c i p a l i t i e s reasonable time to reformulate a land use stra t e g y t a k i n g i n t o account the new terms of reference s p e l l e d out by the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission. This advantage] however, has to be q u a l i f i e d based on the recent study conducted by Manning and McCuaig (1977). Indeed, they discovered that 53.5% of Canada's Class 1 land i s lo c a t e d w i t h i n a050.:'.mile radius of Census M e t r o p o l i t a n Areas (CMAs). This a l s o a p p l i e s to 28.6% of Canada's Class 2 l a n d , and n e a r l y 20% of i t s Class 3. Although V i c t o r i a and Vancouver CMAs^were not included i n the study, the authors st a t e d that t h e i r omission d i d not a f f e c t the f i g u r e s s i g n i f i c a n t l y . One might argue t h e r e f o r e that the e x c l u s i o n of land f o r short-term growth could have somewhat a f f e c t e d B.C.'s prime a g r i c u l t u r a l land inventory. 3, Disadvantages A number of inherent disadvantages or weaknesses have been r e l a t e d to the procedure u t i l i z e d by the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission as w e l l as 41 to the consequences of c e r t a i n s e c t i o n s of the Act i t s e l f , e s p e c i a l l y w i t h respect to the appeal procedure. Apart from the land e i t h e r already being assessed as farmland or zoned f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l or farm use under a'.by-law of a m u n i c i p a l i t y or r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t , the use of the Canada Land Inventory c l a s s i f i c a t i o n as the sole base f o r e v a l u a t i o n of land to be incorporated i n t o the A g r i c u l -t u r a l Land Reserve has been c r i t i c i z e d on s e v e r a l gounds. F i r s t of a l l , since CLI c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i t s e l f i s mainly based on s o i l c a p a b i l i t i e s , i t does rot take i n t o account a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s such as chicken coops, mink farms and p i g g e r i e s which are not s o i l bound. Secondly, the a g r i c u l -t u r a l c a p a b i l i t y r a t i n g i s based on common f i e l d crop of the region and thus does not take i n t o account that some land, a l b e i t poorly r a t e d , can be very productive f o r c e r t a i n s p e c i a l t y crops, such as tobacco and b l u e -b e r r i e s . However, through the f i n e - t u n i n g of ALR boundaries which i s being c a r r i e d out, the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission has committed i t s e l f to s o l v i n g the CLI c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s shortcomings. A f u r t h e r disadvantage which, r e c e n t l y , has been h e a v i l y commented upon, i s the a b i l i t y of i n d i v i d u a l s to apply f o r e x c l u s i o n . Since the 1977 amendment to the Act which allowed the unsuccessful a p p l i c a n t f o r land e x c l u s i o n to use the a l t e r n a t e route of the Environment M i n i s t e r to appeal to ELUC, there has been an i n c r e a s i n g number of appeals f o r e x c l u -s i o n which have been processed through the aforementioned M i n i s t e r . This has r e s u l t e d i n the removal of more acres of farmland from the A g r i c u l -t u r a l Land Reserve. In the next s e c t i o n , an attempt i s made to r e s o l v e that problem, or at l e a s t make the e x c l u s i o n of a g r i c u l t u r a l land from the ALR l e s s a t t r a c t i v e . S i m i l a r l y , paragraph 9( ;l)(b) of the Act can, i n s e v e r a l cases, weaken the object of the Act i f i t i s over- or misused by the B.C. Cabinet. 42 Krueger (1977, p. 129), i n e f f e c t , s t a t e d t h a t : . . . the greatest p o t e n t i a l weakness of the Land Commission Act would appear to be the great d i s c r e t i o n a r y powers of the Cabinet of the p r o v i n c i a l government. The Cabinet may exclude land from an A g r i c u l t u r a l Reserve without a p u b l i c hearing, without approval of the Commission, and without a p p l i c a t i o n from a l o c a l government. I f a Cabinet were to change i t s view concernig the d e s i r a b i l i t y of pre s e r v i n g a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d , the whole i n t e n t of the Land Commission Act could be undermined. F i n a l l y , although the Commission has allowed only s u b d i v i s i o n and use of lands which were considered compatible w i t h a g r i c u l t u r e , i t might have a negative impact on farm v i a b i l i t y i n the long-run. For in s t a n c e , hobby farming does not preclude a g r i c u l t u r a l p o t e n t i a l of land since the land remains i n t a c t or may be very productive under intense c u l t i v a t i o n . I t does, however, c o n t r i b u t e to fragmenting the a g r i c u l t u r a l land i n t o u n i t s too small to be commercially productive and a l s o does not support the l o c a l l y a g r i c u l t u r a l i n f r a s t r u c t u r e , which w i l l be r e q u i r e d ' t o r e t u r n the land to commercial production. Another aspect of the problem i s pre-sented by Manning and McCuaig (1975, p. 9): "Disuse or misuse of land may r e s u l t i n p h y s i c a l or chemical damage to s o i l s : a common example i s s o i l e r o s i o n due to la c k of maintenance." L i k e w i s e , the Act i t s e l f has been conducive to disuse of farmland i n some cases. Since i t would have been expensive and u n p r o f i t a b l e f o r a developer who had purchased land at s p e c u l a t i v e p r i c e s f o r development purposes, to convert the land back i n t o farming i n terms of c a p i t a l and operating costs or even i n terms of i n s i g -n i f i c a n t f i n a n c i a l returns from l e a s i n g out the land, the land has been l e f t i d l e i n s e v e r a l areas of the province. 4. Conclusions The way i n which the Land Commission Act has been c a r r i e d out has proved to be very e f f e c t i v e . The Act's e f f e c t i v e n e s s can be confirmed by 43 l o o k i n g as to whether or not i t has reached i t s intended goal of p r e s e r v i n g a g r i c u l t u r a l land. Since most of the prime a g r i c u l t u r a l land i s now i n -cluded i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve (see Table 1), one could argue that B r i t i s h Columbia has taken the r i g h t a c t i o n to meet fu t u r e requirements of food and r e l a t e d i s s u e s . Although the p r e s e r v a t i o n of a g r i c u l t u r a l land i n i t s e l f does not l a y f o o d s t u f f s on one's t a b l e , i t has brought s t a b i l i t y f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l decision-making. TThe r e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of some of the land use c o n t r o l s has l e d to a more comprehensive land use planning. Manning and Eddy (1978, p. 99) put i t t h i s way: A major p o s i t i v e e f f e c t of the ALRs has been an i n f l u -ence upon municipal and r e g i o n a l planning. The ALR zoning i s now used as a g u i d e l i n e by planners i n the o v e r a l l p lanning process. In many r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t s and munici-p a l i t i e s , the ALRs have been used as a j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r comprehensive zoning or as a scapegoat f o r t h e i r a c t i o n s . Since 1972, ALR boundaries have been used as parameters i n a l l r e g i o n a l planning. C. Comparison of C a l i f o r n i a and B r i t i s h Columbia Approaches Although the State of C a l i f o r n i a and the Province of B r i t i s h Colum-b i a had the same i n t e n t when enacting a piece of l e g i s l a t i o n , namely the p r e s e r v a t i o n of a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d , t h e i r approach has been q u i t e d i f f e r e n t . Table 2 shows the major p a r t i c u l a r i t i e s of both A c t s . TheeWilliamson Act has come out w i t h a wider range of land uses to be protected than i t s Canadian counterpart, although, at the outset, they both had a s i m i l a r range of land uses. But i n 1977, i t was u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y r e a l i z e d that the objects of the B.C. Act had to be narrowed down so as to be i n a p o s i t i o n to achieve the Act's main aim. Indeed, the d i r e c t i o n of e f f o r t toward too l a r g e a scope would have jeopardized the e f f e c t of the Act on a g r i c u l t u r a l land. Although the previous o b j e c t i v e s were compatible w i t h a g r i c u l t u r a l land i n terms of the p o s s i b i l i t y of conversion or TABLE 2 - COMPARISON OF CALIFORNIA AND BRITISH COLUMBIA ACTS Cal i f o r n ia Land Conservation Act »r it ish Co Iumfa j.a -^_g|_ c u l t : u^al Land Commission Act To preserve a g r i c u l t u r a l land Land devoted to a g r i c u l t u r a l use recreational use open space use 1 . Intent, of the Act 2. Land to be protected 3. Type of agreement 4. Term of agreement 5. Instrument of implementation Counties or c i t i e s 6. Types of tenure included Private ownership 7. Role of the State To preserve a g r i c u l t u r a l land Land suitable for a g r i c u l t u r a l use Voluntary non-statutory agreement Staturoty zoning. No less than ten years Permanent Pro v i n c i a l Commission Private and public ownership I n i t i a t o r and f i n a n c i a l supporter I n i t i a t o r and consenter 10. Role of the P r o v i n c i a l Commission Role of County or Regional D i s t r i c t Role of the C i t y or Municipality 11. Form of compensation 12. Public cost 13. Private cost 14. Methods of exclusion 15. Effect ivene s s 5 A . Number of acres i n the program B. Prime a g r i c u l t u r a l land under the program C. Total potential prime a g r i -c u l t u r a l land inventory (Classes 1 and 2) D. Percentage of prime land enrolled in comparison to t o t a l potential prime J and. Non applicable . Executor Executor but at a lesser extent than county since most land is outside c i t y boundaries Preferential assessment Loss of property tax revenues Loss of opportunity for the term of agreement 1. Notice of non-renewal 2. P e t i t i o n for cancellation of contract 15,017,000 acres (1976/77) 1 4,557,000 acres 1 20,300,000 acres 3 22.45% Executor F u l l participant i n the process Participant in the process but at a lesser extent than Regional D i s t r i c t None but notwithstanding the Act p r e f e r e n t i a l assessment is-available Implementation of reserves Loss of opportunity 1. Application by the Commission, Regional D i s t r i c t or Municipal-i t y to Cabinet 2. Application by individuals to the Commission. I f d i s s a t i s f i e d - appeal to ELUC Conditions: Leave to appeal granted by (a) two commissioners or (b) Minister of Environment 11,145,099 acres (1978) 2 844,977 acres 2 1,155,513 acres'* 73.13% SOURCES: 1Regional Science Research Institute, 1977. 2B.C. Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, 1978. C a l i f o r n i a O f f i c e of Planning and Research, 1974. UB.C. Environment and Land Use Committee Secretariat, 1976. F o o t n o t e 5 A decrease in the rate of conversion from a g r i c u l t u r a l land use to other uses would have been a better c r i t e r i o n to compare the effectiveness of both Acts, but data were not available in this respect. 