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 . F i s c . , , 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 in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES School o f Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g  We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to t h e r e q u i r e d  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1980. © Denis A. Roy, 1980  In  presenting  this  an a d v a n c e d  degree  the  shall  I  Library  f u r t h e r agree  for  scholarly  by h i s of  at make  written  for  may It  is  of  British  available  for  for extensive  be g r a n t e d  financial  by  gain  shall  University  of  British  7,  1980.  Columbia  the  that  not  requirements  Columbia,  I  agree  r e f e r e n c e and copying  t h e Head o f  understood  Community and R e g i o n a l  of  2075 Wesbrook P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1W5  May  freely  fulfilment of  of  this  copying  or  Planning  for  that  study. thesis  my D e p a r t m e n t  or  publication  be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t  permission.  Department  Date  it  that permission  purposes  thesis  in p a r t i a l  the U n i v e r s i t y  representatives.  this  The  thesis  my  ABSTRACT  Competition considerably for  over  f o r alternative  the past  nities  f o r the preservation  due t o t h e i r  process.  In t h i s  niques which  different  regard,  are being  Methods u s i n g land the  20 y e a r s .  p u b l i c a c t i o n o f some k i n d .  necessary  a r e examined concept  used  of a g r i c u l t u r a l needs  the concept II.  A c t which u t i l i z e s  Agricultural  Land  difference opposed  analyzed the  due m a i n l y  I V compares  than  its California  methods  i n the  utilizing Land  Columbia  regulations.  counterpart,  a  s t r u c t u r e o f t h e B.C. A c t a s  the Acts.  and recommendations  B.C. A c t a r e p r e s e n t e d  agricultural  t o b e more e f f i c i e n t i n t h e  of the C a l i f o r n i a  t o implement  tech-  land.  the C a l i f o r n i a  r e l i e s on l a n d  found  t o the mandatory  procedures used i n the study  land  nature  and compares v a r i o u s  studies  commu-  t h e growth  compensation.?.arid:;the B r i t i s h  B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a A c t was of a g r i c u l t u r a l  to control  demand  intervention  v a r i e s between  agricultural  Section;JIII  increased  has created  of r e g u l a t i o n to preserve  Commission A c t which  to the voluntary  different  analyzes  land has  government  land  and d e s i r e s  Section  Conservation  preservation  competition  The a p p r o p r i a t e  to maintain  i n Section  of a g r i c u l t u r a l  This  thecthesis  of compensation.  The  uses  A c t as w e l l Comparison  f o r improving  Conclusions.  as t o t h e o f t h e methods  the e f f i c i e n c y  of  PRECIS  Durant l e s 20 d e r n i e r e s pour une  u t i l i s a t i o n des  demande pour que s e r v e r ces  annees, i l y a eu de nombreuses t e n t a t i v e s  t e r r e s a g r i c o l e s a d'autres f i n s .  Ceci a cree  l e gouvernement i n t e r v i e n n e dans l e p r o c e s s u s a f i n de  terres agricoles.  P u i s q u e l e s b e s o i n s et d e s i r s des  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 , qui l'encouragent.  i l en e s t de meme des  une pre-  communautes methodes  Le but de c e t t e t h e s e e s t done d ' a n a l y s e r e t de  comparer  ces d i f f e r e n t e s methodes. Les methodes q u i u t i l i s e n t l e concept de r e g l e m e n t a t i o n sont sees dans l e deuxieme c h a p i t r e , a l o r s que  l e troisieme  chapitre etudie  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 par  l a p r e s e n c e de mesures r e s t r i c t i v e s .  Act  et l e B.C.  analyles  affaiblis  Le C a l i f o r n i a Land C o n s e r v a t i o n  A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission A c t  sont compares dans l e  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  dans l e t r o i s i e m e  c h a p i t r e , t a n d i s que  qua-  des methodes d e c r i t e s  l a l o i de l a Colombie  Britannique  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 a son o b j e c t i f de p r e s e r v e r  est c e l l e qui a l e plus  les terres agricoles.  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 Britannique  de  operation  des  p r i n c i p a l e s causes  l a p r o p r i e t a i r e de l a Colombie  se conformer a l a l o i t a n d i s que  a l e c h o i x a i n s i que  Les  repondu  c e l u i de l a C a l i f o r n i e en  l e s d i f f e r e n t e s p r o c e d u r e s employees dans l a mise  deux l o i s .  Finalement, l a conclusion  en  recommande c e r t a i n e s  ameliorations les  a apporter  d i f f e r e n t e s methodes  a l a l o i de l a C o l o m b i e B r i t a n n i q u e s e t analysees  iv  dans c e t t e  these.  compare  TABLE OF CONTENTS  ABSTRACT  i i  PRECIS  i i i  LIST OF TABLES I.  II.  III.  v i i  INTRODUCTION  1  A.  Problem Statement  1  B.  Thesis Objectives  2  C.  Methodology  3  D.  Governments and Land Use C o n t r o l s  5  REGULATORY METHODS FOR PRESERVING AGRICULTURAL LAND  7  A.  Minimum L o t 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.  Agricultural Districting .  9  D.  Maximum D e n s i t y Zoning  10  E.  U t i l i t y Extension Regulation  11  F.  Easements  11  G.  Compensable R e g u l a t i o n  14  H.  Expropriation  15  I.  Stewardship  16  J.  Other Methods  17  COMPENSATORY METHODS FOR PRESERVING AGRICULTURAL LAND  18  A,  T a x a t i o n Methods  18  1.  18  P r e f e r e n t i a l Assessment v  IV.  2.  Deferred Taxation  20  3.  R e s t r i c t i v e Agreements  21  4.  Conclusions  22  B.  T r a n s f e r of Development R i g h t s  22  C.  Purchase of Land Through a Land T r u s t  24  ANALYSIS OF TWO A.  B.  STATES USING DIFFERENT SYSTEMS  The S t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a and t h e C a l i f o r n i a Land C o n s e r v a t i o n Act  27  1.  Description  27  2.  Advantages  29  3.  Disadvantages  30  4.  Conclusions  32  The P r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h Columbia and t h e A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission  C. V,  27  Act  33  1.  Description  33  2.  Advantages  37  3.  Disadvantages  40  4.  Conclusions  42  Comparison o f C a l i f o r n i a and B r i t i s h Columbia Approaches.  43  CONCLUSIONS  47  A.  Comparison o f Methods A n a l y z e d i n t h e Study  47  B.  Recommendations  52  C.  P r o s and Cons o f t h e Compensatory System and of t h e R e g u l a t o r y System BIBLIOGRAPHY  vi  60 64  LIST OF TABLES  T a b l e 1 - Comparison o f 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 C l a s s  39  T a b l e 2 - Comparison of C a l i f o r n i a and B r i t i s h Columbia A c t s  44  T a b l e 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  vii  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  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 o f a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d has c o n s i d e r a b l y over the p a s t 20 y e a r s .  increased  T h i s 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 s t r o n g impact on l a n d use.  Indeed p o p u l a t i o n  i n c r e a s e i n p e r c a p i t a income, t e c h n o l o g i c a l changes  growth,  in agriculture, i n -  c r e a s e i n l e i s u r e time and the p r o c e s s of u r b a n i z a t i o n have provoked an e v e r - g r o w i n g c o n v e r s i o n of l a n d from a g r i c u l t u r a l t o urban u s e s .  Urbaniza-  t i o n has s e v e r a l t y p e s of e f f e c t on f a r m l a n d : f i r s t , i t can d i r e c t l y conv e r t a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d t o urban u s e ; s e c o n d l y , i t can l e a d t o i d l i n g of a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of f u t u r e c o n v e r s i o n t o urban uses e i t h e r through land  s p e c u l a t i o n o r t h r o u g h the s p i l l - o v e r e f f e c t s t h a t  i t g e n e r a t e s ; 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 l a n d s u b d i v i s i o n , s w i t c h - o v e r t o 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 , o r the l i k e . A t t e n t i o n has a l s o t o be drawn t o the f a c t t h a t l a n d has two underl y i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , namely: t h a t i t s t o t a l acreage i s g e n e r a l l y 1  limited  2  and  i t s l o c a t i o n i s completely  fixed.  Because of i t s v e r y n a t u r e which  produces i r r e v e r s i b l e l a n d uses t h r o u g h the c o n s t r u c t i o n of d u r a b l e c a p i t a l improvements on the l a n d and because most of t h i s a c t i v i t y p l a c e on l a n d prime f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l p u r p o s e s , u r b a n i z a t i o n has d e p l e t i o n of a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d at a l a r m i n g  rates.  For  and takes  caused  the  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 t o the passage of the Land Commission A c t i n A p r i l , 1973,  the e r o s i o n of B r i t i s h Columbia's prime a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d by urban  sprawl had  reached 15,000 acres per y e a r (B.C.  Land Commission, 1975).  On the o t h e r hand, t h e r e has been an e v e r - i n c r e a s i n g v i e w t h a t farms and  f a r m l a n d ought t o be p r e s e r v e d .  support f o r the  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 n o t e w o r t h y : s u s t a i n i n g of the p r e s e n t l e v e l  of  food p r o d u c t i o n , k e e p i n g 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 c o s t of r e s t o r i n g such a r e s o u r c e ,  p h y s i c a l damage to the r e s o u r c e ,  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 all  i t s a e s t h e t i c values  and  the s o c i a l c o s t s a t t a c h e d  to the d i s p l a c e m e n t  of a g r i c u l t u r e onto l e s s f e r t i l e l a n d engendering an i n c r e a s e i n 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 . nance of r u r a l l i f e s t y l e and  Thesis  N e e d l e s s to mention the m a i n t e -  the r e t a i n i n g of an e c o l o g i c a l b a l a n c e a l s o  seem t o be of importance i n t h i s  B.  production  respect.  Objectives  In r e c e n t y e a r s , a number of: !methods and r  c o n t r o l s has  s t r a t e g i e s f o r land  emerged to d e a l w i t h the c o n f l i c t s between a g r i c u l t u r a l  i t i e s and u r b a n i z a t i o n .  use activ-  These l a n d 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 t h a t these c o n f l i c t s would have advanced t o such a degree t h a t the i r r e v e r s i b i l i t i e s i n v o l v e d would l e a d to t o t a l d i s o r d e r t h e r e was  government i n t e r v e n t i o n of some k i n d .  i n t e r v e n t i o n which i s a p p r o p r i a t e w i t h r e s p e c t o t o  The  unless  type of government  the p r e s e r v a t i o n  of  3 agricultural to c o n t r o l  land  some o f  thesisaiscto get  an  and  then  It  v a r i e s between communities the  be  any  level  t o know t h e  stage  of  the  study  demonstrates  nation  C.  by  of  of  urban  a better  that  the  to  with  of  i n the  the  and  their the  and  desires  for  pattern  a  land  own  of  use  to policy  power f o r  each  land  this  situations. so  technique  application. of  of  communities  legal  weaknesses  taxation  needs  main o b j e c t i v e s  implement  w h i c h has and  their  planners  deal  a more d e s i r e d  utilization  methods a n a l y z e d  use  system along  and  Finally,  might with  be  a  combi-  study.  Methodology  comparing  the  land,  and  by  tions  on  various  study  use  is divided the  the  another  level  government  land  a p a r t i c u l a r use.  of  and  i s used  to  of  to  inputs  along  sections.  regulation  with  can  be  The  first  to m a i n t a i n defined  and  and  implica-  their  effects  as  or  patterns  called  the  the  power o f the  one  q u a l i t y of  or  a l l o c a t i o n of  p o l i c e power,  p r e s c r i p t i o n of and  examines  a g r i c u l t u r a l land.  i n a d i r e c t way,  power, o f t e n  the  analyzing,  to maintain a g r i c u l t u r a l  relative  a whole,  c e r t a i n uses  control  used  their  restrict,  This  describing,  policy.  four  term r e g u l a t i o n  e i t h e r p r o h i b i t i o n of  measures,  of  by  being  p o l i c y as  into  concept  context,  eludes  achieved  a g r i c u l t u r a l conservation  methods which use  to  be  them i n t e r m s  a g r i c u l t u r a l land  long-run  this  will  t o o l s which are  evaluating  This  In  strengths  to  d e v e l o p m e n t most a p p r o p r i a t e  These o b j e c t i v e s  on  to  government  relative  the  attained  of  a v a i l a b l e tools designed  more r e a d i l y d i s p o s e d  also allows  doing,  One  enable p o l i c y decision-makers,  overview of to  growth p r o c e s s .  as  inel  protective land  develop-  ment . The  second  compensation, which  section implies  i s devoted that  a  to methods u t i l i z i n g  l a n d o w n e r must be  the  concept  compensated  for  of  any  4 losses  i n c u r r e d through  cludes  economic  of  s u b s i d i e s and  their  l a n d as  respond  tory  In  the  third  are being  such  Land  land  f o r farm  l a n d use  permitted  has  offered  example  use,  the  study  compares  Land  c o u n t i e s and  o t h e r hand,  the  The  government, by  given  to decidecon  Act  or use  zoning  powers  of B r i t i s h  s t r e n g t h s and  to  1965,  the  legis-  agricul-  t a x a t i o n to  to preserve  thus  those  compensa-  establishing  which  use  how  of B r i t i s h  C o l u m b i a has  districts  to  to designate  value  the Province By  of  the  in-  means  s t a t e s where  represents  cities  r e g u l a t o r y body.  landholders  two  Conservation  preferential  government  regulations.  the  last  s y s t e m and  characteristics financial  section,  of  cost per  their  a particular  the B r i t i s h  attempt  to  improve  influence  on  the  Columbia a Provin-  agricultural  f o r c e d the g i v e s us  weaknesses of both  unit  are  served,  Columbia's  the  a  implemodel  concepts  l a n d use  control.  with  e a s e and level  f e a t u r e s of  discussed. each other  term  of  are  agricultural  shed  But light  l a n d use  before on  the  Moreover, in  terms  implementation  of u r b a n i z a t i o n experienced  s e v e r a l recommendations  i t s effectiveness. to  negative  compared  their  to  Finally,  i t i s useful  and  r e g u l a t o r y system are  e a c h method  region.  to  each method,  of  the p o s i t i v e  appropriateness  respect  of  the  of  them f r e e  It also  out.  as w e l l as in  California  On  leave  State of C a l i f o r n i a  C o m m i s s i o n w h i c h was  compensatory  of  The  of mandatory a g r i c u l t u r a l  In  the  and  a case  has  lands.  the  cial  spelled  the  California  constitutes  mentation  used.  Through  preserves,  owners o f  section,  i n land.  encourage a g r i c u l t u r a l  land, but  inducements.  latureoof tural  agricultural  of h i s r i g h t s  inducements p r o v i d e d by  t a x a t i o n which  the  case.  limitation  financial  to  concepts  of  or  the  are  made  control  getting  governments  into and  in the  their  with an mechanics  5 D.  Governments and Land Use C o n t r o l s  I n Canada, t h e r e a r e f o u r l e v e l s o f g o v e r n i n g b o d i e s which can e x e r c i s e power w i t h r e s p e c t t o l a n d use c o n t r o l : t h e 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, t h e degree o f involvement  differs  depending upon t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s which have been g i v e n e a c h h l e v e l by t h e B r i t i s h N o r t h A m e r i c a A c t . concerning  l a n d use c o n t r o l .  The BNA A c t indeed s e t s t h e b a s i c r u l e s  S e c t i n 95 o f t h e A c t a l l o w s t h e l e g i s l a t u r e  of each p r o v i n c e t o make laws i n r e l a t i o n t o a g r i c u l t u r e , and S e c t i o n 92 p e r m i t s t h e l e g i s l a t u r e o f each p r o v i n c e t o make laws e x c l u s i v e l y i n r e l a t i o n t o p r o p e r t y r i g h t s i n the p r o v i n c e .  Howeve!r?rtheaParliament  o f Canada  may, from time t o t i m e , make laws i n r e l a t i o n t o a g r i c u l t u r e i n a l l o r any of t h e p r o v i n c e s .  W i t h r e g a r d t o l o w e r r l e v e l s o f government, namely t h e  r e g i o n a l and l o c a l b o d i e s , t h e i r powers a r i s e from t h e f a c t t h a t t h e ' . l e g i s l a t u r e o f each p r o v i n c e may make laws i n r e l a t i o n t o m u n i c i p a l therein.  institutions  P r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e s c a n then d e l e g a t e t h e i r a u t h o r i t y and 1  powers t o these b o d i e s o f 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 t o be made h e r e i s what l e v e l o f government b e s t exercises the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t i n land.  I t has been argued t h a t i t s h o u l d  be t h e l e v e l which most e f f e c t i v e l y r e p r e s e n t s t h e p e o p l e a f f e c t e d by t h e decision.  Thus, i n p r i n c i p l e , l a n d use c o n t r o l may be shared among t h e  d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f g o v e r n i n g b o d i e s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i n t e r e s t s which a r e affected  ( P a r k e r , 1972).  F o r 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 t o make d e c i s i o n s about l a n d use where people  outside the  m u n i c i p a l j u r i s d i c t i o n c o u l d be a f f e c t e d , b y such d e c i s i o n s . The management o f renewable r e s o u r c e s and t h e 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 t h e a c t i o n s o f m u n i c i p a l i t i e s (which a r e c r e a t u r e s o f the p r o v i n c e ) 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 o r m o r a l l y 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 Likewise,  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  where l o c a l needs are c o n f l i c t i n g w i t h instance,  the i n c r e a s e  s p a t i a l l y b r o a d e r needs.  desirable  For  i n l o c a l p r o p e r t y t a x base might f a i l t o meet p r o v i n -  c i a l needs such as an i n c r e a s e  in agricultural productivity.  But some  problems e x i s t as s t a t e d by E l l i c k s o n (1972, p. 706): S h i f t i n g l a n d use p l a n n i n g power t o s t a t e o r r e g i o n a l u n i t s would reduce the p r e s e n t 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 a r e 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 knowledgea b l e than s m a l l e r ones and may d r a f t c r u d e r o r d i n a n c e s . A t i e r e d system w i t h the s t a t e h a n d l i n g s t a t e w i d e i s s u e s and l o c a l i t i e s h a n d l i n g l o c a l i s s u e s , i s p o s s i b l e , but i n c r e a s e d c o s t s 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 i n v o l v e m e n t i n l a n d use c o n t r o l appears to be of paramount  importance i n o r d e r t o r a t i o n a l i z e the urban and non-  urban c o m p e t i t i o n f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d .  S i n c e i t c o u l d be e a s i l y assumed  t h a t e n c o u r a g i n g more s t a b l e a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d 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 t o meet t h i s need.  7  II.  REGULATORY METHODS FOR PRESERVING AGRICULTURAL LAND  T h i s s e c t i o n does not p r e t e n d , by any means, t o c o v e r i n depth methoddavailable to c o n t r o l a g r i c u l t u r a l  l a n d use.  each  I t does attempt however-y  to l o o k a t those methods which have been somewhat s u c c e s s f u l i n the p a s t and/or have an impact, whatever land.  the degree, upon p r e s e r v i n g a g r i c u l t u r a l  A t t h i s p o i n t , a warning must be e n u n c i a t e d .  The study has  tended  to f o c u s upon those methods w h i c h , i n our o p i n i o n , have the b e s t p o s s i b i l i t i e s of g a i n i n g s u c c e s s i n the f u t u r e w i t h r e s p e c t t o the p r e s e r v a t i o n of agricultural  land.  The most f a m i l i a r  form of l a n d use c o n t r o l i s t r a d i t i o n a l z o n i n g .  In t h i s c o n t e x t , z o n i n g aims a t r e d u c i n g non-farm development i n an economic a l l y and s o c i a l l y i m p o r t a n t farm a r e a t o the p o i n t a t which i t produces s i g n i f i c a n t n e g a t i v e e f f e c t on the f u t u r e of t h a t a g r i c u l t u r a l (Stockman,  A.  no  land  1978).  Minim'umiLoit Zoning  Minimum l o t z o n i n g o r l a r g e l o t z o n i n g i s a method whereby minimum a c r e r e q u i r e m e n t s a r e imposed.  I t tends t o i n c r e a s e h o u s i n g u n i t c o s t s and  thus to d i s c o u r a g e s i n g l e f a m i l y home development.  COn  the o t h e r hand, r e -  q u i r i n g a l o t t o be a t l e a s t 20 a c r e s , f o r i n s t a n c e , may of  reduce the number  l o t s d e v e l o p e d , but a l s o g r e a t l y i n c r e a s e the t o t a l farm a r e a used  by such l o t s  (Stockman,  1978).  up  By f o r c i n g d e v e l o p e r s t o 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 h o u s i n g , the r e g u l a t i o n f o r c e s them t o chew up  8 much more of the landscape than they have t o (Whyte, 1968).  I t a l s o has  to  be mentioned t h a t i n many cases the main e f f e c t of l a r g e l o t z o n i n g i s t o keep p e o p l e 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 r a c i a l m i n o r i t i e s (Lapping,  and  1977).  T h i s method of zoning has however been h e l d v a l i d i n p r e d o m i n a n t l y r u r a l areas where development i s n o t r e a s o n a b l y  expected f o r 15 t o 20  I t a l l o w s the farmer to r e t a i n an economic r u r a l use f o r the l a n d a t time when t h e r e i s no urban use f o r h i s l a n d .  years. the  In such cases t h e r e i s no  r  l o s s of v a l u e t o 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 z o n i n g does not aim a t permanent e x c l u s i o n of urban use but r a t h e r at b u y i n g time and h i n d e r i n g premature development w h i l e o t h e r c o n t r o l s are b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d  f o r the b e s t p o s s i b l e f u t u r e  of the areas of c o n c e r n .  t h e r e f o r e t o be c a r e f u l l y a p p l i e d  T h i s method has  use  t o s p e c i f i c areas of l a n d s i n c e i t tends t o a c c e n t u a t e 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 T h i s form of z o n i n g a l l o w s o n l y f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l uses w i t h i n the  r e g i o n or l o c a l i t y t h a t i s b e i n g t a k e n i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n .  Exclusive  agri-  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 t h a t a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d , e s p e c i a l l y  prime f a r m l a n d ,  must be p r o t e c t e d as a unique and v a l u a b l e r e s o u r c e  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 c h a r a c t e r There are advantages t o t h i s t e c h n i q u e .  on  i n a community.  S i n c e the v a l u e of the l a n d i s  e x c l u s i v e l y d e r i v e d from i t s p o t e n t i a l f o r f a r m i n g , ment based on non-farm  - or  use are e l i m i n a t e d  (Lapping,  the problems of 1977).  assess-  I t a l s o makes  sure t h a t a s u f f i c i e n t s t o c k of a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d i s b e i n g h e l d t o meet f u t u r e consumers' demands and needs.  Moreover, i t h e l p s keep the  s t r u c t u r e of r u r a l communities and m a i n t a i n  social  the f a r m e r ' s s t a t u s w i t h i n the  9 s o c i e t y as a whole s i n c e the c o n t i n u a n c e o f a g r i c u l t u r e may  be a s s u r e d f o r  the f o r e s e e a b l e f u t u r e . On the o t h e r hand, many shortcomings of a l l , t h e r e w i l l almost  have t o be c o n s i d e r e d .  First  i n e v i t a b l y be p a r c e l s of l a n d i n t h e z o n i n g a r e a  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  ( L a p p i n g , 1977).  Secondly,  the f a r m i n g community a d j a -  cent to u r b a n i z e d areas w i l l not be a b l e t o s e l l t h e i r e s t a t e a t market v a l u e (the use v a l u e of the l a n d as a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d p l u s the i n c r e m e n t a l v a l u e caused by the p o s s i b i l i t y of d e v e l o p i n g the l a n d when t h e r e i s no r e g u l a t i o n ) , when they want to r e t i r e .  Thirdly, political  such  p r e s s u r e s from  d e v e l o p i n g s p e c u l a t o r s , and farmers can become too i n t e n s e t o 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 ' A d v i s o r y Committee, 1976).  C.  Agricultural Districting 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 l a n d .  The  first is  c o m p l e t e l y 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 comes mandatory when the i n i t i a l r e q u i r e m e n t s  a r e b e i n g met.  I n the  beformer,  the p r o v i n c e 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 t o c r e a t e 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 p r o v i n c e , 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 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 o r r e g i o n i s then r e q u i r e d to  d e s i g n a t e an a g r i c u l t u r a l r e s e r v e c o n t a i n i n g a minimum percentage prime l a n d s p e c i f i e d  cri-  by the p r o v i n c e .  of i t s  T h i s a g r i c u l t u r a l r e s e r v e becomes  p a r t of t h e l o c a l government's master p l a n , and o n l y a g r i c u l t u r a l p u r s u i t i s a l l o w e d t h e r e ( M i n e r , 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 a t the g r a s s -  r o o t s l e v e l where the s t a t e o r t h e county  i s b e i n g asked by farmers  c r e a t e 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  to  10 obtained.  A f t e r the i n i t i a l s t e p has been completed, a s e r i e s of f u r t h e r  s t e p s and r e q u i r e m e n t s have t o be f u l f i l l e d b e f o r e g e t t i n g a p p r o v a l 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 s t a t e a t 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 t o 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 z o n i n g w i t h the e x c e p t i o n t h a t the p a r c e l s of l a n d 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 l a n d uses c a n , i n t u r n , be c h a n n e l i z e d onto the land less favorable f o r a g r i c u l t u r e .  W i t h r e g a r d o t o the second form, a n o t h e r  advantage can be mentioned as i t i s put by L a p p i n g (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 Y o r k ] won wide-based s u p p o r t , as w e l l as l e g i s l a t i v e a p p r o v a l , 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 ... W i t h t h i s heavy emphasis on the l o c a l i n i t i a t i o n p f o t h e program, much of the h o s t i l i t y c r e a t e d i n r u r a l a r e a s by the word " z o n i n g " and the tferm " l a n d use c o n t r o l s " has been e l i m i n a t e d . In short, 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 u n d e r t a k i n g s as w e l l as f o r a g r i b u s i n e s s e s w h i c h can r e l y on a s t a b l e market i n the a r e a . D.  Maximum D e n s i t y Zoning T h i s type of z o n i n g p l a c e s a l i m i t on non-farm development  i g n a t e d p a r c e l of l a n d .  T h i s t e c h n i q u e has s e v e r a l advantages.  p e r des-  I t prevents  a d e v e l o p e r 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 a c r e s each, t h e r e b y removing a l a r g e amount of a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d from p r o d u c t i o n (a d i s t i n c t d i s a d v a n t a g e i n minimum l o t z o n i n g , see I I . A ) .  I t a l l o w s the farmer t o have  the o p p o r t u n i t y t o s e l l o f f a l o t or two, i n o r d e r t o r e l i e v e h i s cash f l o w problem o r accommodate a r e l a t i v e .  F i n a l l y , i t can h i n d e r the c o n v e r s i o n of  good f a r m l a n d i n t o o t h e r 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 t h o s e t r a c t s of l a n d which a r e not a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d , such as wooded a r e a s o r waste  land.  11 As i n a l l t e c h n i q u e s , t h i s method has some i m p e r f e c t i o n s b u i l t it.  into  One a r i s e s when o n l y rone non-farm l o t i s a l l o w e d i n a g i v e n p a r c e l o f  land.  Who w i l l be t h e one t o 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 l a n d i n t h i s p a r c e l from d o i n g i t (Stockman, 1978).  A n o t h e r problem i s r e l a t e d t o t h e d e n s i t y w h i c h would be a p p r o p r i a t e  to m a i n t a i n a g i v e n a g r i c u l t u r a l a r e a on a f a i r l y for  permanent b a s i s , y e t a l l o w  a degree o f non-farm development d e s i r e d by t h e l o c a l i n h a b i t a n t s . T h i s t e c h n i q u e works b e s t and i s most a p p r o p r i a t e i n areas  identi-  f i e d as h a v i n g prime l a n d and b e g i n n i n g t o e x p e r i e n c e non-farm development pressures. E.  Utility  Extension Regulation  T h i s r e g u l a t i o n s t a t e s t h a t no development should be a l l o w e d u n l e s s connected trol  to municipal u t i l i t i e s .  The l o c a l government c o u l d i n e f f e c t  development through u t i l i t y e x t e n s i o n s  1976).  con-  ( C i t i z e n s ' A d v i s o r y Committee,  The purpose o f t h i s r e g u l a t i o n i s t o d i s c o u r a g e development i n t h e  r u r a l areas u n t i l a l l o f t h e areas w i t h i n t h e 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.  T h i s 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  e n f o r c e d by t h e community  However, t h i s t e c h n i q u e does n o t h e l p areas w h i c h a r e l o s i n g l a n d beyond t h e immediate f r i n g e a r e a .  concerned. agricultural  But t h i s c o u l d 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 c o u n t i e s power t o i n s i s t on u t i l i t y c o n n e c t i o n s to  development.  F.  Easements There a r e two c l a s s e s o f easements.  One c l a s s i s p o s i t i v e easement:  t h a t i s , t h e p r o v i n c i a l , r e g i o n a l o r l o c a l governmenttacquires do something w i t h p a r t o f t h e farmer's  prior  the r i g h t to-  l a n d such as p u b l i c a c c e s s , water  12 r i g h t s , r i g h t s of way, ments.  and the l i k e .  The  other category  i s negative  ease-  I n t h i s c a s e , the government buys from the landowner h i s r i g h t t o  d e v e l o p the l a n d .  