45 reconversion to farm use when needed, s e v e r a l minor land use c o n f l i c t s were l a t e n t . The type of agreement has s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e d the e f f e c t of both A c t s . The voluntary type of agreement i n C a l i f o r n i a has not prevented the conversion of a g r i c u l t u r a l land to other land uses. For the s t a t e as a whole, the C a l i f o r n i a O f f i c e of Planning and Research (1974) has p r o j e c t e d the magnitude of conversion of the best a g r i c u l t u r a l land between 1970 and 1985 to run to about 41,380 acres per year. A l l land i n s o i l c a p a b i l i t y Classes 1 and 2 (which i s l a r g e l y i r r i g a t e d ) and other croplands are i n -cluded t h e r e i n . As mentioned i n t h i s study on page 30, the Act has not prevented landowners from s e l l i n g land r i p e f o r development i n urban f r i n g e areas. The s p e c u l a t i v e goal has predominated over the p r e s e r v a t i o n goal and, consequently, many landowners have d e c l i n e d to enter the v o l u n t a r y program. B r i t i s h Columbia has had the b e t t e r record thus f a r . As of J u l y 1978, 71,749 acres had been included i n the ALR since d e s i g n a t i o n , and 68,774 acres excluded, g i v i n g a net p o s i t i v e r e s u l t of 2,975 acres. F u r t h e r -more, n e a r l y 74% of B.C.'s prime farmland (Classes 1 and 2) are included i n the ALR while C a l i f o r n i a ' s performance i s q u i t e lower at 23%. The question of tenure has a l s o to be c l o s e l y considered. Since CLCA deals only w i t h p r i v a t e land ownership, a l a r g e chunk of land has been l e f t a s i d e . As reported by the C a l i f o r n i a Land Use Task Force (1975), government owned land amounts to 50.2% of the land area i n C a l i f o r n i a , or 50,335,945 acres. Although much of t h i s land (89.9%> i s owned by the f e d e r a l government through the U.S. Forest S e r v i c e , the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Defense, one could argue that agreements of some ki n d might be undertaken so that t h i s land or the remaining 5,084,909 acres owned by other p u b l i c agencies and s u i t a b l e f o r a g r i c u l t u r e be preserved as farmland. In c o n t r a s t , the B.C. l e g i s l a t i o n has included Crown lands i n 46 the d e f i n i t i o n of l a n d t o be r e s e r v e d f o r farm use. T h i s has a l l o w e d t h e Commission t o make sure t h a t Crown l a n d does not i n t e r f e r e i n the d e c i s i o n -making p r o c e s s . F o r i n s t a n c e , c o n f l i c t i n g p o l i c i e s and p r o j e c t s between the Commission and say, the Department of Highways c o u l d have r e s u l t e d i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n of a new h i g h w a y a e u t t i n g a c r o s s prime f a r m l a n d i n a p a r t i c u l a r a r e a . On the whole, the B.C. A c t has c l e a r l y demonstrated i t s s u p e r i o r i t y o ver i t s C a l i f o r n i a c o u n t e r p a r t . N o n e t h e l e s s , b o t h approaches have p e r m i t -ted the s a f e g u a r d of a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d i n i t s o r i g i n a l form. However, whereas C a l i f o r n i a has adopted to p r e s e r v e f a r m l a n d through the implementa-t i o n o f i n d i r e c t and f l e x i b l e measures, such as p r e f e r e n t i a l assessments and v o l u n t a r y agreements, B r i t i s h Columbia has opted f o r a d i r e c t and r e l a t i v e l y i n f l e x i b l e measure such as z o n i n g . In B r i t i s h Columbia, the s o c i e t y as a whole through the S t a t e has d e c i d e d to f o r g o immediate g r a t i f i -c a t i o n f o r the sake o f f u t u r e g a i n s . In C a l i f o r n i a , t h e p r i o r i t y of p r i v a t e i n t e r e s t s o v e r p u b l i c i n t e r e s t s t i l l i s of paramount importance. 47 V. CONCLUSIONS The study has shown the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f v a r i o u s methods h a v i n g d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t s upon the p r e s e r v a t i o n of a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d . I t has a l s o a n a l y z e d and compared the e f f i c i e n c y o f two methods - one u s i n g compensation, the o t h e r r e g u l a t i o n , as the main means of a c h i e v i n g i n t e n d e d g o a l s . The r e m a i n i n g p a r t of the study i s devoted t o : (A) a comparison of the d i f f e r e n t methods a n a l y z e d i n the study, (B) a few recommendations i n an attempt to improve the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the B.C. A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission A c t , and (C) a d i s c u s s i o n about the pros and cons of the r e g u l a t o r y system and of the compensatory system, s t r e s s i n g the case f o r an expanded use of a c e n t r a l body r e g u l a t i n g a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d u s e s . A. Comparison of Methods A n a l y z e d i n the Study A comparison of methods considered'-;in t h i s study i s shown i n T a b l e 3, i n which i s summarized the comparative advantages of each method i n terms of b o t h f i n a n c i a l p u b l i c and p r i v a t e c o s t s , i t s a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s to the l e v e l of u r b a n i z a t i o n e x p e r i e n c e d i n a p a r t i c u l a r r e g i o n , the ease and terms of i m p l e m e n t a t i o n , and the e f f e c t on landowners as to whether they a r e e i t h e r compensated o r p e n a l i z e d . S o c i a l c o s t s and b e n e f i t s have been l e f t out d e l i b e r a t e l y due t o the extreme d i f f i c u l t y o f e v a l u a t i n g them w i t h o u t any determined parameters such as knowledge of the r e g i o n 48 TABLE 3. COMPARISON OF METHODS FOR PRESERVING AGRICULTURAL I.AND Methods/ Main Purpose C'haracceristice 1 Minimum Lot To keep people away zoning from any potential development Main Advantage Main Shortcoming Finaneial Coste Public Private Tc buy time 4 hin- It increases tota der premature da- farm area used up velopment by developed lots i Low Low Most Appro- Ease o' priate Area Jmpleaentation Rural area Easy Terra of * Compensates Penalizes Implementation Landowner Landowner Short term No Yss 2 Exclusive A- Maximum protection gricultural of agricultural zoning land 3 Agricultural Protection of prime Districting agricultural land 4 Maximum Den- To place a limit on sicy zoning non-farm develop-ment To meet future con- Landholders lose Burners' demands & development value needs for fcolstuffs of their land Same as 2+land un-Establishment of suitable for agri- c r i t e r i a for de-culture l«ft out aignation Landholders can Establishment of s e l l off a parcel density of their land Loss of Low opportu-nity Loss of Moderate opportu-nity Low Low Rural and developing areas Prime Agri-cultural land area Rural and developing areas Easy D i f f i c u l t Long terra No Easy Long term No Yes long term No Yes 5 -Utility Ex-tension re-gulat ion 6 Easements To develop BervLed areas before non-serviced areas To encourage far-mers to continue farming 7 Compensable Same as 6 regulation To control growth Limited to the Urban in urban fringe urban fringe Low None Fringe Easy area area Area Adaptable to the Financing Rural and agricultural vaLes High None developing D i f f i c u l t to be orotected areas To provide eompan- Rural and eation for property Financing High None developing D i f f i c u l t value losses area Short and me-dium terra No Yes Long terns Yes Long terui Yes So 8 Expropriation Protection of land Efficiency in pre- Administration 5 serving agricul- maintenance of tural land public land High None Rural area Easy Long tera Yes 9 Stewardship To raise basic levels of mainte-nance To stimulate a To set standards more productive for minimum use of land maintenance Moderate Moderate to high Rural area D i f f i c u l t Short or radium term No Yes 10 Preferential To relieve the far-Assessment mer of property tax To encourage far- It doea not i n f l u -mers to keep their ence the pattern land in agricul-tural use of develoonient None Developing Area . Eas" Helium term Yes No 11 Deferred Property Tax To recover taxes when agricultural land is converted to unqualified use 12 Restrictive To restrict the Agreements, use of land to agriculture for a given period of time To add an element of equity into preferential assessment To prevent pre-mature conver-sion of farm-land Minimal impact on farmer's decision to s e l l his land Low Inadequate bene-f i t s to landowners entering the program Penalty i f any Low Penalty Developing Area Developing area Reasonable Reasonable Medium terra Medium or long term Yes No 13 Transfer • To influence the of develop- pattern of dsve-ment rights loptnent 14 Purchase of To retain agri-Land through cultural land 4 land trust in i t s present use To compensate farm-Creation of a. land owners v h i l * market for deve-kecping thera in farming To compensate landowners lopaient rights Financing High None None Urban Fringe Area developing Areas Dif f i c u l t Reasonable Long terra 5*ong terw Yes * Short term: Medium term: Long term: Less than two years Two to six yearn More than six years 49 i n which the method i s to be implemented. I t does not mean, however, that s o c i a l costs and b e n e f i t s do not have to be taken i n t o account. Indeed, th they must be c l o s e l y considered before the implementation of any technique takes p l a c e . However, the e v a l u a t i o n of s o c i a l costs and b e n e f i t s i n terms of money value o f t e n proves to be extremely d i f f i c u l t . For instance, what monetary value can be placed on an a c t i v e l y farmed piece of land which a l s o provides open space and a e s t h e t i c amenities, and acts as an e c o l o g i c a l r e -serve? What monetary value can be placed on the s o c i a l costs of urban sprawl as a whole? These s o c i a l costs and b e n e f i t s have to be weighed against the economic values r e s u l t i n g from a r e s i d e n t i a l or i n d u s t r i a l development. The study could have used other ways of comparing methods such as u t i l i z i n g a weighing system i n order to evaluate the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n terms of t h e i r degree of importance. But i t was f e l t i t would have imp l i e d too much of a degree of u n c e r t a i n t y and b i a s due to the s u b j e c t i v e value system on which the method of e v a l u a t i o n would have been based. In developing a stra t e g y using a set of methods or a p a r t i c u l a r one to c o n t r o l land uses, i t must be borne i n mind that some methods are more e f f e c t i v e or acceptable under c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s than others. Both compen-satory and r e g u l a t o r y methods must be t a i l o r e d to the p a r t i c u l a r needs of each region or province to preserve a g r i c u l t u r a l land. Land use c o n t r o l techniques must a l s o be chosen i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the degree of urban pressure which a f f e c t s the conversion of a g r i c u l t u r a l land to urban deve-lopment. Each method has d i f f e r e n t degrees of governmental i n t e r v e n t i o n , and p o l i t i c a l and p u b l i c a c c e p t a b i l i t y . Their e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n a t t a i n i n g stated o b j e c t i v e s of pre s e r v i n g farmland a l s o d i f f e r s . Although i t i s up 50 to the d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s t o weigh the need f o r more development a g a i n s t t h a t