T h i s concept l i e s b e h i n d  the f a c t t h a t l a n d ownership  c o n t a i n s a bundle of r i g h t s from which each r i g h t can be s e p a r a t e d a l t e r i n g ownership t o any g r e a t e x t e n t . c a l l e d purchase of development r i g h t s . continues  T h i s form of r e g u l a t i o n i s o f t e n Through t h i s scheme, the farmer  t o farm or use the l a n d j u s t as he has done b e f o r e ;  main aims of the easements, indeed,  without  one of  i s t o encourage him t o do j u s t  the  that  (Whyte, 1968). In s h o r t , t h i s technique  a l l o w s the government t o a c q u i r e ,  on a v o l u n t a r y o r mandatory b a s i s , the l e s s - t h a n - f e e - s i m p l e  either  development  r i g h t t o l a n d 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 v a l u e and a g r i c u l t u r a l use v a l u e .  Therefore,  t u r a l l a n d can be p r e s e r v e d .  by p r o h i b i t i n g c e r t a i n u s e s , a g r i c u l -  A l s o s i n c e easements run w i t h the l a n d ,  c o n d i t i o n s a p p l y i n p e r p e t u i t y t o subsequent owners of the  owner can c o n t i n u e  the landowner.  On the one hand, s i n c e the  property  1977).  for land-  t o put the l a n d t o p r o d u c t i v e , though l i m i t e d , use,  government does not have to assume the burden of m a i n t a i n i n g (Lapping,  their  property.  There are s e v e r a l advantages w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h i s t e c h n i q u e b o t h the government and  the  the  the  property  On the o t h e r hand, the landowner gets a decrease i n h i s  t a x base because thecencumbrance causes the assessment t o d e c r e a s e .  A n o t h e r b e n e f i t to the owner i s t h a t he keeps h i s l a n d and gets a c e r t a i n amount of money f o r the r i g h t he has t o enhance farm b u s i n e s s  g i v e n up, and  the proceeds can be used  as o p e r a t i n g and/or investment c a p i t a l .  i m p o r t a n t l y , the p r i d e of ownership i s m a i n t a i n e d been reduced t o b e i n g a tenant  and  Most  the farmer has  on the l a n d he c h e r i s h e s .  To a l e s s e r  a n o t h e r 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 t h a t landowners g e t .  They do  not extent, not  13 have to worry about the l o s s of the a e s t h e t i c since  the easement can  a l s o be  t a i l o r e d t o the n a t u r a l  p r e s e n t i n the a r e a (Whyte, 1968).  f e a t u r e s which  T h i s l a s t advantage l e a d s us  s p e c i f i c i t y of easement r e g u l a t i o n . use  r o l e of t h e i r s u r r o u n d i n g s  Land use  are  to  the  p r o h i b i t i o n s , through  the  of n e g a t i v e easements, can be adapted to the a g r i c u l t u r a l v a l u e s to  protected.  An  a c q u i s i t i o n p l a n by  the government or i t s agency c o u l d  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 l a n d which i t sought to  protect,  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 . ments are v e r y f l e x i b l e l e g a l agreements w h i c h may i n t e r e s t s of the  landowner and  i n o r d e r to p r o t e c t  the  be  Thus ease-  t a i l o r e d to both  s p e c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the  the n a t u r a l v a l u e of the p r o p e r t y (Roe,  the a c q u i s i t i o n of development easements i s not used i n r u r a l areas r a t h e r  be  than i n u r b a n i z e d  the  property  1976).  Finally,  e x p e n s i v e when i t i s b e i n g  areas but  s t i l l costly i f  compared t o t p r e f e r e n t i a l assessment t e c h n i q u e s . There are however s e v e r a l servation  easements.  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 c o n -  F i r s t of a l l , a c q u i s i t i o n c o s t i n u r b a n i z e d r e g i o n s  can be v e r y e x p e n s i v e .  S i n c e the v a l u e of the easement i s the  difference  between what the p r o p e r t y i s worth w i t h o u t the r e s t r i c t i o n s , and what i t i s w o r t h w i t h them, the c o s t of a c q u i r i n g prime l a n d immodest. and  development r i g h t s on a p i e c e of  i n an a r e a w h i c h i s s u i t a b l e f o r development might be The  owner i s g i v i n g up  a major p a r t of the v a l u e of h i s p r o p e r t y  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  l i m i t a t i o n i s the c a r r y i n g servation  easements.  As  quite  (Whyte, 1968).  Secondly, another  charges r e l a t e d t o p u b l i c a c q u i s i t i o n of  s t a t e d by Roe,  (1976} p.  436):  Large s c a 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 c o n s i d e r a b l e c o s t s f o r p u r c h a s e , 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 s e v e r e l y 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 t o the p r o t e c t i o n of o n l y s m a l l t r a c t s ^ a t b e s t of c r u c i a l l y i m p o r t a n t l a n d s .  conser-  14 T h i r d l y , governmental a c q u i s i t i o n of c o n s e r v a t i o n easements reduces  the t a x  base o f l o c a l governments w h i c h a r e h e a v i l y dependent on p r o p e r t y t a x e s . W h i l e a g r i c u l t u r a l landowners w i l l pay t a x e s on t h e a s s e s s e d v a l u e o f t h e i r l a n d , t h e p i e c e o f p r o p e r t y encumbered by an easement w i l l b e n e f i t from reduced G.  t a x z r a t e s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e degree o f use r e s t r i c t i o n .  Compensable R e g u l a t i o n The compensable r e g u l a t i o n method has borrowed i t s main f e a t u r e s  from b o t h z o n i n g r e g u l a t i o n and c o n s e r v a t i o n easement methods.  As s t a t e d  by Roe, (1976, p. 427): " i t i s a method o f 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 l a n d use by p r o v i d i n g compensation f o r p r o p e r t y v a l u e l o s s e s (sometimes termed w i p e o u t s )  due t o r e g u l a t i o n . " Under t h i s scheme, b e f o r e l a n d i s  r e g u l a t e d , each p a r c e l i s a s s e s s e d and a guaranteed  value e s t a b l i s h e d .  A f t e r t h e r e g u l a t i o n has been made e f f e c t i v e , t h e landowner i s i m m e d i a t e l y compensated i f , and t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t , t h e r e g u l a t i o n reduces  the value of  the l a n d f o r uses b e i n g performed a t t h e time t h e r e g u l a t i o n i s a p p l i e d . I n t h e event t h a t i t does n o t o c c u r , t h e landowner i s s t i l l  compensated f o r  the l o s s o f t h e r i g h t t o develop h i s p r o p e r t y b u t compensation i s n o t made u n t i l the property i s sold.  When t h e p r o p e r t y i s s o l d , t h e l a n d h o l d e r can  put i n a c l a i m t o r e c o v e r t h e l o s s i n market v a l u e because o f t h e r e s t r i c t i o n s imposed on such l a n d .  The r a t i o n a l e i s t h a t he has i n c u r r e d no l o s s  b e f o r e 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 o f t h e compensable r e g u l a t i o n method i s t h a t i t s c o s t s may n o t be i n c u r r e d as soon as a r e those o f a c o n s e r v a t i o n easements a c q u i s i t i o n program.  On t h e o t h e r hand, compensa-  t i o n r e g u l a t i o n l i k e any z o n i n g r e g u l a t i o n i s s u b j e c t t o z o n i n g 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 w h i l e easements a r e n o r m a l l y a c q u i r e d i n p e r p e t u i t y ( L a p p i n g , 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 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 i n urban "fringes and i f the a r e a i s r i p e f o r development, i t may province  H.  (Roe,  But,  not be more e x p e n s i v e f o r a  or a m u n i c i p a l i t y t o a c q u i r e p r o p e r t y  for regulations  i n more r u r a l a r e a s .  i n t e r e s t s than t o compensate  1976).  Expropr i a t i o n T h i s method i s not o f t e n used w i t h r e s p e c t  It i s , nevertheless,  a t o o l a v a i l a b l e to any  to a g r i c u l t u r a l land.  l e v e l of government and  I  within  i t s sphere of powers s i n c e t h e r e 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 t a k e n w i t h o u t due  p r o c e s s of  law.  As t o the q u e s t i o n whether P a r l i a m e n t has the power t o e x p r o p r i a t e a l a n d f o r p u b l i c purposes w i t h o u t compensation, t h e r e cannot be any doubt. The L e g i s l a t u r e s have the same powers as P a r l i a m e n t , and t h e r e would be no n e c e s s i t y f o r compensation t o be g i v e n . ( C h a l l i e s , 1973, p. 75). However, the g e n e r a l 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 l o n g been t h a t compensation i s g i v e n , 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 e x p r e s s e d i n the c l e a r e s t and most u n e q u i v o c a l terms ( C h a l l i e s , 1973, p. 77). I n 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 compensation f o r the v a l u e of the l a n d taken.  to  S i n c e the power t o e x p r o -  p r i a t e l a n d w i t h o u t compensation i s not e x e r c i s e d , we  then assume t h a t  the  landowner i s compensated f o r the t a k i n g of h i s l a n d . A l t h o u g h t h i s method i s v e r y e f f i c i e n t i n p r e s e r v i n g l a n d from any n o n - c o m p a t i b l e use,  some problems are i n h e r e n t  agricultural t o i t s use.  F i r s t , o u t r i g h t purchase i s a v e r y e x p e n s i v e 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 l a n d .  I t i m p l i e s an o p p o r t u n i t y  c o s t which has  to  be  h e a v i l y considered.  S e c o n d l y , s i n c e much of the r u r a l l a n d i s a g r i c u l -  t u r a l l y productive,  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 l a n d may  be  16 v u l n e r a b l e t o some i n t e r e s t groups who farming p r a c t i c e s (Lapping,  1977).  favor p o l i c i e s inconsistent with  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 a l o n g 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 l e a s e d back t o farmers f o r f a r m i n g ,  I.  c o u l d be v e r y  not  prohibitive.  Stewardship The  concept of s t e w a r d s h i p  or minimum maintenance r e q u i r e m e n t s  has been i n c l u d e d i n the a n a l y s i s not because i t d i r e c t l y p r e s e r v e s 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 t o e x e r t p r e s s u r e  agricultoward  p r o p e r l a n d 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 e s t i n the use and husbandry of the l a n d (Beaubien, 1977).  inter-  This i s a  concept whereby an annual maintenance f e e , p a y a b l e i n cash o r worked o f f i n management, i s l e v i e d upon any c u l t u r a l use.  The  l a n d h o l d e r who  owns l a n d s u i t a b l e f o r a g r i -  purpose of e s t a b l i s h i n g minimum management s t a n d a r d s f o r  a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d i s t o r a i s e b a s i c l e v e l s of maintenance. ment s h o u l d  This r e q u i r e -  s t i m u l a t e a more p r o d u c t i v e use of l a n d 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 l a n d s c a p e o f the  region.  Good l a n d management might i n c l u d e c r o p 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 . pend upon the c a p a b i l i t y of the  But how  much, and what use w i l l  de-  land.  I n o r d e r t o s e t s t a n d a r d s 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 l a n d i s to be d e t e r m i n e d . A s i m p l e system c o u l d be worked out t o make i t e x p e n s i v e to h o l d good a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d i n low p r o d u c t i v i t y , which would p r e s s u r e poor u s e r s or non-users t o improve t h e i r p e r formance or t o l e a s e t h e i r l a n d t o somebody who i s a b l e t o improve the l a n d use (Beaubien, 1977, p. 76). T h i s 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 l a n d or some c o m b i n a t i o n 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).  use,  17 J.  Other  Methods  There in  the  those land  a number o f  preservation already  these are:  given  of  other  methods w h i c h m i g h t be  agricultural  discussed,  preservation,  Among a  are  or  are  i t i s not  inverse  fairly  worth  parcel  land.  minor  doing  size  or  Since  they  are  in achieving  sliding  special  zoning  regulations  l o t depth  interim  zoning  c o n t r o l s whereby  period  government vation  of  of  t i m e ; and  allows small  the  development  bonus and  developer  agricultural  c o n t r o l on  to  areas.  size  of  them. permitting the  and/or  zoning  density  farmland;  width;  is prohibited for a  incentives increase  the  of  agricultural  s c a l e method  on  short  variations  more t h a n m e n t i o n i n g  number o f n o n - f a r m d e v e l o p m e n t s b a s e d such as  instrumental  relatively  i n which the  in return  for  local preser-  18  III.  A.  COMPENSATORY METHODS FOR  Taxation  Methods  Historically, less  costly  areas.  to use  The  of  rationale  land,  potential  the  to  sell  devote h i s that  i t was  such  as  land  him of  by  to continue  a result  increased  the  l a n d was an  increase  no  longer  activity.  farming  of  farming,  i t was  believed that  tax was to  argued  for services i t d i d not  t a x b u r d e n s and  use  par-  f o r him  i t was  to pay  s e r v i c e s franwhich  in agricultural  the  farmer  Secondlly,  farmer  kept  on  to consider i t s  profitable  community  develop-  in property  the  l a n d w o u l d be  out  income e x t e n s i v e l y , the  i t was  fringe  of urban  of  municipal  relieving  bene-  then  significant  which would  other-  shifted.  Preferential  Assessment  A preferential  than  and  as  t o make i t  urban  carried  agricultural  schools  first,  i n the  currently being  shrank h i s  t o an  implemented  purposes  Then f a c i n g  i n e q u i t a b l e f o r the  roads,  quantities  assessed  value  h i s land b e c a u s e  Therefore,  1.  activity  development v a l u e .  forced  w i s e be  twofold:  assessed  i n many c a s e s ,  allowing  for agricultural  was  the  which,  fit.  t a x a t i o n schemes h a v e b e e n  land  ment r e g a r d l e s s o f cel  PRESERVING AGRICULTURAL LAND  upon  the  assessment  b a s i s of  i t s market v a l u e .  t a x a t i o n scheme i s one  i t s value  according  Capitalization  of  to  where l a n d  its:;current  i n c o m e and  soil  use  is  rather  productivity  19 r a t i n g s are the most commonly a c c e p t e d approaches used t o a s s e s s  farmland;  the former i s d e r i v e d 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 p e r c e n t a g e r e p r e s e n t i n g a f a i r r e t u r n on  investment.  S i n c e c u r r e n t usage a l o n e does n o t d i f f e r e n t i a t e between bona f i d e farmers and s p e c u l a t o r s who  can b e n e f i t from the scheme by c o n d u c t i n g v e r y  minimal f a r m i n g o p e r a t i o n s , most s t a t e s and p r o v i n c e s have t r i e d t o i n c o r p o r a t e 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 a c r e s must be farmed; ( i i ) a minimum g r o s s income must be derived from the l a n d ; ( i i i ) a c e r t a i n ( p o r t i o n 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 ) l a n d must have been i n  q u a l i f y i n g use f o r a minimum number of immediate p a s t y e a r s . S e v e r a l advantages u n d e r l i e the p r e f e r e n t i a l assessment t a x scheme.  