f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d , and to make use of the d i f f e r e n t t o o l s and t e c h n i q u e s t o s u i t the s o c i a l , economic, p o l i t i c a l and e n v i r o n m e n t a l needs and v a l u e s of t h e i r p e o p l e , they must be guided i n the e v a l u a t i o n o f f a c t o r s i n f l u -e n c i n g the d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o c e s s . S i n c e a g r e a t d e a l of the e v a l u a t i o n p r o c e s s i m p l i e d i n the s e l e c t i o n o f t e c h n i q u e s ought t o be concerned w i t h the f u t u r e , i t must be kept i n mind t h a t a c o n s e r v a t i v e approach appears to he the most a c c e p t a b l e . Inasmuch as the e v a l u a t i o n o f f u t u r e needs w i t h r e s p e c t t o a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d f a c e s many unknowns, the o p t i o n s must be ke p t open. T h i s i s a f a c t o r , among o t h e r s , which l e a d s the study to argue t h a t , i n most c a s e s , the need f o r p r e s e r v i n g a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d must be taken f o r g r a n t e d . A p a r t from economic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s upon which a l a r g e segment of the p o p u l a t i o n ' s l i v e l i h o o d i s based, the i r r e v e r s i b i l i t y o f many l a n d uses s h o u l d be a s t r o n g component i n the d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o c e s s c o n d u c i v e t o i t s p r e s e r v a t i o n . One can argue t h a t t e c h n o l o g y can s o l v e any c r i s i s s b y coming a l o n g j u s t a t the r i g h t moment and a t the r i g h t p l a c e . F o r i n s t a n c e , t e c h n o l o g y has a l l o w e d an i n c r e a s e i n the a v e r a g e y y i e l d p e r a c r e o f most c r o p s . Why sh o u l d i t n o t be a b l e t o c a r r y out t h i s r o l e f o r e v e r ? The argument might s t a n d f o r a w h i l e b u t when i t comes t o g r i p s w i t h the u n c e r t a i n t y of the future., the s o l e r e l i a n c e on t e c h n o l o g y may w e l l l e a d t o an a b u s i v e and d i s r u p t i v e u t i l i z a t i o n of s c a r c e r e s o u r c e s . A l t h o u g h the study i s n o t i n t e n d e d t o p e n e t r a t e d e e p l y i n t o t h i s q u e s t i o n , i t s h o u l d be s a i d , how-eve r , t h a t a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d ought t o be p r e s e r v e d n o t o o n l y f o r the bene-f i t s o f the p r e s e n t g e n e r a t i o n but a l s o f o r a b e t t e r f u l f i l l m e n t of f u t u r e g e n e r a t i o n s ' needs and n e c e s s i t i e s . The r o u t e i s n o t w i t h o u t i t s problems and t r a p s . There w i l l always be p e o p l e demanding t h e i r " f a i r s h a r e " of the p i e w i t h o u t q u e s t i o n i n g the consequences a t t a c h e d t o t h e i r t a k i n g . There w i l l always be p e o p l e who w i l l n o t r e a l i z e the b a s i c c o n f r o n t a t i o n between n a t u r a l a m e n i t i e s and man-made a c t i v i t i e s , between s e l f i s h n e s s and a l t r u i s m , between needs and d e s i r e s , between p r e s e n t g a i n s and f u t u r e p r i c e l e s s r e t u r n , and so f o r t h . The p r e s e n t d i s c u s s i o n has been s e t out to l e g i t i m i z e p r e s e r v a t i o n of a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d as a s o c i a l g o a l which s h o u l d be implemented i n r e g i o n s which have c e r t a i n p o t e n t i a l f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s . I t i s f u r t h e r argued t h a t d i r e c t measures thsaigh government r e g u l a t i o n s s h o u l d p r e v a i l o v e r measures which r e s t on inducements. T h i s statement i s based on a sound e v a l u a t i o n o f the methods d i s c u s s e d i n the study. A l l of these have been e m p i r i c a l l y t e s t e d i n a p a r t i c u l a r r e g i o n i n N o r t h America. A p a r t from the l o s s o f o p p o r t u n i t y w i t h which landowners a r e f a c e d , e x c l u s i v e a g r i c u l t u r a l z o n i n g and a g r i c u l t u r a l d i s t r i c t i n g a r e the most v a l u a b l e methods t o p r o t e c t and m a i n t a i n a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d . S i n c e the p r i n c i p l e o f no compensation o f down-zoning i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d i n Canadian law, each l e g i s l a t u r e s h o u l d attempt t o implement methods s i m i l a r to those a l r e a d y e n acted b o t h i n the p r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia and i n the p r o v i n c e of Quebec. Moreover, both methods s e c u r e f a r m l a n d from b e i n g c o n v e r t e d t o o t h e r uses i n permanence and t h e n p u b l i c c o s t a t t a c h e d t o t h e i r implementa-t i o n i s f a i r l y low. On the whole, g i v e n t h a t the main aim of a p i e c e of l e g i s l a t i o n i s t o a s s u r e a maximum p r o t e c t i o n o f a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d , e x c l u -s i v e a g r i c u l t u r a l z o n i n g , a g r i c u l t u r a l d i s t r i c t i n g o r the l i k e a r e d i r e c t l y geared t o c a r r y i n g out t h a t g o a l . 52 B. Recommendations The f o l l o w i n g s u g g e s t i o n s a r e an attempt to b r i d g e t h e d i f f e r e n t gaps impeding the B.C. a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d use c o n t r o l s to work a t t h e i r b e s t . These recommendations a r e n o t i n t e n d e d f o r immediate i m p l e m e n t a t i o n but t o emphasize more p r e c i s e l y the a r e a s i n which f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h might be f r u i t f u l l y u ndertaken. I t i s i m p l i c i t l y demonstrated t h a t the use of the t a x i n g power c o u l d be a u s e f u l t o o l a l o n g w i t h a r e g u l a t o r y method, to curb urban sprawl and, a t the same time, p r e s e r v e a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d . 1. The Study Recommends t h a t the B.C. P r e f e r e n t i a l Assessment Program Be Abandoned and R e p l a c e d w i t h a P r o p e r t y Tax C r e d i t In the s e c t i o n r e l a t i n g t o t a x a t i o n methods, i t has been s t a t e d t h a t use v a l u e assessment programs a r e r e l a t i v e l y i n e f f e c t i v e f o r p r e s e r v i n g a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d . T h i s stems from s e v e r a l f a c t o r s , the most important of which a r e : (1) the tax advantages a r e u s u a l l y outweighed by o p p o r t u n i t i e s r e l a t e d t o development e s p e c i a l l y i n the urban f r i n g e a r e a ; (2) prime a g r i -c u l t u r a l l a n d s a r e a s s e s s e d a t h i g h e r u s e - v a l u e s than m a r g i n a l l a n d and t h u s , a r e s u b j e c t to s m a l l e r p r o p e r t y tax s a v i n g s ; (3) the l o c a l tax base i s reduced and o t h e r p r o p e r t y owners' tax b i l l s have to be r a i s e d t o make up f o r the d i f f e r e n c e i n forgone t a x e s . With r e s p e c t t o the B.C. A g r i c u l -t u r a l Land Reserve, i t c o u l d a l s o be argued t h a t s i n c e the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve i s supposed to be permanent, the use v a l u e of a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d i n the r e s e r v e would tend to approximate the market v a l u e of t h e s e l a n d s , thus r e d u c i n g the e f f e c t o f p r e f e r e n t i a l assessment upon f a r m e r s ' tax break. In o r d e r to s o l v e these s h o r t c o m i n g s , i t i s proposed t o implement a p r o p e r t y tax c r e d i t program which has th e f o l l o w i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and 5 3 r e q u i r e m e n t s . The program would be a p p l i e d to farmers whose management u n i t s (as opposed to farm u n i t s which o n l y c o n s i d e r the amount of p r o p e r t y owned, but n o t the amount of p r o p e r t y l e a s e d out) i s b e i n g farmed a t a minimum l e v e l o f p r o d u c t i o n . The amount of p r o p e r t y taxes to be c r e d i t e d would be based on the r a t i o of p r o p e r t y taxes t o the net farm income p l u s an amount of o f f - f a r m income over a c e r t a i n minimum amount of exempted o f f - f a r m income. T h i s r a t i o would be compared to a p r e d e t e r m i n e d p r o p e r t y tax r a t e and the excess (the p r o p e r t y t ax c r e d i t ) e i t h e r s u b t r a c t e d from the farmer's income t a x l i a b i l i t y o r r e b a t e d from the p r o v i n c i a l government to the farmer i f no income tax were p a y a b l e . A maximum c r e d i t would a l s o be a l l o w e d to r e s t r a i n w e l l - t o - d o farmers from t a k i n g advantage of the p r o -gram. The f o l l o w i n g e q u a t i o n shows the p o s s i b l e mechanics of the program: Cpt = f p t \ - b p t , Cpt = 0 i f > c l o i f i + ( o f i - a)/ where Cpt = p r o p e r t y tax c r e d i t p t = p r o p e r t y tax n f i = n e t farm income o f i = o f f - f a r m income a = o f f - f a r m income exempted b = n e t p r o p e r t y t ax r a t e c = maximum p r o p e r t y t ax c r e d i t . The program a l l o w s f o r f l e x i b i l i t y and e q u i t y . S i n c e the t h r e e c o n s t a n t s ( a, b, and c) p r e s e n t e d i n the e q u a t i o n can be changed a t the p l e a s u r e of the l e g i s l a t o r , t h i s would make i t p o s s i b l e t o a d j u s t the magnitude of the p r o p e r t y t ax c r e d i t and then a l l o w f o r a wide v a r i e t y o f a l t e r n a t i v e s . F o r i n s t a n c e , i f the l e g i s l a t o r wanted t o g i v e r e l i e f of p r o p e r t y taxes o n l y t o l l o w income f a r m e r s , the maximum p r o p e r t y t ax c r e d i t c o u l d be d e c r e a s e d . With r e g a r d to e q u i t y , t h e program d e c r e a s e s the 54 r e l a t i v e r e g r e s s i v i t y of p r o p e r t y t a x e s . Indeed, i t i s based on the a b i l -i t y t o pay p r i n c i p l e which s t a t e s t h a t d i f f e r e n t amounts of t a x e s must be p a i d when p e o p l e ' s a b i l i t y t o pay taxes d i f f e r . S i n c e e t h e program i s worth more to the-low^income farmer than t o t h e high-income farmer, i t i s more e q u i t a b l e than u s e - v a l u e assessment programs which p a r t i a l l y t ake t h i s p r i n c i p l e i n t o a c c o u n t . S e v e r a l o t h e r advantages a r e r e l a t e d t o the program. F i r s t , i t does n o t change the l o c a l tax base s i n c e the c o s t of the program i s t o be borne by the P r o v i n c i a l government. S e c o n d l y , s p e c u l a t o r s and high-income farmers a r e e x c l u d e d from any tax b e n e f i t s . T T f t i r d l y , the l a n d needs not t o be a s s e s s e d a t i t s use v a l u e , thus r e d u c i n g the a s s e s s o r ' s burden. In the f o u r t h p l a c e , the program might be c a p a b l e of i n f l u e n c i n g the p a t t e r n of development. I f the tax break i s l a r g e ( t h i s c o u l d be done by d e c r e a s i n g the n e t p r o p e r t y tax r a t e ) , i t might p r o v i d e i n c e n t i v e f o r farmers t o h o l d l a n d i n f a r m i n g much l o n g e r than p r e v i o u s l y e x p e c t e d . S i n c e the program b r i n g s about an i n c r e a s e i n the farmer's n e t income, the farmer might be i n c l i n e d t o i n c r e a s e o p e r a t i n g expenses or investment, or do a c o m b i n a t i o n of b o t h , making the o v e r a l l f a r m i n g b u s i n e s s more v i a b l e . F i f t h , the p r o -gram might be e f f e c t i v e t o b r i n g about a s h i f t from non-farm t a x a b l e p r o -p e r t y t o farm t a x a b l e p r o p e r t y uses i n o r d e r to i n c r e a s e the tax c r e d i t r e t u r n . S i x t h , prime a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d owners would b e n e f i t the most from the program s i n c e t h e i r l a n d i s u s u a l l y b e i n g a s s e s s e d a t h i g h e r v a l u e ( g e n e r a l l y b e i n g c l o s e r t o urban c e n t r e s ) than m a r g i n a l l a n d . On the whole, the p r o p e r t y t a x c r e d i t program would improve the e q u i t y of p r o p e r t y t a x a t i o n and s t i m u l a t e t h e development of f a r m i n g a r e a s by e n c o u r a g i n g the maintenance of f a r m i n g u n i t s i n p r o d u c t i o n . 