The approach  encourages farmers t o keep t h e i r l a n d i n the a g r i -  c u l t u r a l b u s i n e s s and thus decreases development p r e s s u r e s on these l a n d s . A l s o , as s t a t e d by the C e n t r a l F r a s e r V a l l e y R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t P l a n n i n g 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 h e l p t o keep r i s i n g food p r i c e s down by i n s u r i n g t h a t food p r o d u c t i o n areas can c o n t i n u e t o remain c l o s e t o m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a s , where they can serve c i t y r e s i d e n t s e c o n o m i c a l l y w i t h f r e s h , wholesome, s u f f i c i e n t and h i g h q u a l i t y p r o d u c t s a t the lowest p r i c e s . I t has a l s o been argued t h a t , because of the t a x r e d u c t i o n , people w i s h i n g t o buy a p a r c e l of l a n d f o r f a r m i n g 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 c o s t s so t h a t they can a f f o r d to pay more f o r the l a n d and r  compete w i t h d e v e l o p e r s . On the o t h e r hand, d i f f e r e n t i a l assessment i s l i k e l y t o r a i s e ottier p r o p e r t y owners' t a x b i l l s same l e v e l  (assuming  land) unless  i f p u b l i c s e r v i d e s have t o be m a i n t a i n e d a t the  the a r e a i n c l u d e s a r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e acreage of  farm-  t h e r e 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.  S e c o n d l y , s i n c e 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 l a n d i n a g r i c u l t u r e where farmers have t o r e s i s t h i g h development p r e s s u r e s ly  l a r g e c a p i t a l gain;; t h e n , under such c i r c u m s t a n c e s ,  prove t o be i n c a p a b l e  determination  a r i s e on the d e t e r m i n a t i o n  p a r c e l of l a n d i s b e i n g used i n 2.  Deferred Deferred  may Finally,  to a d m i n i s t r a t i v e m a t t e r s .  of use v a l u e can indeed be v e r y d i f f i c u l t i n s e v e r a l  c a s e s , because of the l a c k of p e r t i n e n t c u l t i e s may  the scheme  of i n f l u e n c i n g the p a t t e r n of development.  the approach a l s o has weaknesses w i t h r e s p e c t The  as w e l l as a p o t e n t i a l -  information.  Further  diffi-  of whether or not a p a r t i c u l a r  farming.  Taxation t a x a t i o n can be d e f i n e d as p r e f e r e n t i a l assessment w h i c h  f e a t u r e s a r o l l b a c k tax p r o v i s i o n .  I n t h i s case a r o l l b a c k t a x i s  one  which i s l e v i e d a g a i n s t the tax s a v i n g s which r e s u l t from a s s e s s i n g l a n d at i t s u s e - v a l u e r a t h e r than at i t s market v a l u e . when the l a n d use  farm-  I t i s imposed  i s c o n v e r t e d from a g r i c u l t u r a l t o an u n q u a l i f i e d  As s t a t e d by Keene (1977, p. 3 6 ) , t h e s e d e f e r r e d  t a x a t i o n and  use.  conveyance  t a x 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 d e s i g n e d to c a p t u r e some of the t a x 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 a r e d e s i g n e d to d e t e r owners of l a n d w h i c h have r e c e i v e d tax b e n e f i t s from c o n v e r t i n g t h e i r l a n d . However, i t must be p o i n t e d out t h a t the i n c l u s i o n of the back p r o v i s i o n c o n f l i c t s w i t h the a f o r e m e n t i o n e d aim of p r o v i d i n g 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 t o  rolltax  forgo  the b e n e f i t s d e r i e d from the scheme by not e n r o l l i n g s i n c e the mere  de-  f e r r a l of p r o p e r t y  the  t a x e s might not be a s u f f i c i e n t m o t i v e t o t e n t e r  program.  On t h e o t h e r hand, f o r those farmers who do e n t e r t h e program,  the r e c a p t u r e o f t a x e s 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 t o t h e l a r g e c a p i t a l g a i n s which stem from s e l l i n g o r c o n v e r t i n g and  thus has a minimal impact on f a r m e r ' s d e c i s i o n .  argued t h a t a r o l l b a c k t a x i s a n e c e s s a r y of e q u i t y .  farmland,  However, i t c o u l d be  p r o v i s i o n from t h e s t a n d p o i n t  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  p r o v i d e a f r e e r i d e f o r t h e s p e c u l a t o r (depending on t h e scheme r e q u i r e ments), a t t h e c o s t o f o t h e r s whose t a x e s a r e i n c r e a s e d t o make up f o r t h e l o s s i n m u n i c i p a l revenue (Keene, 1977). 3.  R e s t r i c t i v e Agreements S i n c e t h i s scheme i s d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n IV t h r o u g h t h e 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 , i t i s h e r e t r e a t e d o n l y b r i e f l y .  Restrictive  agreement i s a program whereby t h e s t a t e o r l o c a l government e n t e r s an agreement w i t h an a g r i c u l t u r a l landowner.  into  The agreement s t i p u l a t e s  t h a t t h e landowner must r e s t r i c t the use o f h i s l a n d t o a g r i c u l t u r e f o r a g i v e n p e r i o d o f t i m e , 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 L a p p i n g (1977, p. 279): " i n e f f e c t l a n d owners a r e 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 o f t i m e , i n exchange f o r a f a v o r a b l e assessment o f t a x e s . "  An u n d e r l y i n g advantage o f t h e scheme  i s t h a t i t ensures t h a t l a n d i s k e p t 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 o f y e a r s .  S i n c e t h e agreementso.are g e n e r a l l y made f o r a m i n i m a l  p e r i o d o f t e n y e a r s , they tend t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e between bona f i d e f a r m e r s and s p e c u l a t o r s and, hence, i n c r e a s e the b e n e f i t s g o i n g t o the former r e l a t i v e to speculators.  22  4.  Conclusions The o v e r a l l e f f e c t s o f changes i n p r o p e r t y t a x a t i o n through t h e  aforementioned  approaches do n o t seem t o i n f l u e n c e t h 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 land to a great extent.  S i n c e t h e s e approaches cannot  con-  t r o l t h e t i m i n g and p a t t e r n o f development, they have t o be l i n k e d t o o t h e r l a n d use c o n t r o l measures i n o r d e r t o i n c r e a s e t h e inducements t o f a r m i n g and d i r e c t urban growth t o n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d .  This  problem  i s d e a l t w i t h i n t h e C o n c l u s i o n and Recommendations s e c t i o n o f t h i s study.  As Whyte (1968, p. 116) has s t a t e d :  My own guess i s t h a t p r e f e r e n t i a l assessment i s g o i n g t o do v e r y l i t t l e t o h a l t t h e c o n v e r s i o n of open space. Even i f t h e s p e c u l a t o r i s weeded out and o n l y t h e t r u e farmer b e n e f i t s , t h e t r u e farmer i s g o i n g t o do what anybody e l s e would do. When t h e p r i c e i s r i g h t , he i s g o i n g t o s e l l o u t , l o w taxes o r no. And why s h o u l d he n o t ? He i s n o t g o i n g t o f o r s w e a r a l a r g e c a p i t a l g a i n so s u b u r b a n i t e s w i l l have p r e t t y s c e n e r y . U n l e s s t h e r e i s some c o m p e l l i n g i n c e n t i v e , he i s g o i n g t o r e l o c a t e .  B.  T r a n s f e r o f Development R i g h t s T r a n s f e r o f development r i g h t s i s a r e l a t i v e l y new t e c h n i q u e  i s b e i n g used i n c r e a s i n g l y i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s .  which  The mechanics o f t h e  technique a r e q u i t e simple, although t h e i r implementation system makes i t l e s s a t t r a c t i v e , b u t s t i l l v a l u a b l e .  through a market  Under t h e program,  a z o n i n g d i s t r i c t d e s i g n a t e s areas where development i s p r o h i b i t e d , and o t h e r s where development can s t i l l  occur.  The d e n s i t i e s of development  i n d e v e l o p a b l e areas a r e made h i g h e r than those a l l o w e d under t h e p r e v i o u s z o n i n g system by t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e development r i g h t s o f t h e a r e a s  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 t o t h e d e v e l o p a b l e a r e a s . As i t i s p u t by Nieswand, A i r o l a and Chavooshian  (1974, p. 1 5 ) :  Landowners i n t h e p r e s e r v e d a r e a s , who w i l l c o n t i n u e t o own t h e i r l a n d , may s e l l t h e i r r i g h t s t o f u r t h e r development t o o t h e r landowners o r b u i l d e r s who w i s h t o develop those a r e a s i n which development i s agreed on.  23 For  instance,  the d e n s i t y  a developer  of h i s p a r c e l  establishment  kinds:  area  can be  o f two  rights  i s d e t e r m i n e d by  system  i n which a p u b l i c  ment  lies  increase  resulting  from the  at a market-determined p r i c e . market  supply  i n which  and demand  body a c t s  the p r i c e  forces,  rights  The  of  market  development  or a p u b l i c  a s c b o t h b u y e r and  provision; transfers  seller  i t only  cost  to municipal  the l o c a l  essential  pattern  there  the r a t e  market  of  develop-  of development  i t i s very the market  Bevins  and H e r b e r s  of farming low s i n c e  of p u b l i c  hard may  and  services  controlled  several  t o be  n o t work p r o p e r l y . exists rights;  develop-  zoning  area  and  ownership of h i s  activities there  and  i s no  tenure.  acquisition  planning which i s rights.  much e a s i e r  since  through zoning  the  districts. toi t ,  t o make i t i m p l e m e n t a b l e .  to determine the value  demand f o r t h e d e v e l o p m e n t  of the  advantages attached  overcome  (1977), a p o s s i b i l i t y  compen-  of o v e r a l l  i n one  the farmer keeps  easily  many d i f f i c u l t i e s  since  the l e v e l  scheme  I t thus  from the s e v e r i t y  and demand f o r d e v e l o p m e n t  the t e c h n i q u e has  rights  insufficient  c a n be  t o be  through the previous  i s very  the supply  rights  t o land ownership.  except f o r the zoning  i t makes t h e p r o v i s i o n  instance,  stem  areas  o f development  disruption  taxpayers  to establish  are also  which  Moreover,  i s no  government  Although  attached  t o t h e community  i t to another. there  right  I t does n o t a l t e r  modifies  development  owners o f r e g u l a t e d  inequities  granted  and h e n c e ,  Finally,  of a b a s i c  restriction.  ment w h i c h was  of the t r a n s f e r a b l e  i t allows  the f i n a n c i a l  regulation  land  that  f o r the loss  curtails  For  ceiling  to  z o n e s , must p u r c h a s e d e v e l o p m e n t  a private  advantage  i n the fact  sated  by  t o t h e new  is willing  rights. A major  The  of land  of the preserved  f r o m owners o f t h e s a i d  o r b u i l d e r who  of  development  As m e n t i o n e d b y L a p p i n g , that  there w i l l  the developer  or  be builder  24  might  decide not to opt f o r higher d e n s i t i e s  thus n o t purchase development served  rights from  and t h e d e v e l o p e r  to s e l l  to pick  his rights  t i m i n g of such builder  might  the technique  even  f o r a lower  price  Csineei.it  the exposition  take  is left  to abler  benefits  problem.  i t does n o t a d d r e s s up t o t h e d e v e l o p e r  advantage  o f development  Conse-  f o r h i s development  e n d up w i t h w i n d f a l l  i s left  buying  i n the pre-  price.  i s faced with another  t o d e c i d e when t h e y w i l l transfer  i f t h e y were  t h e landowner  the p a t t e r n of development,  development,  t o whether  Canada,  or b u i l d e r  Finally,  i t deals with  As in  t h e y would be a b l e  is willing  the deal.  and/or  By t h e same t o k e n ,  t h e landowner would n o t g e t a f a i r  Although the  rights,  a r e a who  quently,  the r i g h t s .  i n d e v e l o p a b l e a r e a s and  rights  o f the program.  s h o u l d be  implemented  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 n o t an ownership r i g h t , b u t a p r i v i l e g e g i v e n t o a f e w b y g o v e r n m e n t t o meet t h e p u b l i c ' s r e q u i r e m e n t f o r changes i n land u s e . A t t h i s s t a g e , t o g r a n t the r i g h t o f development t o landowner would be a backward s t e p i n t h a t i t w o u l d p l a c e s e r i o u s a d d i t i o n a l p r o b l e m s on o r d e r l y d e v e l o p m e n t a n d l o n g - r a n g e p l a n n i n g . ( A l b e r t a L a n d U s e F o r u m , 1976, p . 1 0 0 ) .  C.  Purchase  o f Land  The  last  land banking. creation nity  created,  the l o c a l  purchase  banking form  land  banking types  discussed i n this  c a n come i n t o  public  x  that whatever  and d i s a d v a n t a g e s government  study  would  the type result.  establishes  and by e x p r o p r i a t i o n  c o r p o r a t i o n c a n be f i n a n c e d e i t h e r  o f g r a n t s and l o a n s , by b o r r o w i n g  directly  or by both.  a n d commuof trust i s In t h i s  a public  power t o a c q u i r e t h e f e e s i m p l e r i g h t s  on t h e o p e n m a r k e t  i s called  e x i s t e n c e through the  of t r u s t s ( p r i v a t e ,  assumes  or provincial  i s granted  Trust  t o be f u l l y  t h e same a d v a n t a g e s  t i o n which  the  Although  a Land  trusts) , the study  approach,  land  technique  of three d i f f e r e n t  land  through  Through  corpora-  to land  both  procedures.  The  by government i n  25 This ity  of  sites  t y p e and 1975)  a p p r o a c h has needed  s c a l e of  but  been  f o r development;  development  i t could  implemented:  be  geared  and,  ( i i ) to  ( i i i )  toward  ( i ) to  ensure  c o n t r o l the  to prevent  creating  the  availabil-  timing,  urban  a permanent  location,  sprawl  (Fishman,  agricultural  reserve. The ensures  that  securing in  the  advantages  an  agricultural  tion  land  property ment o f a  by  most  the  bank  corporation.  other  hand,  local  outlay  could  funds  entirely  offset  the  of  costs  carrying a  g o v e r n m e n t may  take a program  of  this  be  kind  and  the since  the  a  suitable for pressures.  for  the  I t also allows  simple  decrease  these  a greater t a x e s no  be  quite  reasons,  longer  defer-  to  by  program  base,  scheme),  financial  of  made  operations  investment  For  to  loss  i n such a  i n tax  the  pur-  required  r i g h t s can  banking  of  corpora-  for a  a d d i t i o n a l lands  s u c h an  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  the  willing  s u i t a b l e g o v e r n i n g body  i t has  important  l e a s e back of  compensate  land  it  thus  p u r c h a s e d by  involvement  inventory. most  most  corporations  objectives  cope w i t h land  fee  Since  public  to  or  government  feasible.  able  or  land.  the  of  be  been  Finally,  acquire  the  Third,  the  to  the  has  farmers  upon  use,  to developemnt  a c q u i s i t i o n costs levied  First,  is particularly  is usually  wish  from  provincial  to  maintenance c o s t s .  land  This  use.  several.  i n i t s present  susceptible  agricultural  longer  not  the  farmland.  does not  initial  itself,  scheme a r e  o w n e r s whose l a n d  either lessen  g o v e r n m e n t may  can  to  of  where l a n d  always economically  large  in  and  this  is retained  long-term basis  farmland  On not  a  t a x e s no  available  a  on  f a r m e r who  is  activity  restricted  farm would  land  f r i n g e areas,  i t compensates  and  chased  agricultural  adequateesupply  urban  Second,  r e l a t e d to  require (which,  local apart the under-  capacity  and  collectible.  26 Another  major  ownership tages nity  area  of concern  of h i s land.  of the program, as a whole  Furthermore,  since  Not  on  only  must  but i t could i t s ties  i t would be  farm equipment  r e s t s upon  futile  the p a r t  the f a c t  this  a l s o be  that  be weighed detrimental  t o l a n d have been to expect high  the farmer against  o f f a r m e r s who  h a v e now  banking  justified  the advan-  to the r u r a l  considerably  leyels  loses  commu-  reduced.  