55 2. The Study Recommends that I n d u s t r i a l Development as Well as Business Property Taxes be R e g i o n a l i z e d I n d u s t r i a l development should be added to the a c t u a l f u n c t i o n s of r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t s as s t a t e d by the B r i t i s h Columbia M u n i c i p a l Act (RSCB, 1960, chapter 255). This would permit a b e t t e r u t i l i z a t i o n of already s e r v i c e d i n d u s t r i a l lands and thus reduce the need f o r e x c l u s i o n of a g r i -c u l t u r a l land fromtthe ALR. By the same token, the r e g i o n a l i z a t i o n of business property taxes would serve two purposes: f i r s t , i t would reduce competition between m u n i c i p a l i t i e s f o r i n d u s t r i a l developments, and second, i t would give r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t s the f i n a n c i a l autonomy and instrument which i s , without any doubt, necessary to f u l f i l l the r o l e of p r o v i d i n g s e r v i c e s to the community. Since the l a t t e r purpose i s beyond the scope of the present study, i t w i l l not be s p e l l e d out to any greater extent. The need f o r t h i s recommendation stems from the now w e l l - p u b l i c i z e d Gloucester P r o p e r t i e s Ltd.'s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r removal of 626 acres i n Langley from the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve. The company wanted to develop the acreage as an i n d u s t r i a l park. The M u n i c i p a l i t y of Langley supported the company's a p p l i c a t i o n because i t f e l t more i n d u s t r i a l land was needed a l -though the Fraser V a l l e y s t i l l has 3,875 acres of i n d u s t r i a l land w a i t i n g to be f i l l e d . The M u n i c i p a l i t y of Langley's behavior seems to be normal c o n s i d e r i n g that f i s c a l zoning through i n d u s t r i a l property tax i s very a t t r a c t i v e to any m u n i c i p a l i t y . In t h i s context, f i s c a l zoning can be defined as an instrument under which i n d u s t r i a l landowners pay more than the cost of t h e i r p u b l i c s e r v i c e s . The excess can then be used by a muni-c i p a l i t y to f i l l t t h e gap between cost and revenue producedbby the p r o v i s i o n of other municipal s e r v i c e s . The r e g i o n a l i z a t i o n of both business property taxes and i n d u s t r i a l development would permit any r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t to b e t t e r p l a n , manage and 56 c o n t r o l the d i r e c t i o n and change of f u t u r e i n d u s t r i a l development, away from a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d t o l a n d s u i t a b l e f o r i n d u s t r i a l u n d e r t a k i n g s ( i . e . h a v i n g poor s o i l ) , o r t o l a n d a l r e a d y s e r v i c e d . I t c o u l d a l s o a l l o w r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t s to use the excess of revenue stemming from b u s i n e s s p r o p e r t y taxes e i t h e r f o r p r o v i d i n g tax r e l i e f t o m u n i c i p a l i t i e s which a r e p o o r e r than o t h e r a d j o i n i n g m u n i c i p a l i t i e s or f o r r e d u c i n g the c o s t of o t h e r f u n c t i o n s granted t o them by the M u n i c i p a l A c t . 3. The Study Recommends t h a t the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission A c t Appeal P r o c e d u r e be Extended t o I n c l u d e the Use of R e f e r e n d a In a r e c e n t a d d r e s s to the B.C. F r u i t Growers A s s o c i a t i o n Annual Con-v e n t i o n , A x e l C. K i n n e a r (1980), the then A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission C h a i r -man suggested the a p p e a l p r o c e d u r e to ELUC be r e p l a c e d by an e x p e r i e n c e d , r e s p e c t e d two to t h r e e p e r s o n a p p e a l body, perhaps a p p o i n t e d by an a l l - p a r t y committee of the L e g i s l a t u r e . The r e a s o n s which l a y b e h i n d the proposed change were t h a t the new a l t e r n a t e r o u t e through the Enyironment M i n i s t e r which can be used to a p p e a l t o ELUC f o r e x c l u s i o n of l a n d as s t a t e d on page 41, has i n c r e a s e d d r a m a t i c a l l y the number of a p p e a l s . K i n n e a r f u r t h e r s uggested the removal of the a p p e a l system from the p o l i t i c a l l e v e l . The p r e s e n t study would argue t h a t the p o l i t i c a l l e v e l i n t h e a p p e a l system i s n e c e s s a r y and even fundamental to the w e l l - f u n c t i o n i n g of a demo-c r a t i c s o c i e t y s i n c e the p o l i t i c a l body i s the o n l y one which i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r and a c c o u n t a b l e to the e l e c t o r a t e w i t h i n the p r e s e n t a p p e a l p r o c e d u r e . I t does n o t mean, however, t h a t the system cannot be improved. Hence the study recommends t h a t i f and o n l y i f the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission d e c i -s i o n i s o v e r r u l e d by ELUC, a referendum d e v i c e might be used as a second a p p e a l i n s t r u m e n t . The ELUC d e c i s i o n would then be s u b m i t t e d to p o p u l a r v o t e and the p u b l i c w i t h i n the r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t would be the l a s t group to d e c i d e upon the i s s u e s i n c e i t i s the one who, i n the l o n g r u n , would be a f f e c t e d \ b y the d e c i s i o n of ELUC. An u n d e r l y i n g advantage o f t h i s d e v i c e i s i t s f l e x i b i l i t y t o d e a l w i t h a l a r g e a r r a y of "hot i s s u e s . " Indeed once implemented and t e s t e d through the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission A c t ap p e a l p r o c e d u r e , i t c o u l d be used f o r i s s u e s about energy c o n s e r v a t i o n and development, or the l i k e . F o r example, the r e c e n t d e c i s i o n of the B.C. go-vernment to stop uranium mining f o r a p e r i o d o f y e a r s , c o u l d have been o t h e r w i s e d e c i d e d upon through the use of t h i s d e v i c e . One c o u l d argue t h a t the use of r e f e r e n d a to r u l e out important i s s u e s would be i n e f f e c t i v e i n B.C. because one f e a r s t h a t the p u b l i c i s n o t w i l l i n g to p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e p r o c e s s . T h i s c o u l d be so i n the s h o r t run but once the p u b l i c has been educated t o r e a c t to the p r o p o s a l , a change i n i t s a t t i t u d e s and v a l u e s would l e a d to i t s a c c e p t a n c e of the new d e v i c e . In t h i s r e s p e c t , the American e x p e r i e n c e might be h e l p f u l i n the impl e m e n t a t i o n and a c c e p t a n c e of t h i s recommendation. 4. The Study Recommends t h a t a Tax on Real E s t a t e Unearned Increment Be L e v i e d In o r d e r t o curb s p e c u l a t i o n and.lhinder the c o n v e r s i o n o f a g r i c u l -t u r a l l a n d to o t h e r n on-compatible u s e s , i t i s proposed t h a t a w i n d f a l l t ax sh o u l d be l e v i e d on the d i f f e r e n c e between the use v a l u e and the s e l l i n g p r i c e o f any a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d . The rea s o n s l y i n g b e h i n d t h i s scheme a r e t w o f o l d : F i r s t , t h e d i f f e r e n c e between use v a l u e and market v a l u e o f t e n i s unearned g a i n s f o r the l a n d h o l d e r s i n c e he d i d not improve the l a n d i n any way to ear n the i n c r e a s e i n v a l u e . S e c o n d l y , t h e s b u r c e of t h i s i n c r e a s e i n v a l u e f r e q u e n t l y stemscfrom the inv e s t m e n t s made by t h e community as a whole such as the e x e c u t i o n of p u b l i c works o r improvements through government a c t i o n . 58 Although the scheme could be used f o r any type of land, emphasis i s placed upon land w i t h i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve. Before land i s being r e l e a s e d from the reserve, an ad valorem tax should be imposed on the differencebbetween the a g r i c u l t u r a l value and the new use value created by the r e l e a s e of the land from the reserved. The tax y i e l d r e c e i v e d by the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission should be earmarked f o r the purchase of a g r i -c u l t u r a l land. The tax r a t e imposed should be very high so that the scheme can meet the two aforementioned o b j e c t i v e s . n On the whole, the recapture of w i n d f a l l gains by the s o c i e t y would make the r e t e n t i o n of land f o r s p e c u l a t i o n l e s s p r o f i t a b l e and reduce land p r i c e s because i t taxes land more h e a v i l y than other investments on which c a p i t a l gains are l e v i e d and a l s o because land supply i s f i x e d . As to whether or not the speculator or the developer would buy such a scheme, i t can be argued that the f i s c a l p r i n c i p l e of " h a b i t u a t i o n " would get r i d of any d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n as i t d i d a f t e r the implementation of taxable c a p i t a l gains i n 1972. This p r i n c i p l e can be defined as the s t a t e of g e t t i n g accustomed toaa l e v e l of taxes which, when f i r s t reached, seemed too heavy. Because of h a b i t u a t i o n , d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i s u n l i k e l y to p e r s i s t except under very s p e c i a l circumstances. 5. The Study Recommends that the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act Be Amended so as to Give the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission the E x e r c i s e of the Right of Preemption the In Subsection 7(d) of the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission Act, i t i s •mentioned that the Commission has the power and c a p a c i t y to acquire and dispose of land and personal property. I t i s proposed that t h i s subsection be amended to in c l u d e the r i g h t of preemption. The subsection should read as f e l l o w s : "The Commission has the powerrand c a p a c i t y ... to acquire and 59 dispose of land and personal property e i t h e r by>voluntary sa l e or by pre-emption." Under t h i s instrument, when any p a r c e l of land w i t h i n the ALR comes on the market, the Commission may s u b s t i t u t e i t s e l f f o r whoever i s w i l l i n g to purchase the land. This i s done b y c c o n s t r a i n i n g an owner who wishes to s e l l , to n o t i f y the Commission of h i s i n t e n t . The Commission then has two choices: e i t h e r to l e t the sal e occur - or to make use of i t s r i g h t of pre-emption where i t f e e l s that i t i s i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . This would hinder any speculator or non-bona f i d e farmer to t r y to convert the land to an unacceptable use, thereby s t a b i l i z i n g land use patterns i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve. 6. The Study Recommends that the Concept of Stewardship Be Implemented Throughout the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve In t h e i r impact a n a l y s i s of the a g r i c u l t u r a l land reserves i n B r i -t i s h Columbia, Manning and Eddy. (1978) concluded that because a r e t u r n to any form of farming on land p r e v i o u s l y purchased at s p e c u l a t i v e p r i c e s would provide the developer i n s i g n i f i c a n t r e t u r n s , many areas of developer-held ALR land have been l e f t i d l e . They a l s o c a l c u l a t e d that 5% and 14% of land w i t h i n ALR boundaries were vacant and unused land r e s p e c t i v e l y . In t h i s case, vacant land means an e n t i r e property which i s not c u r r e n t l y used f o r any a c t i v i t y whatsoever while unused land means some land w i t h i n management u n i t s which i s i d l e . I t i s proposed that an annual maintenance fee be charged by the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission on a g r i c u l t u r a l lands l e f t i d l e by t h e i r h o l d -ers i n order to s t i m u l a t e a more productive use of land, or at l e a s t , to make sure that the i d l i n g of one p a r c e l of land, o f t e n overgrown w i t h weeds, does not have de t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t s on adjacent and productive land. 60 C. Pros and Cons of the Compensatory System and of the Regulatory System The methods which have been analyzed i n Section I I I consider the need to compensate farmers f o r the l o s s of r i g h t s i n property or to a s s i s t them i n maintaining t h e i r land i n a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t y by s u b s t a n t i a l l y reducing the tax burdens imposed on them. On the other hand, most of the methods analyzed i n Section I I imply that since land which has l o s t i t s deve-lopment r i g h t s i s being used i n the p u b l i c interest,cowners should not ex-pect any compensation f o r the s o c i e t a l a c q u i s i t i o n . Therefore a decrease i n property values due to r e g u l a t i o n per se should not be compensable. The s p e c i a l features of the r e g u l a t o r y power of any government make i t a d i r e c t t o o l of p u b l i c land use p o l i c y since most of the methods r e l a t e d to the government's p o l i c e power are w e l l equipped to deal w i t h s p i l l o v e r e f f e c t s of u r b a n i z a t i o n and other e f f e c t s i n f l u e n c i n g theeuse of a g r i c u l -t u r a l land. Although r e g u l a t i o n i s not the only system a v a i l a b l e to the decision-maker to cope with the conservation of a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d , i t may be the only one a v a i l a b l e to l o c a l governing bodies at an acceptable c o s t , as w e l l as because of i t s s i m p l i c i t y of operation and ease of implementa-t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , the r i g h t to say what land i s to be preserved i s u s u a l l y conferred upon the community, a l b e i t the c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of zoning powers through a p r o v i n c i a l agency has a l s o be be considered. The a l t e r n a t i v e of a r u r a l planning process not underpinned by s t r i c t enforcement of zoning p r o v i s i o n s would, to us, be too u n c e r t a i n i n i t s operation to prevent the eventual d e t e r i o r a t i o n of these extraurban areas (Gray, 1976, p. 104). However, r e g u l a t i o n i s not d e s i r a b l e f o r i t s own sake. In most cases, i t cannot compel that land be farmed. " I t only acts as an i n d i r e c t i n c e n t i v e to do so. I t a l s o imposes s u b s t a n t i a l costs on s e v e r a l groups of people. These costs include not only those borne by the taxpayers who pay p u b l i c servants' s a l a r i e s and expenses, but the c o s t s borne by the developers 61 and e v e n t u a l l y passed on to the consumer. Moreover, farmers see the r e g u l a -t i o n s as reducing t h e i r l i k e l i h o o d of an a f f l u e n t retirement. The e q u i t y issue b o i l s down to c r e a t i n g these b e n e f i t s by imposing a wealth l o s s on the owners of prime a g r i c u l t u r a l land by i m m o b i l i z i n g the land i n that use and thus preventing land use s h i f t s at higher p r i c e s . Thus, unless compensation i s given, these landowners absorb lo s s e s i n order to provide the c o l l e c t i v e goods enjoyed by s o c i e t y as a whole (Gardner, 1977, p. 1034). I t i s f u r t h e r argued that the cost of p u b l i c b e n e f i t s should not be borne e n t i r e l y by p r i v a t e owners but d i s t r i b u t e d evenly among members of the s o c i e t y through compensation to the l o s e r s . Since s o c i e t y as a whole w i l l be made b e t t e r o f f through the s u b s t a n t i a l amenities and s o c i a l b e n e f i t s stemming from the p r e s e r v a t i o n of a g r i c u l t u r a l land, the penalty imposed upon p r i v a t e property should be borne by every member of that s o c i e t y . But as state d by Michelman (1967,.p. 1168): We may assume that s o c i e t y i s a c t i n g r a t i o n a l l y i n the sense that the new c o n d i t i o n s of resource employment w i l l produce a greater amount of welfare i n s o c i e t y than the o l d one d i d . Even so, the f a c t w i l l remaintthat some members of s o c i e t y w i l l be l e s s w e l l o f f a f t e r than they were before the r e a l l o c a t i o n . One e f f e c t of the d e c i s i o n to r e a l l o c a t e resources w i l l have been to r e d i s t r i b u t e w e lfare amongtthe members of s o c i e t y . This r e d i s t r i b -u t i v e e f f e c t can be p a r t l y c a n c e l l e d , i n s o f a r as the values i n -volved are c o n v e r t i b l e i n t o d o l l a r s , by paying monetary compensa-t i o n out of the s o c i a l t r e a s u r y . I t i s a l s o f a i r to add t h a t , although not compensated f o r , farmers b e n e f i t from the e x c l u s i o n of uses which are incompatible w i t h t h e i r opera-t i o n s . Likewise., i t helps them stay i n business longer and reduce some of the u n c e r t a i n t i e s a s s o c i a t e d with long-term commitments. On the whole, r e g u l a t i o n gives farmers some p r o t e c t i o n from the t h r e a t s of suburbaniza-t i o n ( M i t c h e l l , 1978). On the other hand, zoning as a land use c o n t r o l device has some weaknesses which are worthwhile mentioning. F i r s t of a l l , the most ca r e -f u l l y prepared zoning map may be overwhelmed by v a r i a n c e s , zoning amend-ments, and s p e c i a l exceptions. As i t i s put by White (1968, p. 49): 62 The a g r i c u l t u r a l zoning had saved l a r g e unbroken t r a c t s , 2 and l a r g e unbroken t r a c t s were what developers now wanted most. They r a i s e d the o f f e r s to $3,000 an acre, to $4,000, to $5,000. Farmers began to ponder. They had gotten themselves zoned; they could get themselves unzoned. They could, among other t h i n g s , ask the nearest c i t y to annex them. One byoone, they began to do so. Another weakness i s that zoning d e c i s i o n s are normally c o n t r o l l e d by p o l i t -i c a l l y v u l n e r a b l e l o c a l government a u t h o r i t i e s . The f a c i l i t y w i t h which zoning has, indeed, t r a d i t i o n a l l y been changed r e s t r i c t s i t s u s e f u l l n e s s , unless i t s permanence i s increased by b e t t e r procedures and i t s implementa-t i o n complemented by b e t t e r framework. The p o t e n t i a l of p o l i c e power r e g u l a t i o n s f o r r u r a l land p r e s e r v a t i o n i s severely l i m i t e d by the s h o r t - s i g h t e d adminis-t r a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of most l o c a l governments. Piecemeal and ad hoc a d m i n i s t r a t i o n f a i l to meet broader r e g i o n a l needs. To b e t t e r c o n t r o l land resources of areawide importance, r e g u l a t o r y powers should be e x e r c i s e d by r e g i o n a l governing board w i t h review by s t a t e agencies (Roe, 1976, p. 422). As mentioned i n the subsection r e l a t e d to governments and land use c o n t r o l s , p r o v i n c i a l involvement i n a g r i c u l t u r a l land use c o n t r o l seems to be a n e c e s s i t y i n order to cope with the d i f f e r e n t and o f t e n c o n f l i c t i n g i n t e r e s t s i n land uses. Although a l l of those who are a f f e c t e d by these c o n t r o l s must be allowed to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the decision-making process, the p r o v i n c i a l government should p l a y a l e a d i n g r o l e i n the o v e r a l l land use s t r a t e g y . F i n a l l y , i t i s a f a c t beyond question t h a t , i n some cases, some ki n d of i n c e n t i v e s or compensation are needed to support p r o t e c t i o n of a g r i c u l t u r a l land and complement r e g u l a t i o n s . Since the a c t o r s on the p o l i t i c a l scene of t e n have d i f f e r e n t standpoints w i t h respect to preserva-t i o n of n a t u r a l resources, the coming i n t o p l a y of both r e g u l a t i o n s and compensation might help reach a consensus on what could be done to o b t a i n a b e t t e r a l l o c a t i o n of resources. 63 S i n c e i n c e n t i v e s a r e m o r e a c c e p t a b l e p o l i t i c a l l y b u t l e s s e f f i c i e n t t h a n r e g u l a t i o n s i n m a n y c a s e s , i t m i g h t b e t h o u g h t f u l t o e x p l o r e t h e r e l a -t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n b o t h w i t h i n a p a r t i c u l a r g e o g r a p h i c a l a r e a . H o w e v e r , i t h a s t o b e k e p t i n m i n d t h a t , i f r e g u l a t i o n s a r e i m p l e m e n t e d o n a s o u n d a n d r a t i o n a l b a s i s s u c h a s o n s o i l c a p a b i l i t y a n d s u i t a b i l i t y f o r f a r m i n g , a s w e l l a s c o n e c o n o m i c , s o c i a l , a e s t h e t i c a n d e c o l o g i c a l v a l u e s a t t a c h e d t o f a r m l a n d , a n d a r e e x e r c i s e d i n t e l l i g e n t l y a n d w i t h o u t d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , t h e r e , a r e n o r e a s o n s w h a t s o e v e r why s t r i c t a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d u s e c o n t r o l s s h o u l d n o t b e c a r r i e d o u t . M o r e o v e r t h e i n t e g r a t i o n o f a n e d u c a t i o n a l p r o c e s s o f some k i n d a t a n e a r l y s t a g e o f t h e o v e r a l l p r o c e s s h a s i m p o r t a n t i m p l i c a -t i o n s a s t o w h e t h e r l a n d u s e c o n t r o l s w i l l b e a c c e p t e d b y t h e i n t e r e s t s a f f e c t e d a n d s u p p o r t e d b y t h e p u b l i c a t l a r g e . O n t h e w h o l e , i t c o u l d b e a r g u e d t h a t l a n d u s e c o n t r o l s b a s e d o n r e g u l a t i o n s a r e t h e m o s t e f f e c t i v e w a y f o r p r e s e r v i n g , i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d , a l t h o u g h some i n d u c e m e n t s may b e h e l p f u l t o r e l i e v e t h e i n t e r e s t s a f f e c t e d i f , u n d e r s p e c i a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e r e i s u n f a i r t a k i n g o f l a n d o r o f r i g h t s i n l a n d . 