of investment i n  become t e n a n t s  on  the  land. On could  be  the whole,  the best  land  c a n be  on  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  areas which are i n the process  of being  lost  the basis to preserve  to a g r i c u l t u r e .  that i t key  IV.  A.  ANALYSIS OF TWO STATES USING DIFFERENT SYSTEMS''J  The S t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a and t h e 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  1.  Description  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 ( o f t e n r e f e r r e d t o as t h e W i l l i a m s o n A c t o r CLCA) was enacted by t h e L e g i s l a t u r e o f C a l i f o r n i a i n 1966.  I n i t s p r e s e n t s t r u c t u r e , t h e W i l l i a m s o n A c t has t h r e e major  obj e c t i v e s : (a) t o p r e s e r v e t h e l i m i t e d s u p p l y o f a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d f o r t h e maintenance o f t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l economy o f the s t a t e and f o r t h e a s s u r a n c e o f an adequate food s u p p l y f o r f u t u r e r e s i d e n t s o f t h e s t a t e and n a t i o n ; (b) t o d i s c o u r a g e t h e premature and unnecessary 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 t o urban uses because urban s p r a w l i n c r e a s e s t h e c o s t s o f community s e r v i c e s ; (c) t o p r e s e r v e l a n d s i n a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n because they c o n s t i t u t e an i m p o r t a n t 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 a s s e t t o e x i s t i n g o r f u t u r e urban developments. I n o r d e r t o r e a l i z e t h e s e o b j e c t i v e s , CLCA a u t h o r i z e s c o u n t i e s and c i t i e s t o e n t e r 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 t o l i m i t the use o f a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d t o a g r i c u l t u r e o r o t h e r c o m p a t i b l e  uses.  To q u a l i f y , t h e l a n d 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 l o c a t e d w i t h i n an a r e a d e s i g n a t e d  by a c i t y o r county as an a g r i c u l t u r a l p r e s e r v e .  The c o n t r a c t i s f o r a p e r i o d o f no l e s s than t e n y e a r s and i s renewed each y e a r 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 y e a r u n l e s s t h e landowner g i v e s n o t i c e o f non-renewal.  I n r e t u r n f o r t h e o b l i g a t i o n of r e s t r i c t i n g l a n d  28 t o a g r i c u l t u r a l use, the county or c i t y agrees to a s s e s s the l a n d on b a s i s of i t s use v a l u e r a t h e r than on t h a t o f i t s market v a l u e , reducing property  the  thereby  taxes.  I f the county or c i t y or the landowner g i v e s 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 b a l a n c e  of the r e m a i n i n g  When the owner g i v e s such n o t i c e , the a s s e s s e d  v a l u e of h i s l a n d i s t o be  i n c r e a s e d a c c o r d i n g t o a complex f o r m u l a e n u n c i a t e d d i n Revenue and T a x a t i o n Code ( S e c t i o n 426). assessed  at approximately  the  period.  California  D u r i n g the f i r s t y e a r , l a n d i s  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 v a l u e , g r a d u a l l y i n c r e a s i n g u n t i l , a t the end the runout p e r i o d , i t reaches f u l l a s s e s s e d  of  value which, i n C a l i f o r n i a ,  i s 25% of the market v a l u e . The  owner may  o f the c o n t r a c t .  a l s o p e t i t i o n the b o a r d or c o u n c i l f o r c a n c e l l a t i o n  The board o r 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 t h a t i t i s i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t .  The A c t goes i n t o g r e a t e r  2  d e t a i l s by m e n t i o n i n g t h a t an o p p o r t u n i t y , f o r a n o t h e r use of the l a n d as w e l l as the uneconomic  c h a r a c t e r of the e x i s t i n g a g r i c u l t u r a l use  not be s u f f i c i e n t r e a s o n 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 . t i o n f e e , equal t o 12.5%  A cancella-  of the l a n d ' s market v a l u e must be p a i d as  f e r r e d t a x e s upon c a n c e l l a t i o n , u n l e s s a w a i v e r  I n a d d i t o n to the c a n c e l l a t i o n f e e , an amendment  made to t h e A c t i n 1978  de-  i s o b t a i n e d f r o m the  county board or c i t y c o u n c i l and approved by the S e c r e t a r y of the Resource Agency.  should  State was  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 ;  t a x e s , which or any p o r t i o n t h e r e o f may  a l s o be w a i v e d .  These a d d i -  t i o n a l t a x e s a r e based upon the number of y e a r s f o r which the l a n d been under c o n t r a c t a c c o r d i n g t o a c o m p l i c a t e d Government Code, S e c t i o n 51283.1).  formula  has  (California  The c a n c e l l a t i o n f e e , however, s h o u l d  be s u b t r a c t e d from the a d d i t i o n a l d e f e r r e d  taxes.  29 So as t o r e l i e v e s c h o o l 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 p r o p e r t y due  t o the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n  of the A c t , the S t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a has  taxes estab-  l i s h e d a s u b v e n t i o n program which p r o v i d e s payments t o 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 r e c o v e r y 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 s u c c e s s o r s 'in i n t e r e s t of the owner a r e 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 v o i d e d by a c i t y which w i s h e s t o annex any l a n d w i t h i n one m i l e of such c i t y , a t the time the c o n t r a c t was a c i t y can p r o t e s t the f o r t h c o m i n g  initially  executed.  Likewise,  e x e c u t i o n of a c o n t r a c t between a  county and an owner, which i n c l u d e s l a n d w i t h i n one m i l e of the e x t e r i o r boundaries 2.  of s a i d  city.  Advantages 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 has been a f i r s t  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 l a n d .  step toward  By c r e a t i n g a s t a t e w i d e  s t r u c t u r e , i t has h e l p e d m a i n t a i n the a g r i c u l t u r a l economy of the As s t a t e d by S c h w a r t z , Hansen and F o i n (1975, p.  legal  state.  131):  By i n c r e a s i n g c u r r e n t income, CLCA c o n t r a c t s c o u l d 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 l a n d much l o n g e r than they would o t h e r w i s e . The CLCA would be viewed as h a v i n g s u c c e s s f u l l y p r e v e n t e d ."premature c o n v e r s i o n " on these l a n d s ... S i n c e the term of the c o n t r a c t i s t e n y e a r s and l o n g e r , CLCA encourages the farmer t o p l a n and w i t h more c e r t a i n t y , and  invest into agricultural  activities  thus a l l o w s a g r e a t e r s t a b i l i t y of l a n d  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 S t a t e through  use.  s u b v e n t i o n 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 t h a t the  state,  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 l a n d and  open  space. 3.  Disadvantages S i n c e 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 i s p e r m i s s i v e  legisla-  t i o n , i t does not impose a duty on each c i t y and county h a v i n g a g e n e r a l p l a n t o implement the A c t ' s p r o v i s i o n s .  R e f e r r i n g back t o the o b j e c t i v e s  of the A c t , as s t a t e d on page 27, i t i s w o r t h a n a l y z i n g whether the CLCA has met  i t s objectives. To b e g i n w i t h , i t s h o u l d be p o i n t e d out t h a t few owners of prime  a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d have e n r o l l e d i n the program.  Of theel5,000,000 a c r e s  under the program i n the 1976-77 f i s c a l y e a r , o n l y 4,557,000 a c r e s were c o n s i d e r e d prime l a n d - which r e p r e s e n t s about 30 p e r c e n t of the  total  acreage e n r o l l e d and about 23 p e r c e n t of the t o t a l p o t e n t i a l ; ? p r i m e a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d acreage i n the S t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a I n s t i t u t e , 1977).  T h i s non-enrollment  (Regional Science Research  might e a s i l y be r e l a t e d t o two main  f a c t o r s : the a t t r a c t i o n of l a r g e c a p i t a l g a i n s n e a r growing c i t i e s and i n s u f f i c i e n c y of adequate t a x b e n e f i t s d e r i v e d from the program.  the  The  l a t t e r stems from the f a c t t h a t the more p r o d u c t i v e a p a r c e l of l a n d i s , the h i g h e r i t s use v a l u e and,  t h e r e f o r e , the s m a l l e r the p r o p e r t y t a x  reduction (this i s dealt with i n greater d e t a i l i n Section V).  With  r e s p e c t to the former, Hansen and Schwartz (1975) have demonstrated t h e i r r e s e a r c h t h a t development e x p e c t a t i o n s were i m p o r t a n t  through  i n the d e c i -  s i o n t o a c c e p t 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 e x c e p t i o n s , CLCA p a r c e l s i n a l l t h r e e areas a r e 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 e n r o l l m e n t b e i n g 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 s m a l l e r average p a r c e l s i z e and acreage per owner f o r n o n - e n r o l l e d p a r c e l s were observed i n each study a r e a . T h i s r e s u l t c o u l d be a t t r i b u t e d t o  the g r e a t e r development p o t e n t i a l of t h e s e p a r c e l s , s i n c e p a r c e l s i z e s were s m a l l e r c l o s e r t o d e v e l o p i n g a r e a s , (pp. 345-346) On the whole, t h e r e i s l i t t l e e v i d e n c e t h a t the W i l l i a m s o n i t intended  to'do.  Indeed, i t has p a r t l y p r e s e r v e d  a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d and p a r t l y d i s c o u r a g e d conversion  A c t has met  what  the l i m i t e d supply  the premature and  of  unnecessary  of a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d to urban u s e s .  Another problem t o 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 t o be b u i l t i n the s t r u c t u r e of the program.  No doubt, the  g r e a t e r 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 e n t e r i n t o c o n t r a c t .  Sinceathescontract  i s made on a  v o l u n t a r y b a s i s , one can argue t h a t a landowner would be i n c l i n e d n o t  to  e n t e r 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 t h a t i s r e l a t e d t o a d e c r e a s e i n the a v a i l a b i l i t y of l a n d f o r development. T h i s phenomenon can be viewed as a d i r e c t cause t o urban s p r a w l : by f o r g g i n g e n r o l l e d l a n d s , development may would n o r m a l l y have used w i t h o u t  leap-  extend f a r beyond the r o u t e i t  the program.  A f u r t h e r weakness of the W i l l i a m s o n  A c t a r i s e s out of the r o l e of  b o t h the S t a t e and the county or c i t y i n the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of the program. Besides  i t s r o l e of f i n a n c i n g p a r t of the d e c r e a s e i n p r o p e r t y  S t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a does not p l a y any  other r o l e .  T h i s had  taxes,  l e d to  the  an  i n c o n s i s t e n t i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of the program throughout the s t a t e (as of 19.75, e l e v e n of the 58 c o u n t i e s d i d n o t o f f e r i t at a l l ) ,  to a  'laissez  f a i r e ' approach w i t h r e s p e c t t o t i m i n g and p a t t e r n of development, t o an inadequate supply of i n c e n t i v e s t o b o t h the l o c a l governments and landowner t o get more l a n d i n t o c o n t r a c t s , and e n t i a t e between c l a s s e s of l a n d h o l d e r s . p.  295):  the  t o an i n a b i l i t y t o d i f f e r -  As r e p o r t e d by Goodenough (1978,  32 F i n a l l y , despite 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 small independent, d e d i c a t e d farmer faced w i t h r i s i n g l a n d v a l u e s on p r i m e l a n d n e a r t h e u r b a n f r o n t i e r , t h e 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 n o n - p r i m e l a n d i n l o c a t i o n s some d i s t a n c e f r o m u r b a n a r e a s . By  t h e same t o k e n ,  considering  the influence that  depth  o f change.  being  rooted  sion  the r o l e  The l i m i t a t i o n  i n the perpetual  of the tax base might  faced, carry  and t h e s e c o n d , out t h e i r  4.  could  two r e l a t e d f a c t o r s : t h e f i r s t  by l o c a l  government  r e s o l v e any f i n a n c i a l  i n an e f f i c i e n t  that  t h e expan-  problems w i t h  the lack of i n c e n t i v e s given  duties  limited  have h a d on t h e d i r e c t i o n a n d  stems f r o m  belief  governments has been  which  to the l o c a l  i t  bodies  is to  and o r d e r l y manner.  Conclusions  The play  they  of local  State  i n order  difficulties  as w e l l  t o solve-,  as t h e c o u n t y  or at least,  1  encountered  both  or city  lessen,  may h a v e  some c a r d s  to  t h e p r o b l e m s , weaknesses and  i n the implementation  stage  and i n t h e c o n s e -  q u e n c e s o f t h e CLCA. In  the f i r s t  more i n v o l v e d over in  place,  one c a n a r g u e  i n the process.  the process  many r e s p e c t s .  Although  and t h e m o n i t o r i n g A s we h a v e  that  the State  should  i t was t h e e i n i t i a t o r ,  associated with  seen e a r l i e r ,  g e t much  i t s control  i t has been  deficient  i t d i d not at a l l resolve the  s t r u g g l e between t h e ^ p h y s i c a l growth o f the S t a t e  t o accommodate a  population,  and t h e need  land  population.  The s m a l l  areas of  proportion  agricultural  o f prime a g r i c u l t u r a l  e n r o l l e d i n the program confirms  involvement has a l s o  of a g r i c u l t u r a l  liability  by t h e s t a t e  this  statement.  t o be r e l a t e d t o t h e n o t i o n  CLCA b e n e f i t s a l l p e o p l e output  to preserve  i n the s t a t e as w e l l  activity, should  the take  over  invite:7little  growing  so as t o f e e d land near  urbanized  The S t a t e ' s  of equity.  a s p e o p l e who  this  degree  Since the  a r e f e d by t h e  o f t h e program's  r e b u t t a l . The c i t y  financial or county  33 would then be more i n c l i n e d t o c o n t r a c t f a r m l a n d and  i t would a l s o be more  e q u i t a b l e t o c o u n t i e s w h i c h e x p e r i e n c e 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 l a n d but a s m a l l t a x base.  B.  The P r o v i n c e 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.  Description I n 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-  m i s s i o n A c t , w h i c h empowered a p r o v i n c i a l commission t o d e s i g n a t e i n c l u d i n g Crown l a n d , s u i t a b l e f o r farm use and to e s t a b l i s h land reserves  (ALRs) throughout the p r o v i n c e .  