64 BIBLIOGRAPHY A g r i c u l t u r a l I n s t i t u t e of Canada. "A Land Use P o l i c y f o r Canada." The A g r i c u l t u r a l I n s t i t u t e of Canada's P o s i t i o n Statement. "• ' The A g r o l o g i s t , Autumn 1975, pp. 22-25. A l b e r t a Land Use Forum. Report and Recommendations. A l b e r t a , January 1976, 280 pp. Alden, Richard F., Schockro, M i c h a e l . " P r e f e r e n t i a l Assessment of A g r i c u l -t u r a l Lands: Preservationoor D i s c r i m i n a t i o n ? " Southern C a l i f o r n i a  Law Review, V o l . 42, 1969, pp. 59-69. A l s t o n , Farnum. P r e f e r e n t i a l Taxation of A g r i c u l t u r a l and Open Space  Lands: A Proposal f o r Wisconsin. Working Paper 8F, F a c u l t y Land Use Problem D e f i n i t i o n Seminar, I n s t i t u t e f o r Environmental Studies., U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin, December 1972, 53 pp. Amato, Peter W. '"Wisconsin Hopes a New Law W i l l Preserve i t s Farms." Planning, V o l . 45, No. 1, January 1979, pp. 10-12. Anderson, W.D., Gustafson, G.C. and Baxley, R.F. "Perspectives on A g r i -c u l t u r a l Land P o l i c y . " J o u r n a l of S o i l and Water Conservation, 30(1), 1975, pp. 36-49. Baker, R. L i s l e . " C o n t r o l l i n g Land Uses and P r i c e s by Using S p e c i a l Gain Taxation to Intervene i n the Land Market, the Vermont Experiment." Environmental A f f a i r s , V o l . 4, 1975, pp. 427-480. Barrows, Richard L. and Prenguber, Bruce A. "Transfer of Development R i g h t s : An A n a l y s i s of a New Land Use P o l i c y T o o l . " American  Jo u r n a l of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, 57, 1975, pp. 549-557. Barlowe, R a l e i g h . Land Resource Economics: The Economic of Real Property. Englewood, N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l Inc., 1972, 616 pp. Baxter, David. The B r i t i s h Columbia Land Commission Act - A Review. Report No. 8, A p r i l 1, 1974. Urban Land Economics, F a c u l t y of Commerce and Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , U.B.C, Vancouver, B.C., 31 pp. Beaubien, Charles and Tabacnik, Ruth. People and A g r i c u l t u r a l Land. Study on P o p u l a t i o n , Technology and Resources, Perceptions 4, Science Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 1977, 137 pp. 65 Beecr o f t , E r i c . "Regional Government and Conservation." Jour n a l of S o i l  and Water Conservation, V o l . 26, No. 2, M a r c h - A p r i l , 1971, pp. 66-69. Bellows, W i l l i a m J . Maryland A g r i c u l t u r a l Land P r e s e r v a t i o n Foundation: A  Summary. L e a f l e t 88. Cooperative Extension S e r v i c e , U n i v e r s i t y of Maryland-College Park, Eastern Shore, 1977, 12 pp. Berry, David. " E f f e c t s of U r b a n i z a t i o n on A g r i c u l t u r a l A c t i v i t i e s . " Growth and Change, J u l y 1978, pp. 2-8. Blase., M e l v i n G., Staub, W i l l i a m J . "Farmland i n T r a n s i t i o n i n the R u r a l -Urban F r i n g e : " Business and Government Review, May-June 1970, pp. 12-18. Bosselman, Fred, C a l l i e s , David. The Quiet Revolution i n Land Use C o n t r o l . Council on Environmental Q u a l i t y , Washington, D.C. December 1971, 327 pp. , C a l l i e s , David? Banta, John. The Taking Issue: A Study of the C o n s t i t u t i o n a l L i m i t s of Governmental A u t h o r i t y to Regulate the Use of Privately-owned Land Without Paying Compensation to the Owners. Co u n c i l on Environmental Q u a l i t y , Washington, D.C, 1973, 329 pp. Boyce, David E. " P r e s e r v a t i o n of Prime A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Through Purchase of Development Easements." Remarks to P a c i f i c Northwest Regional Economic Conference, V i c t o r i a , B.C. May 8, 1976, 9 pp. B r i t i s h Columbia, A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission. Annual Report year ended  March 31, 1979, Burnaby, B.C. 1979., 22 pp. B r i t i s h Columbia, A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission. Annual Report year ended  March 31, 1978. Burnaby, B.C., 1978, 48 pp. B r i t i s h Columbia, A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission. Keeping the Options Open. Burnaby, B.C., 1975, 15 pp. B r i t i s h Columbia, Environment and Land Use Committee S e c r e t a r i a t . A g r i c u l -t u r e Land C a p a b i l i t y i n B r i t i s h Columbia. V i c t o r i a , B.C., 1976, 44 pp. B r i t i s h Columbia, L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly, S e l e c t Standing Committee on A g r i c u l t u r e . Inventory of A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves i n B r i t i s h  Columbia. Queen's P r i n t e r , V i c t o r i a , B r i t i s h Columbia, 1978, 175 pp. Bryant, CR. and Russwurm, L.H. "The Impact of Non-Farm Development on A g r i c u l t u r e : A S y n t h e s i s . " Plan Canada, 19/2, June 1979, pp.122-139. Bryant., W i l l i a m R. and C o n k l i n , Howard F. "New Farmland P r e s e r v a t i o n Programs i n New York. " A I P J o u r n a l , Nov. 1975, pp. 390-396. 66 Bursa, Dr. Marjory. "The P o l i t i c s of Land Use." The A g r o l o g i s t , Autumn 1975, pp. 27-28. Cahn, Robert. "Where Do We Grow From Here?" In Scott, Randall W. ed. Management and Control of Growth: Volume I . Washington, D.C.: The Urban Land I n s t i t u t e . 19.75, 589 pp. C a l i f o r n i a Government Code. C a l i f o r n i a Land Conservation Act of 1965. Chapter 7, Sections 51200-51295. C a l i f o r n i a Land-Use Task Force. The C a l i f o r n i a Land: Planning f o r People. Los A l t o s , C a l i f o r n i a : The Planning and Conservation Foundation, 1975, 96 pp. C a l i f o r n i a L e g i s l a t u r e , J o i n t Committee on Open Space Lands. F i n a l Report, C a l i f o r n i a O f f i c e of State P r i n t i n g , February 1970, 122 pp. C a l i f o r n i a O f f i c e of Planning and Research. Prime A g r i c u l t u r a l Lands  Report. Sacramento, C a l i f o r n i a , 1974. Carmen, Hoy F. and Poison, James G. "Tax S h i f t s Occurring as a Result of D i f f e r e n t i a l Assessment of Farmland: C a l i f o r n i a , 1968-69. N a t i o n a l Tax J o u r n a l , 24 December 1971, pp. 449-457. Ca r t e r , Steve, K e n d a l l , Bert and Peter. Nobert. "Local Government Tech-niques f o r Managing Growth." In Scott, Randall W. ed. Management  and Con t r o l of Growth: Volume I I . Washington, D.C: The Urban Land I n s t i t u t e , 1975, 596 pp.. C a s t l e , Emery N. "Property Rights and the P o l i t i c a l Economy of Resource S c a r c i t y . " American J o u r n a l Of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, V o l . 60, 1978, pp. 1-9. , and R e t t i g , Bruce R. "Land Use C o n f l i c t s and Their R e s o l u t i o n . " J o u r n a l of S o i l and Water Conservation. V o l . 27, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1972, pp. 207-210. Ce n t r a l Fraser V a l l e y Regional D i s t r i c t Planning Department. Regional  Farmland Study. Report prepared by E.L. Lee, Regional Planner, Abbotsford, B.C. September 1972, 83 pp. C h a l l i e s , George Swan. The Law of E x p r o p r i a t i o n . Montreal: Wilson and L a f l e u r , 2nd ed., 1963, 630 pp. Ching, C.T.K. and F r i c k , G.E. " E f f e c t of Use Value Assessment on Property Tax Rates." American Journal of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, V o l ! 52, 1970, pp. 603-606. C i t i z e n s . A d v i s o r y Committee on A g r i c u l t u r a l Land P r e s e r v a t i o n . A g r i c u l - t u r a l Land P r e s e r v a t i o n i n Blue Earth County. Prepared f o r : Blue Earth County Board of Commissioners, November 1976, 38 pp. Clawson, Marion. "Urban Sprawl and Speculation i n Suburban Land." Land Economics, 38, 1962, pp. 99-111. 67 Clawson, Marion. P o l i c y D i r e c t i o n f o r U.S. A g r i c u l t u r e . Published f o r Resources f o r the Future by John Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1968, 398 pp. (A) "The Scrambled P a t t e r n of Land Conversion." Journa l of S o i l and Water Conservation, V o l . 27, No. 4, July-August, 1972, pp. ":A'i 148-151. . (B) "The F i n i t e n e s s and F l e x i b i l i t i e s of Land Resources." Journal of S o i l and Water Conservation, V o l . 27, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1972, pp. 202-206. Community Planning A s s o c i a t i o n of Canada. " B a t t l e f o r Land." CPAC N a t i o n a l  Planning Conference Proceedings, Regina, 1974. 72 pp. C o n k l i n , H.E. and Bryant, W.R. " A g r i c u l t u r a l D i s t r i c t s : A Compromise Approach to A g r i c u l t u r a l P r e s e r v a t i o n . " American Journa l of  A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, V o l . 56, 1974, pp. 607-613. Costonis, J . , Berger, C. and S c o t t , S. Regulation v. Compensation i n Land  Use C o n t r o l : A Recommended Accommodation, a C r i t i q u e and an I n t e r - p r e t a t i o n . Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a , I n s t i t u t e of Governmental St u d i e s , U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a . 1977, 91 pp. Coughlin, Robert E., Berry, David, and P l a u t , Thomas. D i f f e r e n t i a l Assess-~ mcnt of Real Property as ah I n c e n t i v e to Open Space P r e s e r v a t i o n  and Farm!arid Retention. D i s c u s s i o n Paper S e r i e s , No. 102. P h i l a d e l p h i a , Pa.: Regional Science Research I n s t i t u t e . , 1978, 33 pp. Council of State Governments. The Land Use P u z z l e . Lexington, Kentucky, May 1974, 37 pp. ^ . Land Use - P o l i c y and Program A n a l y s i s . No. 3. Lexington, Ken-tucky, November 1974, 35 pp. . A L e g i s l a t o r ' s Guide to Land Management. Lexington, Kentucky, Dec. 1974, 63 pp. Council on Environmental Q u a l i t y . Untaxing Open Space. An E v a l u a t i o n of  the E f f e c t i v e n e s s of D i f f e r e n t i a l Assessment Of Farms and Open  Space. Washington, D.C, A p r i l , 1976. D a v i s , C r a i g H., Poulson, P h i l . The P r e s e r v a t i o n of A g r i c u l t u r a l Land:  The B r i t i s h Columbia and C a l i f o r n i a Approaches. Unpublished paper, U.B.C, Vancouver, B.C. 1976. ________ Rees, W i l l i a m F. A g r i c u l t u r e arid U n c e r t a i n t y : Keeping the Options Open. School of Community and Regional Planning, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., 26 J u l y 1977, 20 pp. Dean:; John B. "A Panacea that Wasn't: The Williamson Act Needs Repair." Cry C a l i f o r n i a , Summer,.'. 1975, pp. 18-23. 68 Delafons, John. Land Use Con t r o l s i n the United States. Boston: Massa-chusetts I n s t i t u t e of Technology Press. 2nd ed. 1969, 203 pp. Delogu, Orlando E. "The Taxing Power as a Land Use C o n t r o l Device." Denver Law J o u r n a l , V o l . 45, 19'68, pp. 279-295. Derr, Donn, Small, L e s l i e and D h i l l o n , Pritam. " C r i t e r i a and S t r a t e g i e s f o r M a i n t a i n i n g A g r i c u l t u r e at the L o c a l L e v e l . " J o u r n a l of S o i l  and Water Conservation. May-June 1977, pp. 118-122. Dick, B r i a n R. A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Loss i n New Brunswick. M.A. Thesis, School of Community and Regional Planning, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia,, Vancouver, B.C., A p r i l 1977, 92 pp. Drachman, Roy P. "High Cost of Holding Land." Urban Land, 27, October 1968, pp. 10-12. E l l i c k s o n , Robert C. " A l t e r n a t i v e s to Zoning: Covenants, Nuisance Rules and Finances as Land Use C o n t r o l s . " U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Law  Review, Summer 1973, V o l . 40:2, pp. 681-781. Fellmeth, R. The P o l i t i c s of Land. New York: Grossman, 1973, 715 pp. Fishman, Richard P. " P u b l i c Land Banking: Examination of a Management Technique." In Scott Randall W. ed. Management and Con t r o l of  Growth: Volume I I I . Washington, D.C. : The Urban Land I n s t i t u t e , 1975, 594 pp. Foerstel., Hans-Joachim. The E f f e c t i v e n e s s of Land Use Controls i n Curbing  Urban Sprawl. A Case Study i n Richmond, B.C. M.A. Thesis, Commu-n i t y and Regional Planning., U.T.BcC;.V, Vancouver, B.C., 1964. 234 pp. F r e i l i c h , Robert H. "Development Timing, M o r a t o r i a , and C o n t r o l l i n g Growth: P r e l i m i n a r y Report." In Scott Randall W. ed. Management and  Co n t r o l of Growth:. Volume I I . Washington, D.C. : The Urban Land I n s t i t u t e . 1975, 596 pp. Gardner, Delworth B. "The Economics of A g r i c u l t u r a l Land P r e s e r v a t i o n . " American Journa l of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, V o l . 59, 1977, pp. 1027-1036. Gloudemans, Robert. Use-Value Farmland Assessments: Theory, P r a c t i c e  and Impact. Chicago:. I n t e r n a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of Assessing O f f i c e s . 1974, 73 pp. Good, David A., Frankel Bruce W. Income D i s t r i b u t i o n and Incidence A n a l y s i s : A Study of the D i s t r i b u t i o n B e n e f i t s of P u b l i c Open- Space i n an Urban Area. Working paper A.73.6. M i n i s t r y of State-Urban A f f a i r s , Canada. 1973.53 pp. Goodenough, Richard. "An Approach to Land-use C o n t r o l : the C a l i f o r n i a Land Conservation A c t . " Urban Studies, 1978:15, pp. 289-297. 69 Gray, Edward C. A P r e l i m i n a r y Paper on Canadian A g r i c u l t u r a l Land-Use  P o l i c y . Food P r i c e s Review Board, Reference Paper No. 3. February, 1976, 117 pp. Gray, W i l l i a m H. Methods of A g r i c u l t u r a l Land P r e s e r v a t i o n . Cooperative Extension S e r v i c e , College of A g r i c u l t u r e , Washington State U n i -v e r s i t y , 1975, 8 pp. Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t . Farm V i a b i l i t y i n Greater Vancouver. F i l e no. 7501, Vancouver, B.C., March 1976, 11 pp. Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t Planning Department. Open Space Conservacy: Manual of Legal Techniques. November 1978. Gregor, H.F. "Urban Pressures on C a l i f o r n i a Land." Land Economics, 1957: 33, pp. 311-325. Gruen, Claude. "Costs and B e n e f i t s of Land Use Regulations." In S o i l Conservation Society of America: Land Use: Tough Choices i n Today's World. The Proceedings of a N a t i o n a l Symposium. March 21-24, 1977, -Omaha, Nebraska, 454 pp. Gustafson, Gregory C , and Wallace, L.T. " D i f f e r e n t i a l Assessment as Land Use P o l i c y : The C a l i f o r n i a Case." AIP J o u r n a l , Nov. 1975, pp. 379-389. Hady, Thomas F. " D i f f e r e n t i a l Assessment of Farmland on the R u r a l - Urban F r i n g e . " American Journal of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, V o l . 52, 1970, pp. 25-32. Hady, Thomas and S i b o l d , Ann G. State Programs f o r the D i f f e r e n t i a l Assess- ment of Farm and Open Space Land. U.S. Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , A g r i c u l t u r e Economic Report No. 256, Economic Research S e r v i c e , Washington, D.C, 1974, 65 pp. Hagman, Donald G. "Open Space Planning and Property Taxation - Some Suggestions." Wisconsin Law Review, 1964, pp. 628-659.. , and M i s c z y n s k i , Dean J . W i n d f a l l s f o r Wipeouts: Land Value Capture and Compensation. American S o c i e t y of Planning O f f i c i a l s , Chicago, I l l i n o i s , 1978, 660 pp. Hansen, D.E. and Schwartz, S.I. "Landowner Behavior at the Rural Urban Fringe i n Response to P r e f e r e n t i a l Property Taxation." Land  Economics, V o l . 52, 1975, pp. 341-354. : Hansen, Roger P. "A N a t i o n a l Land Use P o l i c y : Toward a New Land E t h i c . " Land Use and the Environment: An Anthology of Readings. Compre-hensive Planning S e r i e s , V o l . One, 1973. Hart, J.F. "Urban Encroachment on Rural Areas." Geographical Review, 66(1), 1976, pp. 1-17. 70 Hason, Nino. The Emergence and Development of Zoning Con t r o l s i n North- American M u n i c i p a l i t i e s : A C r i t i c a l A n a l y s i s . Papers on Planning and Design, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto, 1977, 68 pp. Healy, Robert G. and Short, James L. "Rural Land: Market Trends and Planning D u p l i c a t i o n . " APA J o u r n a l , J u l y 1979, pp. 305-317. Hefferon, Dennis C. "The B r i t i s h Land Commission." Research Monograph No. 6: Survey of A l t e r n a t i v e Urban P o l i c i e s . C.M.H.C, Jan. 1971. Heyman, I . Mich a e l . "Innovative Land Regulation and Comprehensive Planning. In Marcus, Norman and Groves, M a r i l y n W. Eds. The New  Zoning: L e g a l , A d m i n i s t r a t i v e , and Economic Concepts and Techniques. New York: Praeger, 1970, 263 pp. Hillm a n , Jimmye. S. and M a r t i n , W i l l i a m E. "Elements of a N a t i o n a l Land Use P o l i c y . " J o u r n a l Of S o i l and Water Conservation. V o l . 27, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1972, pp. 211-217. Holmes, D a l l a s . "Assessment of Farmland Under the C a l i f o r n i a Land Conser-v a t i o n Act and the "Breathing Space" Amendment." C a l i f o r n i a La.w  Review, Vol.555, No. 1. Barkeley: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , Schaool of Law, 1967, pp. 273-292. James, F r a n k l i n J . , Gale, Dennis F. Zoning f o r Sale - A C r i t i c a l A n a l y s i s  of Transferable Development Rights Programs. Land Use S e r i e s , Urban I n s t i t u t e , Washington, D.C, 1977, 39 pp. K a i s e r , Edward J . et a l . "Land Use Planning: the Cornerstone of L o c a l Environmental Planning and C o n t r o l . " Land Use and the Environment. An Anthology of Readings. Comprehensive Planning S e r i e s , Volume One, 1973. Kamm, Sy l v a n . "The R e a l i t i e s of Large-Scale P u b l i c Land Banking." In Scott, Randall W. ed. Management and Contr o l of Growth: Volume I I I . Washington, D.C: The Urban Land I n s t i t u t e , 1975, 594 pp. Keene, John C. "The E f f e c t i v e n e s s of D i f f e r e n t i a l Assessment f o r Preser-a ving Farmland." Urban Law Annual, 1977, pp. 11-56. Kinnear, AAxel C "Address to B.G7. F r u i t Growers A s s o c i a t i o n Annual Convention." January 23, 1980. 15 pp. Krueger, Ralph R. "The P r e s e r v a t i o n of A g r i c u l t u r a l Land i n Canada." In Krueger, Ralph R. and M i t c h e l l , Bruce, Eds. Managing Canada's  Renewable Resources. Toronto: Methuen, 1977, 333 pp. Land, A l l e n . "Toward Optimal Land Use: Property Tax P o l i c y and. Land Use P l a n n i n g . " C a l i f o r n i a Law Review, 55, August 1967, pp. 856-897. 71 Land Use Research Group. Measures f o r Strengthening the C a l i f o r n i a Land Conservation Act 55. Report to the C a l i f o r n i a L e g i s l a t u r e , Assembly Se l e c t Committeenon Open Space Lands, D i v i s i o n of Environmental Studies, U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , Davis, December, 1974, 167 pp. Lane, W i l l i a m T. "The Emergence of a Counter-theme: Some Recent Developments i n Canadian Land Use P o l i c y . " In Rutan, Gerard F. ed. Canadian- American R e l a t i o n s i n the West, Northwest S c i e n t i f i c A s s o c i a t i o n , Western Washington State C o l l e g e , 1974. ________ Selected Readings i n Law f o r L o c a l P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t o r s . School of Community and Regional Planning, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., 1979, Second e d i t i o n , t h i r d p r i n t i n g . Lapping, Mark. "Preserving A g r i c u l t u r a l Lands: the New York Experience." Town and Country Planning, Sept. 1975, pp. 394-397. Lapping, Mark B. " P o l i c y A l t e r n a t i v e s f o r the P r e s e r v a t i o n of A g r i c u l t u r a l Land.Use." Journa l of Economic Management, V o l . 5, 1977, pp. 275-287. , Bevins, Robert,J. and Herbers, Paul V. " D i f f e r e n t i a l Assessment and Other Techniques to Preserve M i s s o u r i ' s Farmlands." M i s s o u r i Law Review, V o l . 42, 1977, pp. 369-408. Leopold,/'Aldo. "The Land E t h i c . " In Shepard P. and McKinley, D. eds. The  Subversive Science. Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n , 1969, 453 pp. Less i n g e r , Jack (A). ^ E x c l u s i v e A g r i c u l t u r a l Zoning: An A p p r a i s a l -I . A g r i c u l t u r a l Shortages." Land Economics, V o l . 34, 1958. pp. 149-160. _______ (B) . " E x c l u s i v e A g r i c u l t u r a l Zoning: An A p p r a i s a l - I I . Compara-t i v e Advantage." Land Economics, V o l . 34, 1958, pp. 255-262-L e v i n , Melvin R., Rose, Jerome G. and S l a v e t , Joseph S. New Approaches to  State Land P o l i c i e s . Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, D.C. Heath & Co., 1974, 144 pp. Libby,, Lawrence W. "Land Use P o l i c y : I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Commercial A g r i c u l -t u r e . " .Americj^ December, 1974, pp. 1143-1152. Linowes, R. Robert and Al l e n s w o r t h , Dan T. The P o l i t I C S of Land Use: Plan—i™r' ni r i g , Zoning and the P r i v a t e Developer. New York: Praeger P u b l i s h e r s , 1973., 166 pp. ________ and Al l e n s w o r t h , Dan T. The States and Land-Use Control.. New York:. Praeger P u b l i s h e r s , 1975. 243 pp. Lockner, A l l y n 0. and Kim, Han J . " C i r c u i t - B r e a k e r s on Farm-Property-Tax Overload: A Case Study." N a t i o n a l Tax J o u r n a l , V o l . 26, 1973, pp. 233-240. Low, T.W. "B.C. and B i l l 42." A g r o l o g i s t , V o l . 2, No. 4, July/August, 1373, pp. 16-17. 72 MacKenzie, Roderick M. "Land Use and Development Con t r o l i n B r i t i s h Colum-b i a : O f f i c i a l P l a n s , S u b d i v i s i o n C o n t r o l and Zoning." The Advocate, V o l . 36, Pa r t 6, October-November, 1978, pp. 511-531. McPherson, Jack. "In Search of a Land Use P o l i c y . " The A g r o l o g i s t , Autumn 1975, p. 29. Maguire, Robert K. The B r i t i s h Columbia Land Commission Act and I t s E f f e c t  on the Land Commission Process. Honours Essay, Department of Geo-graphy, Simon Fr a s e r U n i v e r s i t y , Burnaby, B.C. 1977. Malzahn, Manfred. "B.C.'s Green Acres - A Look at the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve." Urban Reader, V o l . 7, No. 5/6, 1979, pp. 14-19. Manning, Edward W., and Eddy, Sandra S. The A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves of  B r i t i s h Columbia: An Impact A n a l y s i s . Lands D i r e c t o r a t e , E n v i r o n -ment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, November 1978, 153 pp. Manning, E.W. and McCuaig, J.D. A g r i c u l t u r a l Land and Urban Centres: An  Overview of the S i g n i f i c a n c e of Urban Centres to Canada's Q u a l i t y  A g r i c u l t u r a l Land. Lands D i r e c t o r a t e , F i s h e r i e s and Engironment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario., J u l y 1977, ll~.pp. Meshenberg, Michael J . The A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of F l e x i b l e Zoning Techniques. Report No. 318, Planning Advisory S e r v i c e , American Society of Planning O f f i c i a l s , 1976, 62 pp. Michelman, Frank I . "Property, U t i l i t y , and Farmers: Comments on the E t h i c a l Formulation of "Just Compensation" Law." Harvard Law  Review, V o l . 