land,  agricultural  At the o u t s e t , the  Agricul-  t u r a l Land Commission had f o u r major o b j e c t i v e s : (a) 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; (b) t o p r e s e r v e g r e e n b e l t l a n d i n and around urban a r e a s ; (c) t o p r e s e r v e l a n d banks f o r urban and i n d u s t r i a l development; (d) to p r e s e r v e p a r k l a n d f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l use Act, Section 7(1)). However, i n 1977,  the A c t was  (Land  Commission  amended to a p p l y o n l y t o a g r i c u l t u r a l  l a n d 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) p r e s e r v e a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d ; (b) encourage, the e s t a b l i s h m e n t , maintenance and p r e s e r v a t i o n of farms, and encourage uses of l a n d i n an a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d r e s e r v e c o m p a t i b l e w i t h a g r i c u l t u r a l p u r p o s e s ; and (c) a d v i s e 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 p r o d u c t i o n of l a n d r e s e r v e p l a n s . In o r d e r t o 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 zoning and r e g u l a t o r y powers. was  done through  The  the involvement  given  c r e a t i o n of a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d r e s e r v e s  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 g i v e n t h e duty of i d e n t i f y i n g , d i s c u s s i n g and d e s i g n a t i n g an a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d r e s e r v e w i t h i n i t s b o u n d a r i e s , w i t h t h e a d v i c e and f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e of the Commission. the p l a n i f n e c e s s a r y ,  The l a t t e r c o u l d amend  and had t o submit i t t o the L i e u t e n a n t - G o v e r n o r - i n -  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 l a n d r e s e r v e s were d e s i g n a t e d on a s c i e n t i f i c b a s i s u s i n g the Canada Land I n v e n t o r y  (CLI).  The CLI p r o v i d e s b a s i c  informa-  t i o n i n terms o f 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 u s e s . I t c l a s s i f i e s a r a b l e l a n d throughout B r i t i s h Columbia i n t o seven c l a s s e s , a c c o r d i n g t o 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 u s e , w i t h the h i g h e s t r a t e d s o i l s d e s i g n a t e d as C l a s s 1; t h e f i r s t t h r e e c l a s s e s a r e c c o n s i d e r e d f i t f o r s u s t a i n e d p r o d u c t i o n of commonly c u l t i v a t e d c r o p s ; the f o u r t h i s m a r g i n a l for  s u s t a i n e d a r a b l e c u l t u r e ; t h e f i f t h and s i x t h a r e s u i t a b l e f o r hay o r  improved p a s t u r e and f o r g r a z i n g r e s p e c t i v e l y , and t h e seventh c l a s s i s unsuitable for agriculture.  As r e p o r t e d by Manning and Eddy (1978, pp.  13-14), the a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d r e s e r v e s were d e s i g n a t e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e f o l l o w i n g method: 1. A l l c l a s s 1 t o 4 Canada Land I n v e n t o r y l a n d t h a t was not i r r e v e r s i b l y developed, r e g a r d l e s s of ownership o r t e n u r e , was i n c l u d e d i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land R e s e r v e s ; 2. S u f f i c i e n t l a n d was e x c l u d e d from A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves t o a l l o w f o r r o u g h l y f i v e y e a r s growth of urban areas i f n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d was not immediately a v a i l a b l e f o r urban e x p a n s i o n ; 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 ( c l a s s e s 5 and 6) was i n c l u d e d 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 l a n d use p a t t e r n s i n d i c a t e d t h a t such l a n d c o u l d 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 c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the c l a s s 1 to44 l a n d s ; 4. S m a l l p o c k e t s of n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d s ( c l a s s 7) were i n c l u d e d 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 l a n d might a l l o w u n d e s i r a b l e i n t r u s i o n of i n c o m p a t i b l e uses i n an a r e a of p r e d o m i n a n t l y a g r i c u l t u r a l use.  35 Land uses w i t h i n the ALRs a r e r e g u l a t e d by the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission as determined  by the A c t and the r e g u l a t i o n s .  B e s i d e s the  use  of l a n d as farm l a n d , c e r t a i n non-farm a c t i v i t i e s can be a l l o w e d w i t h i n the ALRs.  B.C.  R e g u l a t i o n 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 u s e s ,  namely: o u t r i g h t uses and c o n d i t i o n a l u s e s . b u i l d i n g s and s t r u c t u r e s n e c e s s a r y  The  former  includes accessory  f o r farm use, e c o l o g i c a l r e s e r v e s  p u b l i c p a r k s , g o l f c o u r s e s , and the l i k e .  The  and  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 t h e r e o f 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 l a n d , o r i s i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t .  T h i s i n c l u d e s the p r o c e s s i n g of a g r i -  c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t s , 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 t e n a n t s or t e n a n t s 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  utility  i n s t a l l a t i o n s , t r u n k sewer and t r u n k water l i n e s , s a n i t a r y l a n d  fills,  open l a n d r e c r e a t i o n u s e s , g r a v e l p i t s over two a c r e s i n a r e a , s c h o o l s and o t h e r p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s , o r the l i k e . to  S i n c e the A c t does not  apply  l a n d of l e s s than two a c r e s i n a r e a , the Commission a l s o has to d e a l  w i t h s u b d i v i s i o n of l a n d w i t h i n the r e s e r v e s i n o r d e r t o impede b o t h  the  r e d u c t i o n of o p t i o n s f o r crop p r o d u c t i o n and the i n c r e a s e of the p r e s s u r e s upon e x i s t i n g a d j a c e n t commercial farm o p e r a t i o n s ( 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  g u i d e l i n e s w i t h r e s p e c t to homesite severance.  new  But, i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e  an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r r e t i r i n g farmers t o s u b d i v i d e from the farm a r e t i r e ment homesite when t h e i r l a n d would be s o l d , the Commission has s p e c i f i c s t i p u l a t i o n s so as t o r e s t r a i n the new In  developed  program from b e i n g abused.  i t s p r e s e n t 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  a d m i n i s t e r the S o i l C o n s e r v a t i o n A c t (1977) which s p e c i f i c a l l y 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  to  prohibits lands  36 w i t h i n t h e A g r i c u l t u r a l Land R e s e r v e s . F u r t h e r m o r e , of t h e m y r i a d o f s t a t u t e s e n a c t e d by t h e L e g i s l a t u r e o f B r i t i s h Columbia s i n c e i t s the  birth,  A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission A c t i s s u b j e c t o n l y t o t h e Environment  and Land Use A c t and t h e P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l A c t .  Nor can any M i n i s t e r ,  M i n i s t r y o f Government, o r agent o f t h e Crown e x e r c i s e any power g r a n t e d under any o t h e r A c t o r r e g u l a t i o n i f i t c o n t r a v e n e s t h e e x e r c i s e o f any power g r a n t e d under t h e A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission A c t .  On t h e o t h e r  hand, t h e A c t does n o t 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 c o n c e r n i n g l a n d 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 t o d e a l w i t h a p p l i c a t i o n s for  i n c l u s i o n o r e x c l u s i o n o f l a n d f r o m t t h e A g r i c u l t u r a l Land R e s e r v e s .  The p r o c e d u r e s a r e s p e l l e d out i n S e c t i o n 9 o f t h e A c t .  S u b s e c t i o n 9(1)  a l l o w s 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 , t h e Commission o r C a b i n e t i t s e l f t o s o l i c i t t h e L i e u t e n a n t - G o v e r n o r - i n - C o u n c i l f o r an exclusion-^of l a n d from t h e ALR.  Through s u b s e c t i o n 9 ( 2 ) , an owner o f l a n d a g g r i e v e d  by a d e s i g n a t i o n by t h e Commission o f h i s l a n d as p a r t o f a r e s e r v e , may a p p l y t o t h e Commission t o have i t e x c l u d e d from t h e ALR and, r.if t t n i s a p p l i c a t i o n does n o t come a b o u t , t h e l a n d owner may a p p e a l t o the E n v i r o n ment and Land Use Committee  (ELUC) i f l e a v e o f a p p e a l i s g r a n t e d e i t h e r  by any two members (out o f seven) o f the Commission o r by t h e M i n i s t e r of Environment. There a r e no p r o v i s i o n s i n t h e A c t a l l o w i n g t h e landowners i n c l u d e d i n an A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve t o be compensated f o r t h e l o s s o f v a l u e a r i s i n g from t h e l i m i t a t i o n s imposed upon development by the A c t . S e c t i o n 16 o f t h e A c t e x p l i c i t l y d e a l s w i t h t h i s m a t t e r by s t a t i n g  that  l a n d i s n o t b e i n g t a k e n , o r i n j u r i o u s l y a f f e c t e d by r e a s o n o f t h e d e s i g n a t i o n by t h e Commission o f t h a t l a n d as an a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d r e s e r v e . i t i s put by G.G. P e a r s o n (1975, p. 7 0 ) :  As  37 I n f a c t , t h e r e 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 p e r c e i v e d l o s s e s due t o z o n i n g . To r e c o g n i z e the p r i n c i p l e of compensation i n z o n i n g matt e r s would c r e a t e an i m p o s s i b l e f i n a n c i a l burden f o r tax payers. However, s u b s e c t i o n 26(3) of the Assessment A c t (S.B.C. c. 6) a l l o w s f a r m l a n d  to be assessed  1974,  a t i t s a c t u a l v a l u e as a farm  w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o i t s v a l u e f o r o t h e r p u r p o s e s , but the improvements on the f a r m have t o be a s s e s s e d a t the p e r c e n t a g e of a c t u a l v a l u e s e t by the L i e u t e n a n t - G o v e r n o r - i n - C o u n c i l . percent 2.  i n 1980.  T h i s r a t e was  f i x e d at ten  (B.C. R e g u l a t i o n 463/79).  Advantages The A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission A c t has proved t o be  clearly  e f f e c t i v e i n p r e v e n t i n g l a n d 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 f a r m l a n d  as w e l l as of c a p i t a l investment  in agricultural activity,  l e s s e n e d the spread of urban s p r a w l .  size  and  These b e n e f i t s w i t h r e g a r d  t o 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 stem from s e v e r a l f a c t o r s .  As  s t a t e d by Runka (1975, p. 2 1 ) , the use of an independent commission as a v e h i c l e t o implement l a n d use c o n t r o l s i s an important f a c t o r of  success: By n a t u r e they [commissions] can be f l e x i b l e enough t o g i v e a sympathetic ear t o l o c a l concerns w h i l e a t the same time c o n s i d e r how a p a r t i c u l a r l a n d use a c t i o n 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 w i t h o u t b i a s . But i n order- t o b e c s u c c e s s f u l a commission must have b r o a d powers; i t must a l s o be a b l e t o b a l a n c e conservation;;with e s s e n t i a l d e v e l o p 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 .  2  38 A second f a c t o r c o n t r i b u t i n g t o 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 A c t w h i c h , i n t u r n , has had  several  side e f f e c t s .  included  As of J a n u a r y , 1979,  11,647,980  1  a c r e s have been  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 T a b l e 1, 67.88% of the t o t a l acreage a v a i l a b l e i n C l a s s e s  1 to 4 i s  i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve. With r e s p e c t  t o s i d e e f f e c t s , i t can be argued t h a t 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 l a n d w i t h i n a l t e a . ready developed a r e a s , through the i n - f i l l i n g of v a c a n t l o t s and/or increase  i n population  h e n s i v e and  density.  The  consequence  i n t e g r a t e d l a n d use p l a n n i n g  ment i n the p r o v i s i o n of m u n i c i p a l  and  the  has been a more compre-  t h u s , the c o n s t a n t improve-  s e r v i c e s i n urban a r e a s .  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 A c t has been the h a r m o n i z a t i o n of d e c i s i o n making p r o c e s s r e l a t e d t o l a n d 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 g o v e r n i n g b o d i e s i n the  i m p l e m e n t a t i o n stage of the p r o c e s s , as w e l l as i n the m o n i t o r i n g a p p e a l p r o c e s s , the A c t has  i n s u r e d the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of every community  a t each s t a g e of the p r o c e s s . have had  I t a l s o seems t h a t r e g i o n a l  an e d u c a t i n g r o l e t o p l a y by e x p l a i n i n g ALRs and  of the Commission t o the g e n e r a l general  a c c e p t a b i l i t y of the  and  districts the p r o c e d u r e s  p u b l i c and have c o n t r i b u t e d  to  the  statute.  A n o t h e r 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 t h a t Land Commission A c t has pointed  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 .  out by B a x t e r (1974,/p.  the  As  18):  T h i s f i g u r e d i f f e r s from the one shown i n T a b l e 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 t o r e l y on the f i g u r e s p r o v i d e d by the S e l e c t S t a n d i n g 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  1  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 A c r e s ) ( )  130,765  714,272  1,710,154  3,481,837  3,627,675  1,066,385  413,991  11,145,099  Land D i s t r i b u t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia (Improved) ( ) ( )  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%  1  2  3  Land i n ALR as a P e r c e n t a g e of T o t a l Land i n B r i t i s h Columbia  C l a s s 1 - 4 Land i n ALR as a Percentage o f T o t a l C l a s s 1 - 4 Land i n B r i t i s h Columbia C l a s s 1 - 4 Land i n ALR as a Percentage o f T o t a l Land i n ALR  Total  6,037,028 8,893,703  67.88%  6,037,028 11,145,099  54.17%  ( )  Source: S&ect S t a n d i n g Committee on A g r i c u l t u r e (1978).  ()  Improved l a n d means l a n d on w h i c h i r r i g a t i o n and/or d r a i n a g e improvements c o u l d be made. not such improvements e x i s t a t p r e s e n t .  ()  Source: B.C. Environment and Land Use Committee S e c r e t a r i a t (1976)  1  2  3  I t does n o t i n d i c a t e , however, whether o r  40 ... t h e 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 d i s c u s s i o n s of t h e a c t i v i t i e s o f v a r i o u s departments as they r e l a t e t o farmlands. B e f o r e any new development by a n o t h e r p r o v i n c i a l agency i s commenced, t h e i r p l a n s w i l l be v e t t e d by the Commission. T h i s w i l l enable t h e Commission t o ensure t h a t a l l r e a s o n a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s a r e e x p l o r e d b e f o r e a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d i s a l i e n a t e d f o r such p u r p o s e s , and t h a t the n e g a t i v e impact of t h e s e 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 t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of b o t h the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission A c t and t h e S o i l C o n s e r v a t i o n  A c t , t h e B.C.  L e g i s l a t u r e has a l l o w e d a b e t t e r i n t e g r a t i o n o f a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d r e g u l a t i o n s s i n c e t h e s e A c t s a r e c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h each o t h e r .  The use  of CLI c l a s s i f i c a t i o n has p e r m i t t e d a b e t t e r acceptance of the A c t s i n c e i t i s based on s c i e n t i f i c grounds r a t h e r than on a r b i t r a r y zoning practices.  