80, No. 6, A p r i l 1967, pp. 1165-1258. Miner, D a l l a s D. (A). " A g r i c u l t u r a l Lands P r e s e r v a t i o n : A Growing Trend i n Open Space Plann i n g . " In Scott Randall W. ed., Management and Contr o l of Growth - Volume I I I . Washington, D.C: The Urban Land I n s t i t u t e , 1975, 594 pp. _______ (B) . "Energy Trends i n A g r i c u l t u r a l Retention and Open Space P r e s e r v a t i o n . " In Property Tax Incentives f o r P r e s e r v a t i o n : Use- Value Assessment and the P r e s e r v a t i o n of Farmland, Open Space, and  H i s t o r i c S i t e s . Proceedings of the 1975 Property Tax Forum, I n t e r n a t i o n a l . A s s o c i a t i o n of Assessing O f f i c e r s , Research and Technica l Services Department, Washington, D.C. 1975. M i t c h e l l , John B. An A n a l y s i s of Land Use L e g i s l a t i o n i n Selected States. Research B u l l e t i n 1100. Ohio A g r i c u l t u r a l Research and Develop-ment Centre., Wooster, Ohio. 1978, 25 pp. s Nelson, Bryan E. " D i f f e r e n t i a l Assessment of A g r i c u l t u r a l Land i n Kansas: A D i s c u s s i o n and Proposal. U n i v e r s i t y of Kansas Law Review, V o l . 25, 1977., pp. 215-245. Nelson, Kalebv. "Despite Hearsay, C a l i f o r n i a I s n ' t Losing Farmland." Planning, V o l . 45, No. 1, January 1979, pp. 15-16. 73 Neutze, ..G. Max. The P r i c e of Land and Land Use Planning: P o l i c y Instruments  i n the Urban Land Market. Organization f o r Economic Cooperation and Development, 1973, 95 pp. Nieswand, George H., A i r o l a , Teuvo M. and Chavooshian, Budd. The Transfer  of Development Rights Game. New Brunswick, N.J.: Cook C o l l e g e -Rutgers U n i v e r s i t y , May 1974, 75 pp. Nowland, J.L. and McKeague, J.A. "Canada's L i m i t e d A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Re-source.": In Krueger, Ralph R. and M i t c h e l l , Bruce, eds. Managing  Canada's Renewable Resources. Toronto: Methuen, 1977, 333 pp. O d e l l , R i c e . "Carrying Capacity A n a l y s i s : Useful but L i m i t e d . " In S c o t t , Randall W. ed. Management and Con t r o l of Growth: Volume I I I , Washington, D.C. : The Urban Land I n s t i t u t e . 1975, 594 pp. Order— i n - C o u n c i l No. 420, being B.C. Regulation 93/75 pursuant to the Land Commission A c t , approved January 30, 1975. Pasour, E.C. "Real Property Taxes and Farm Real Estat e Values: Incidence and I m p l i d e a t i o n s . " American J o u r n a l of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, 55 (1973), pp. 549-556. "The C a p i t a l i z a t i o n of Real Property Taxes Levied on Farm Real E s t a t e . " American J o u r n a l of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, 57 (1975) pp. 539-548. Pearson, G.G. " P r e s e r v a t i o n of A g r i c u l t u r a l Land: R a t i o n a l e and L e g i s l a -t i o n - the B.C. Expericne." Canadian Journal of A g r i c u l t u r a l  Economics, 1975., C.A.E.S. Workship Proceedings, Banff, A l b e r t a , pp. 64-73. Pearson, Norman (A). "The E f f e c t of U r b a n i z a t i o n on A g r i c u l t u r a l Land." A p p r a i s a l I n s t i t u t e Magazine, 16 Autumn 1972, pp. 25-34. . (B) "Fraser V a l l e y - Rape i t or Preserve i t ? " In Land Use i n  the Fraser- V a l l e y - Whose Concern? Proceedings of the Seminar on Land Use i n the Fr a s e r V a l l e y , Centre f o r Continuing Education and F a c u l t y of A g r i c u l t u r a l Sciences, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., October 1972.. (A) A g r i c u l t u r e and Land Planning. P l a n t Research I n s t i t u t e Seminar, Canada Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , January 12, 1973, 42 pp. _______ (B) "Preserving Good Farmland." A g r o l o g i s t , V o l . 2, No. 4, J u l y / ^August 1973. pp. 4-8. "Preserving Canadian Farmland." Queens Q u a r t e r l y , V o l . 81 (4), Winter Issue., 1974. Peterson, George E. and Yampolsky, Harvey. Urban Development and the  P r o t e c t i o n of M e t r o p o l i t a n Farmland. The Urban I n s t i t u t e , Washington, D.C., 1975, 15. pp. 74 P i a t t , Rutherford H. Land Use C o n t r o l : I n t e r f a c e of Law and Geography. Resource Paper No. 75-1, Associationoof"American Geographers, Washington, D.C, 1976, 39 pp. "The Loss of Farmland: E v o l u t i o n of P u b l i c Response." The Geo-g r a p h i c a l Review, 67, 1977, pp. 93-101. P l a u t , Thomas. The E f f e c t s of U r b a n i z a t i o n on the Loss of Farmland at  the Rural-Urban F r i n g e : A N a t i o n a l and Regional P e r s p e c t i v e . D i s c u s s i o n Paper Series No. 94, Regional Science Research I n s t i t u t e , P h i l a d e l p h i a , Pa., 1976, 32 pp. _______ The Real Property Tax, D i f f e r e n t i a l Assessment and the Loss of Farmland on the Rural-Urban F r i n g e . D i s c u s s i o n Paper Series No. 97, Regional Science Research I n s t i t u t e , 1977, 23 pp. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. Land Commission Act. R.S.B.C, Chapter 46, 1973, V i c t o r i a : Queen's P r i n t e r . Qadeer, Mohammad A. "Issues and Approaches of Rural Community Planning i n Canada. Plan Canada 19/2, June 1979, pp. 106-121. Raup, P h i l i p M.."Urban Threats to Rural Lands: Background and Beginnings." AIP J o u r n a l , November 1975, pp. 371-378. Rees, W.E. The Canada Land Inventory i n P e r s p e c t i v e , Lands D i r e c t o r a t e , F i s h e r i e s and Environment, March, 1977. Regional Science Research I n s t i t u t e . Saving the Garden: the P r e s e r v a t i o n  of Farmland and Other Environmentally Valuable Land. Prepared f o r N a t i o n a l Science Foundation, Washington, D.C, August 1977, 341 pp. R e i l l y , W i l l i a m K. The Use of Land: A C i t i z e n s ' P o l i c y Guide to Urban Growth. A task fo r c e Report sponsored by the R o c k e f e l l e r Brothers Fund, Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1973. Rodd, R.S. and Van Vuuren, W. ." A New Methodology i n Countryside Pla n n i n g . " Canadian Journa l of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, 1975 C.A.E.S. Workshop Proceedings, Banff, A l b e r t a , pp. 109-140. Roe, Charles E. "Innovative Techniques to Preserve Rural Land Resources." Environmental A f f a i r s , V o l . 5, 1976, pp. 419-446. Royal Commission on Land Ownership and Land Use. Report of the P r i n c e  x' Edward I s l a n d Royal Commission on Land Ownership and Land Use. Queen's P r i n t e r , P.E.I., 1973, 98 pp. Runka, Gary &. " J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R i g h t s : Who Has the R e s p o n s i b i l i t y ? " A g r o l o g i s t , Autumn 1975, pp. 19-20. _______ " B r i t i s h Columbia's A g r i c u l t u r a l Land"Preservation Program." In S o i l Conservation S o c i e t y of America Land Use: Tough Choices  i n Today's World. The Proceedings of a N a t i o n a l Symposium, March 21-24, 1977, Omaha, Nebraska, 454 pp. 75 Sargent, F r e d e r i c 0. Rural Environmental Planning. U n i v e r s i t y of Vermont, 1976, 199 pp. Schwartz, S.I., Hansen, D.E. and F o i n , T.C. " P r e f e r e n t i a l Taxation and the C o n t r o l of Urban Sprawl: An A n a l y s i s of the C a l i f o r n i a Land Conservation Act.: J o u r n a l of Environmental Economics and Manage- ment , 2, 1975, pp. 120-134. Shoup, Donald C. "The Optimal Timing of Urban Land Development. Papers  and Proceedings of the Regional Science A s s o c i a t i o n , 25(1970), pp. 33-44. Siegan, Bernard H. Land Use Without Zoning. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1972, 271 pp. S l a v i n , Richard H. "Toward a State Land Use P o l i c y : Harmonizing Develop-ment and Conservation." Land Use and the Environment: An Anthology  of Readings. Comprehensive Planning S e r i e s , V o l . One, 1973. Smith, Barry Edward. The B r i t i s h Columbia Land Commission Act, 1973. M.A. Thesis, Community and Regional Planning, the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia., Vancouver, B.C. 1975. Snyder., Herbert J . (A). "A New Program f o r A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Use S t a b i l i z a -t i o n : The C a l i f o r n i a Land Conservation Act of 1965." Land Economics, V o l . X L I I , No. 1, February 1966, pp. 29-41. .(B)"A Program f o r A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Use i n Urbanized Areas." Journa l Of Farm Ec onomics, V o l . 48, No. 5, December 1966, pp. 1306-1313. Stockman, Robert L. A g r i c u l t u r a l Zoning Handbook. West Michigan Regional Planning Commission. June 1978, 47 pp. Surrey, Stanley S. Pathways to Tax Reform. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1973, 418 pp. Timmons, John F. and Cormack, J.M. "Managing Na t u r a l Resources Through Land Tenure S t r u c t u r e . " J o u r n a l of S o i l and Water Conservation, V o l . 26, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1971, pp. 4-10. " P u b l i c Land Use P o l i c y : Needs, O b j e c t i v e s , and G u i d e l i n e s . " J o u r n a l of Water and S o i l Conservation, V o l . 27.,' No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1972, pp. 195-201. Toner, W i l l i a m . Saving Farms and Farmlands: A Community Guide. Report No. 333. Planning Advisory S e r v i c e , American So c i e t y of Planning O f f i c i a l s , 1978, 45 pp. "Zoning Alone Won't Save our Farmland." Planning, V o l . 45, No.. 1, January 1979, pp. 13-14. Urban Land I n s t i t u t e . Securing Open Space f o r Urban America: Conservation ' Easements. Technical B u l l e t i n 36, Washington, D.C, 1960. 76 V i n i n g , D a n i e l R., B i e r i , Kenneth and Strauss, Anne. U r b a n i z a t i o n of Prime  A g r i c u l t u r a l Land i n the United S t a t e s : A S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s . D i s c u s s i o n Paper Series No. 99, Regional Science Research I n s t i t u t e , P h i l a d e l p h i a , Penna., 1977, 41 pp. Vogel, Ronald J . , and Hahn, Alan J . "On the P r e s e r v a t i o n of A g r i c u l t u r a l Land." Land Economics, V o l . 48, May 1972, pp. 190-193. Vuuren, W. Van. Problems of Change i n R u r a l Land-Use i n Southern Ontario. The Centre f o r Resources Development, U n i v e r s i t y of Guelph, P u b l i c a t i o n no. 58, March 1972, 20 pp. Wagenseil, H a r r i s . "Property Taxation of A g r i c u l t u r a l and Open Space Land." Harvard Journa l on L e g i s l a t i o n , V o l . 8, 1970, pp. 158-196. W a l l , Robert L. " C a l i f o r n i a ' s A g r i c u l t u r a l Land P r e s e r v a t i o n Programs." In S o i l Conservation Society of America: Land Use: Tough Choices  i n Today ' s i'World. The Proceedings of a N a t i o n a l Symposium, March 21-24, 1977, Omaha, Nebraska. 454 pp. White, M i c h e l l e J . " F i s c a l Zoning i n Fragmented M e t r o p o l i t a n Areas." In M i l l s , Edwin S. and Oates, Wallace E. eds., F i s c a l Zoning and Land  Use C o n t r o l s . Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Co., 1975, 205 pp. Whyte., W i l l i a m H. The Last Landscape. New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1968, 376 pp. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094887/manifest

Comment

Related Items