F i n a l l y t h e e x c l u s i o n o f s u f f i c i e n t l a n d t o a l l o w f o r about  f i v e y e a r s growth of urban a r e a s 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 t o r e f o r m u l a t e  i n t o account t h e new terms o f r e f e r e n c e Land Commission.  a l a n d use s t r a t e g y t a k i n g  s p e l l e d o u t by the A g r i c u l t u r a l  T h i s advantage] however, has t o be q u a l i f i e d based on  the r e c e n t  study conducted by Manning and McCuaig (1977).  discovered  t h a t 53.5% o f Canada's C l a s s 1 l a n d i s l o c a t e d w i t h i n a050.:'.mile  r a d i u s of Census M e t r o p o l i t a n A r e a s (CMAs).  Indeed, they  T h i s a l s o a p p l i e s t o 28.6% o f  Canada's C l a s s 2 l a n d , and n e a r l y 20% of i t s C l a s s 3.  Although V i c t o r i a  and Vancouver CMAs^were n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e study, t h e a u t h o r s s t 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 .  argue t h e r e f o r e t h a t t h e e x c l u s i o n of l a n d f o r s h o r t - t e r m 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 l a n d  3,  One might  growth c o u l d  inventory.  Disadvantages A number of i n h e r e n t d i s a d v a n t a g e s o r weaknesses have been r e l a t e d  t o t h e p r o c e d u r e u t i l i z e d by t h e 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 t h e A c t i t s e l f , e s p e c i a l l y w i t h  r e s p e c t t o the a p p e a l p r o c e d u r e . A p a r t from the l a n d e i t h e r a l r e a d y b e i n g a s s e s s e d as f a r m l a n d o r zoned f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l o r farm use under a'.by-law of a m u n i c i p a l i t y or regional d i s t r i c t , the  the use of the Canada Land I n v e n t o r y c l a s s i f i c a t i o n as  s o l e base f o r e v a l u a t i o n of l a n d t o be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e 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 s i n c e CLI c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i t s e l f  on s e v e r a l gounds.  F i r s t of a l l ,  i s m a i n l y based on s o i l c a p a b i l i t i e s , i t  does rot t a k e 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 c h i c k e n coops, mink farms and p i g g e r i e s w h i c h a r e n o t 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 r e g i o n and thus does n o t take i n t o account t h a t some l a n d , a l b e i t p o o r l y r a t e d , can be v e r y p r o d u c t i v e f o r c e r t a i n s p e c i a l t y c r o p s , such as tobacco and b l u e berries.  However, through the f i n e - t u n i n g of ALR b o u n d a r i e s which i s  b e i n g c a r r i e d o u t , the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission has committed to  itself  s o l v i n g the CLI c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s s h o r t c o m i n g s . A f u r t h e r d i s a d v a n t a g e w h i c h , 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 t o a p p l y f o r e x c l u s i o n .  S i n c e the  1977 amendment t o the A c t which a l l o w e d t h e u n s u c c e s s f u l a p p l i c a n t f o r l a n d e x c l u s i o n t o use the a l t e r n a t e r o u t e of t h e Environment M i n i s t e r t o a p p e a l t o ELUC, t h e r e has been an i n c r e a s i n g number of a p p e a l s f o r e x c l u s i o n which have been p r o c e s s e d t h r o u g h the a f o r e m e n t i o n e d M i n i s t e r .  This  has r e s u l t e d i n the removal of more a c r e s of f a r m l a n d from t h e A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve.  I n the n e x t s e c t i o n , an attempt i s made t o r e s o l v e  t h a t problem, or a t 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 l a n d from the  ALR l e s s  attractive.  S i m i l a r l y , p a r a g r a p h 9 ( l ) ( b ) of the A c t can, i n s e v e r a l c a s e s , ;  weaken the o b j e c t of the A c t i f i t i s o v e r - or misused by t h e B.C. C a b i n e t .  42 Krueger  (1977, p. 129), i n e f f e c t , s t a t e d t h a t :  . . . t h e g r e a t e s t p o t e n t i a l weakness of the Land Commission A c t would appear t o be the g r e a t d i s c r e t i o n a r y powers o f t h e C a b i n e t o f the p r o v i n c i a l government. The C a b i n e t may e x c l u d e l a n d from an A g r i c u l t u r a l Reserve w i t h o u t a p u b l i c h e a r i n g , w i t h o u t a p p r o v a l o f t h e Commission, and w i t h o u t a p p l i c a t i o n from a l o c a l government. I f a C a b i n e t were t o change i t s view c o n c e r n i g t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f 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 e whole i n t e n t of t h e Land Commission A c t c o u l d be undermined. F i n a l l y , a l t h o u g h t h e Commission has a l l o w e d o n l y s u b d i v i s i o n and use o f l a n d s which were c o n s i d e r e d c o m p a t i b l e w i t h a g r i c u l t u r e , i t might have a n e g a t i v e impact on farm v i a b i l i t y i n the l o n g - r u n .  For instance,  hobby f a r m i n g does n o t p r e c l u d e a g r i c u l t u r a l p o t e n t i a l o f l a n d s i n c e t h e l a n d remains i n t a c t o r may be v e r y p r o d u c t i v e under i n t e n s e 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 t o f r a g m e n t i n g t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d i n t o u n i t s t o o s m a l l t o be c o m m e r c i a l l y p r o d u c t i v e and a l s o does n o t support t h e 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 l a n d t o commercial  production.  Another a s p e c t o f t h e problem  i s pre-  sented by Manning and McCuaig (1975, p. 9 ) : "Disuse o r misuse o f l a n d may r e s u l t i n p h y s i c a l o r c h e m i c a l damage t o s o i l s : a common example i s s o i l e r o s i o n due t o l a c k o f maintenance."  L i k e w i s e , the A c t i t s e l f has  been conducive t o d i s u s e o f f a r m l a n d i n some c a s e s .  S i n c e i t would have  been e x p e n s i v e and u n p r o f i t a b l e f o r a d e v e l o p e r who had purchased s p e c u l a t i v e p r i c e s f o r development p u r p o s e s ,  land at  t o c o n v e r t t h e l a n d back i n t o  f a r m i n g i n terms o f c a p i t a l and o p e r a t i n g c o s t s o r even i n terms o f i n s i g n i f i c a n t f i n a n c i a l r e t u r n s from l e a s i n g out t h e l a n d , t h e l a n d has been left  i d l e i n s e v e r a l a r e a s of t h e p r o v i n c e .  4.  Conclusions The way i n which t h e Land Commission A c t has been c a r r i e d out has  proved t o be v e r y e f f e c t i v e .  The A c t ' s e f f e c t i v e n e s s can be c o n f i r m e d by  43  l o o k i n g as t o whether or not i t has reached i t s i n t e n d e d a g r i c u l t u r a l land. cluded  g o a l of  preserving  S i n c e most of the prime a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d i s now  in-  i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve (see T a b l e 1 ) , one c o u l d argue t h a t  B r i t i s h Columbia has food and  t a k e n the r i g h t a c t i o n t o meet f u t u r e r e q u i r e m e n t s of  related issues.  A l t h o u g h 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 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. c o n t r o l s has  TThe r e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of some of the l a n d  l e d t o a more comprehensive l a n d use p l a n n i n g .  Eddy (1978, p. 99) put  i t this  Manning  use  and  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 m u n i c i p a l and r e g i o n a l p l a n n i n g . The ALR zoning i s now used as a g u i d e l i n e by p l a n n e r s i n the o v e r a l l planning process. I n many 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 , the ALRs have been used as a j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r comprehensive z o n i n g or as a scapegoat f o r t h e i r a c t i o n s . S i n c e 1972, ALR b o u n d a r i e s have been used as parameters in a l l regional planning.  C.  Comparison of C a l i f o r n i a and B r i t i s h Columbia Approaches  A l t h o u g h the S t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a and b i a had  the P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Colum-  the same i n t e n t when e n a c t i n g a p i e c e of l e g i s l a t i o n , namely t h 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 , t h e i r approach has been q u i t e d i f f e r e n t . T a b l e 2 shows the major p a r t i c u l a r i t i e s of b o t h A c t s . T h e e W i l l i a m s o n A c t has  come out w i t h a w i d e r range of l a n d uses t o  be p r o t e c t e d than i t s Canadian c o u n t e r p a r t , a l t h o u g h , b o t h had a s i m i l a r range of l a n d u s e s . r e a l i z e d t h a t the o b j e c t s of the B.C. be i n a p o s i t i o n t o a c h i e v e  But  i n 1977,  A c t had  a t the o u t s e t , they i t was u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y  t o be narrowed down so as  the A c t ' 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 j e o p a r d i z e d the e f f e c t of A c t on a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d .  A l t h o u g h the p r e v i o u s  to  o b j e c t i v e s were  w i t h a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d i n terms of the p o s s i b i l i t y of c o n v e r s i o n  the  compatible or  TABLE 2 -  COMPARISON OF CALIFORNIA AND  BRITISH COLUMBIA ACTS  C a l i f o r n ia Land Conservation Act  »r it i s h Co Iumfa j.a -^_g|_ ^ a l Land Commission Act c u l t : u  1.  Intent, of the Act  To preserve a g r i c u l t u r a l land  To preserve a g r i c u l t u r a l land  2.  Land t o be p r o t e c t e d  Land devoted  Land s u i t a b l e f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l  3.  Type of agreement  V o l u n t a r y non-statutory agreement  S t a t u r o t y zoning.  4.  Term of agreement  No l e s s than ten years  Permanent  5.  Instrument  Counties or c i t i e s  P r o v i n c i a l Commission  6.  Types of tenure i n c l u d e d  P r i v a t e ownership  P r i v a t e and p u b l i c ownership  7.  Role of the State  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  Role of the P r o v i n c i a l Commission  Non a p p l i c a b l e .  Executor  Role of County or Regional District  Executor  F u l l participant  10.  Role of the C i t y or Municipality  Executor but at a l e s s e r extent than county s i n c e most land i s o u t s i d e c i t y boundaries  P a r t i c i p a n t i n the process but a t a l e s s e r extent than Regional District  11.  Form of compensation  P r e f e r e n t i a l assessment  None but n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the Act p r e f e r e n t i a l assessment i s available  Loss of property tax revenues  Implementation  of implementation  to a g r i c u l t u r a l use r e c r e a t i o n a l use open space use  use  consenter  i n the p r o c e s s  12.  P u b l i c cost  13.  Private cost  Loss of o p p o r t u n i t y f o r the term of agreement  Loss of o p p o r t u n i t y  14.  Methods of e x c l u s i o n  1. Notice of non-renewal  1. A p p l i c a t i o n by the Commission, R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t or M u n i c i p a l i t y to Cabinet  2. P e t i t i o n f o r c a n c e l l a t i o n of c o n t r a c t  of r e s e r v e s  2. A p p l i c a t i o n by i n d i v i d u a l s t o the Commission. I f d i s s a t i s f i e d - appeal t o ELUC C o n d i t i o n s : Leave to appeal granted by (a) two commissioners or (b) M i n i s t e r of Environment 15.  E f f e c t 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. T o t a l p o t e n t i a l prime a g r i c u l t u r a l land i n v e n t o r y (Classes 1 and 2) D. Percentage of prime land e n r o l l e d i n comparison to t o t a l p o t e n t i a l prime J and. SOURCES:  1  R e g i o n a l Science Research 2  B.C.  15,017,000 acres  (1976/77)  4,557,000 a c r e s  20,300,000 a c r e s  U  5  B.C.  11,145,099 acres  1  844,977 a c r e s  3  Institute,  (1978)  2  2  1,155,513 acres'*  22.45%  73.13%  1977.  S e l e c t Standing Committee on A g r i c u l t u r e ,  C a l i f o r n i a O f f i c e of Planning and Research, Footnote  1  1978.  1974.  Environment and Land Use Committee S e c r e t a r i a t ,  1976.  A decrease i n the r a t e of conversion from a g r i c u l t u r a l land use to other uses would have been a b e t t e r c r i t e r i o n to compare the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of both A c t s , but data were not a v a i l a b l e i n this respect.  45 reconversion  t o farm use when needed, s e v e r a l minor l a n d use c o n f l i c t s were  latent. The Acts.  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 b o t h  The v o l u n t a r y type of agreement i n C a l i f o r n i a has not p r e v e n t e d  conversion  of a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d t o o t h e r l a n d u s e s .  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 P l a n n i n g and Research (1974) has the magnitude of c o n v e r s i o n 1985  cluded  1 and  projected  of the b e s t a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d between 1970  t o run t o about 41,380 a c r e s per y e a r .  Classes  A l l land i n s o i l  and  capability  2 (which i s l a r g e l y i r r i g a t e d ) and o t h e r c r o p l a n d s  therein.  the  are i n -  As mentioned i n t h i s study on page 30, the A c t has  not  p r e v e n t e d landowners from s e l l i n g l a n d 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 g o a l has predominated over the p r e s e r v a t i o n  g o a l and,  consequently,  program.  B r i t i s h Columbia has had  1978,  many landowners have d e c l i n e d t o e n t e r the the b e t t e r r e c o r d thus f a r .  71,749 a c r e s had been i n c l u d e d i n the ALR  68,774 a c r e s e x c l u d e d ,  since designation,  ( C l a s s e s 1 and  w h i l e C a l i f o r n i a ' s performance i s q u i t e lower a t The  As of J u l y and  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 a c r e s .  more, n e a r l y 74% of B.C.'s prime farmland the ALR  voluntary  q u e s t i o n of tenure has  Further-  2) are i n c l u d e d i n 23%.  a l s o t o be c l o s e l y c o n s i d e r e d .  Since  CLCA d e a l s o n l y w i t h p r i v a t e l a n d ownership, a l a r g e chunk of l a n d has l e f t aside.  As r e p o r t e d by the C a l i f o r n i a Land Use  government owned l a n d amounts t o 50.2% 50,335,945 a c r e s .  of the l a n d a r e a i n C a l i f o r n i a , or  F o r e s t S e r v i c e , the Bureau of Land Management  the Department of Defense, one  c o u l d argue t h a t agreements of some k i n d  might be u n d e r t a k e n so t h a t t h i s l a n d o r the r e m a i n i n g owned by o t h e r p u b l i c a g e n c i e s and farmland.  (1975),  A l t h o u g h much of t h i s l a n d (89.9%> i s owned by the f e d e r a l  government through the U.S. and  Task F o r c e  been  I n c o n t r a s t , the B.C.  5,084,909 a c r e s  s u i t a b l e f o r a g r i c u l t u r e be p r e s e r v e d  l e g i s l a t i o n has  i n c l u d e d Crown lands i n  as  46 the  definition  Commission  of land  t o make s u r e t h a t  making p r o c e s s .  For  the  Commission  the  construction  particular On over ted  and  and  of  has  interfere  policies  and  a c r o s s prime  allowed  i n the  projects  o f Highways c o u l d  highwayaeutting  the whole,  t h e B.C.  A c t has  counterpart.  indirect  has  and  adopted  the  decisionbetween  have r e s u l t e d  farmland  society  a whole  through  interests  Nonetheless, both land  in  in a  such as  Columbia  such as  over public  gains. interest  has  zoning.  form.  through  preferential opted  its  approaches  in i t s original  the S t a t e has  of future  demonstrated  to preserve farmland  British  i n f l e x i b l e measure  f o r the sake  clearly  f l e x i b l e measures,  relatively  private  conflicting  safeguard of a g r i c u l t u r a l  as  does n o t  This  area.  v o l u n t a r y agreements,  cation  Crown l a n d  the Department  o f a new  whereas C a l i f o r n i a tion  r e s e r v e d f o r farm use.  instance,  say,  i t s California the  t o be  superiority  have  However, the  implementa-  assessments  for a direct  In B r i t i s h  and  Columbia,  d e c i d e d t o f o r g o immediate  In C a l i f o r n i a , still  the p r i o r i t y  i s of paramount  permit-  the gratifi-  of  importance.  47  V.  The different also  study has  effects  a n a l y z e d and  compensation, intended  compared  i n an  Land  land  Comparison  Commission  in  terms  to  the l e v e l  and  terms  of both  of  left  A c t , and  system and expanded  use  i s summarized  body  a  few  the the  B.C. pros  system, regulating  Study  financial  the comparative  public  compensated  out d e l i b e r a t e l y  and  private  s t u d y i s shown i n  advantages  costs,  the e f f e c t  or penalized. due  on  t o the extreme  determined parameters  region,  landowners  Social  of each  method  i t s appropriateness  experienced i n a particular  i m p l e m e n t a t i o n , and  them w i t h o u t any  of  about  of the compensatory of a c e n t r a l  t o : (A) (B) a  the e f f e c t i v e n e s s  (C) a d i s c u s s i o n  using  achieving  study i s devoted  o f methods considered'-;in t h i s  of u r b a n i z a t i o n  they are e i t h e r been  t o improve  of Methods A n a l y z e d i n the  i n which  m e t h o d s - one  t h e m a i n means o f  of the  I t has  uses.  A comparison 3,  o f two  land.  methods a n a l y z e d i n t h e s t u d y ,  attempt  the c a s e f o r an  agricultural  Table  remaining part  as  o f v a r i o u s methods h a v i n g  of a g r i c u l t u r a l  the e f f i c i e n c y  of the r e g u l a t o r y  stressing  A.  the p r e s e r v a t i o n  of the d i f f e r e n t  Agricultural cons  upon  The  recommendations  and  shown t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y  the other r e g u l a t i o n ,  goals.  comparison  CONCLUSIONS  costs  difficulty  as  and of  to  the  ease  whether  benefits  have  evaluating  such as knowledge o f t h e  region  48  TABLE 3. Methods/ C'haracceristice 1 Minimum Lot zoning  Main Purpose  Main Advantage  COMPARISON OF METHODS FOR PRESERVING AGRICULTURAL I.AND Main Shortcoming  To keep people away Tc buy time 4 h i n - It increases tota i from any potential der premature da- farm area used up velopment by developed lots development  2 Exclusive A- Maximum protection g r i c u l t u r a l of a g r i c u l t u r a l zoning land  To meet future con- Landholders lose Burners' demands & development value needs for fcolstuffs of their land  3 Agricultural Protection of prime D i s t r i c t i n g a g r i c u l t u r a l land  Same as 2+land un-Establishment of suitable for a g r i - c r i t e r i a for deculture l«ft out aignation  4 Maximum Den- To place a l i m i t on Landholders can sicy zoning non-farm develops e l l o f f a parcel of their land ment  Establishment of density  5 - U t i l i t y Extension regulat ion  To develop BervLed areas before nonserviced areas  To control growth in urban fringe area  Limited to the urban fringe area  6 Easements  To encourage f a r mers to continue farming Same as 6  7 Compensable regulation  Finaneial Coste Public Private  Low  Loss of opportunity  Rural and developing areas  Easy  Long terra  No  Difficult  Long term  No  Yes  long term  No  Yes  No  Yes  Easy  None  Urban Fringe Area  Easy  High  None  Rural and developing areas  Difficult  Long terns  Yes  High  None  Rural and developing area  Difficult  Long terui  Yes  High  None  Rural area  Long tera  Yes  Moderate  Moderate to high  Rural area  Difficult  Short or radium term  No  Yes  None  Developing Area  . Eas"  Helium term  Yes  No  Yes  Financing  To set standards for minimum maintenance  Minimal impact on farmer's decision to s e l l h i s land  12 Restrictive To r e s t r i c t the Agreements, use of land to agriculture for a given period of time  To prevent premature conversion of farmland  Inadequate benef i t s to landowners entering the program  13 Transfer • To influence the of develop- pattern of dsvement rights loptnent  To compensate farm-Creation of a. land owners v h i l * market for devekecping thera in lopaient rights farming  14 Purchase of To retain a g r i Land through c u l t u r a l land 4 land trust in i t s present use  To compensate landowners  Less than two years Two to six yearn More than six years  Financing  Prime A g r i cultural land area  Yss  Rural and developing areas  To provide eompaneation for property value losses  To add an element of equity into preferential assessment  * Short term: Medium term: Long term:  No  Loss of Moderate opportunity  10 Preferential To relieve the f a r - To encourage f a r - It doea not i n f l u Assessment mer of property mers to keep their ence the pattern tax land in a g r i c u l of develoonient tural use To recover taxes when a g r i c u l t u r a l land i s converted to unqualified use  Short term  Adaptable to the Financing a g r i c u l t u r a l vaLes to be orotected  To stimulate a more productive use of land  11 Deferred Property Tax  Easy  Low  9 Stewardship  Terra of * Compensates Penalizes Implementation Landowner Landowner  Rural area  Low  Efficiency in pre- Administration 5 serving a g r i c u l maintenance of tural land public land  Ease o' Jmpleaentation  Low  Low  8 Expropriation Protection of land  To raise basic levels of maintenance  Low  Most Appropriate Area  Easy  Short and medium terra  Low  Penalty i f any  Developing Area  Reasonable  Medium terra  Low  Penalty  Developing area  Reasonable  Medium or long term  Difficult  Long terra  Reasonable  5*ong terw  None  High  None  Urban Fringe Area  developing Areas  So  No  Yes  49 i n which t h e method i s t o be implemented.  I t does n o t mean, however, t h a t  s o c i a l c o s t s and b e n e f i t s do n o t have t o be t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t . they must be c l o s e l y c o n s i d e r e d takes p l a c e .  before  Indeed, t h  t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f any  technique  However, the e v a l u a t i o n o f s o c i a l c o s t s and b e n e f i t s i n terms  of money v a l u e o f t e n proves t o be e x t r e m e l y d i f f i c u l t .  F o r i n s t a n c e , what  monetary v a l u e can be p l a c e d on an a c t i v e l y farmed p i e c e o f l a n d which a l s o p r o v i d e s open space and a e s t h e t i c a m e n i t i e s , and a c t s as an e c o l o g i c a l r e serve?  What monetary v a l u e can be p l a c e d on t h e s o c i a l c o s t s o f urban  sprawl as a whole?  These s o c i a l c o s t s and b e n e f i t s have t o be weighed  a g a i n s t t h e economic v a l u e s r e s u l t i n g from a r e s i d e n t i a l o r i n d u s t r i a l development. The utilizing  study c o u l d have used o t h e r ways o f comparing methods such as  a w e i g h i n g system i n o r d e r t o e v a l u a t e t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n  terms o f t h e i r degree of i m p o r t a n c e .  But i t was f e l t i t would have i m p l i e d  too much o f a degree of u n c e r t a i n t y and b i a s due t o t h e s u b j e c t i v e  value  system on which t h e method o f e v a l u a t i o n would have been based. In d e v e l o p i n g  a s t r a t e g y u s i n g a s e t o f methods o r a p a r t i c u l a r one  to c o n t r o l l a n d u s e s , i t must be borne i n mind t h a t some methods a r e 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 o t h e r s .  Both compen-  s a t o r y and r e g u l a t o r y methods must be t a i l o r e d t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r needs o f each r e g i o n o r p r o v i n c e techniques  to preserve  a g r i c u l t u r a l land.  Land use c o n t r o l  must a l s o be chosen i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the degree o f urban  p r e s s u r e which a f f e c t s t h e 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 t o urban deve-  lopment. Each method has d i f f e r e n t degrees o f 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 . T h e i r e f f e c t i v e n e s s i n a t t a i n i n g  s t a t e d o b j e c t i v e s o f p r e s e r v i n g farmland  also differs.  A l t h o u g h i t i s up  50 to  the decision-makers  for  agricultural  to  suit  of  their  encing  t o weigh  people,  economic, p o l i t i c a l  they  must b e g u i d e d  the decision-making implied  i n the selection  f u t u r e , i t must b e k e p t  to  h e t h e most a c c e p t a b l e . respect  kept  open.  i n most  taken  f o r granted.  segment  cases,  conducive  has  can argue  at the right allowed  should stand  and v a l u e s  ought  influ-  of the evaluation  t o be c o n c e r n e d approach  many unknowns,  with  appears  the options  leads  the study  f o rpreserving agricultural  from economic livelihood  that technology  must b e to argue  l a n d must b e  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s upon w h i c h i s based,  a large  the i r r e v e r s i b i l i t y of  i n the decision-making  place.  process  role  of scarce deeply  that a g r i c u l t u r a l of the present  on t e c h n o l o g y  land  resources.  into  this  ought  generation  argument  always be people  the study  i t should notoonly  their  i s not  be s a i d ,  how-  f o r the bene-  i s n o t without  demanding  might  l e a d t o an a b u s i v e and  t o be p r e s e r v e d  The r o u t e  Why  the u n c e r t a i n t y of the  Although  question,  The  along  technology  crops.  but also f o r a b e t t e r f u l f i l l m e n t  needs and n e c e s s i t i e s . There w i l l  o f most  forever?  may w e l l  coming  For instance,  b u t when i t comes t o g r i p s w i t h  to penetrate  traps.  c a n s o l v e any c r i s i s s b y  to carry out this  utilization  generations' and  faces  be a s t r o n g component  the sole reliance  disruptive  ever,  deal  an i n c r e a s e i n t h e a v e r a g e y y i e l d p e r a c r e  f o r a while  intended  a great  that a conservative  moment a n d a t t h e r i g h t  i t n o t be a b l e  future.,  fits  should  needs  techniques  to i t s preservation.  One just  Apart  Since  among o t h e r s , w h i c h  t h e need  of the population's  many l a n d u s e s  land  i s a factor,  that,  and  that  Inasmuch a s t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f f u t u r e needs  to agricultural This  and e n v i r o n m e n t a l  of techniques  i n mind  tools  against  i n the evaluation of factors  process.  the  with  f o r more d e v e l o p m e n t  l a n d , a n d t o make u s e o f t h e d i f f e r e n t  the s o c i a l ,  process  the need  "fair  of future  i t s problems share"  of the  pie without will  questioning  the consequences  a l w a y s b e p e o p l e who w i l l  natural  amenities  a n d man-made  attached  not realize  the basic  activities,  between  between needs and d e s i r e s , between p r e s e n t and  gains  There  confrontation  between  s e l f i s h n e s s and a l t r u i s m ,  and f u t u r e  present  discussion  a g r i c u l t u r a l land  has been  priceless  as a s o c i a l  goal  set out to l e g i t i m i z e  which  should  return,  argued  that  d i r e c t measures  o v e r measures which sound  evaluation  methods  zoning  to protect  compensation  legislature enacted both Quebec. other tion  and m a i n t a i n  attempt  i n permanence low.  i s to assure  to carrying  i s well  landowners  methods  of B r i t i s h secure  Columbia farmland  and t h e n p u b l i c given  cost that  a maximum p r o t e c t i o n  goal.  are faced,  Since  Apart  valuable  the p r i n c i p l e of  i n Canadian  law, each already  and i n t h e p r o v i n c e from being  attached  have  exclusive  s i m i l a r to those  of  converted to  to their  implementa-  t h e main a i m o f a p i e c e o f of a g r i c u l t u r a l land,  agricultural districting  out that  on a  A l l of these  a r e t h e most  established  t o implement  prevail  i n North America.  a g r i c u l t u r a l land.  On t h e w h o l e ,  a g r i c u l t u r a l zoning,  geared  i s based  and a g r i c u l t u r a l d i s t r i c t i n g  i n the province  is fairly  legislation sive  with which  M o r e o v e r , b o t h methods  uses  statement  i n a p a r t i c u l a r region  o f down-zoning  should  should  i n the study.  i n regions  I t i s further  regulations  This  o f t h e methods d i s c u s s e d  the loss of opportunity  agricultural  government  r e s t on i n d u c e m e n t s .  been e m p i r i c a l l y t e s t e d from  thsaigh  preservation  be implemented  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 .  no  taking.  so f o r t h . The  of  to their  or the l i k e  exclu-  are directly  52 B.  Recommendations  The gaps  f o l l o w i n g suggestions  impeding  the  B.C.  These recommendations  agricultural are not  e m p h a s i z e more p r e c i s e l y fruitfully taxing urban  undertaken.  1.  The  use  the  value  agricultural which  are:  related  the  same t i m e ,  section relating assessment  land.  (1)  This  from  i n the  are  subject  assessed to  at higher  smaller property  reduced  and  up  f o r the  d i f f e r e n c e i n forgone  Land  i n the  tax  thus  other  Reserve,  Land Reserve  lands,  implementation  that  agricultural  property  i s supposed r e s e r v e would reducing  the  use-values tax  t o be tend effect  taxes.  With  argued  permanent,  be of  respect  the  preferential  the  t o be  value market  curb  important  (2)  land  of  B.C.  agri-  and  tax  raised  base  t o make Agricul-  Agricultural agricultural  value  assessment  prime  local  the  of  stated  for preserving  marginal  s i n c e the  the use  to  opportunities  area;  to  the  Program  been  t h e most  (3)  have  that  to approximate of  i t has  than  savings;  owners' tax b i l l s  i t c o u l d a l s o be  Assessment Tax C r e d i t  fringe  to  land.  u s u a l l y o u t w e i g h e d by urban  best.  but  the use  ineffective  several factors,  especially  their  a r e g u l a t o r y method,  relatively  to development  is  land  with  t o t a x a t i o n methods,  are  lands  the  stems  different  f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h might  preserve  programs a r e  the  c o n t r o l s t o work a t  demonstrated  along  advantages  are  tural  i n which  a useful tool  to bridge  f o r immediate  tax  cultural thus,  at  l a n d use  intended areas  attempt  S t u d y Recommends t h a t t h e B.C. P r e f e r e n t i a l Be A b a n d o n e d and R e p l a c e d w i t h a P r o p e r t y  In that  and,  the  an  It is implicitly  power c o u l d b e sprawl  are  upon  of  these  farmers'  break. In  a property  order tax  to  solve  credit  these  shortcomings,  program which has  the  i t i s proposed  to  implement  following characteristics  and  53  requirements. units  T h e p r o g r a m w o u l d be a p p l i e d t o f a r m e r s  (as opposed  to farm u n i t s which  owned, b u t n o t t h e amount minimum would an  level  amount  off-farm  on t h e r a t i o  of off-farm income.  This  r a t e and t h e excess  the  farmer's the farmer  be  allowed  ratio  would  =  pt  loifi +  ( o f i - a)/  nfi  = n e t farm  income  ofi  = off-farm  income  a  = o f f - f a r m income  b  = net property  c  = maximum p r o p e r t y  pleasure magnitude  to a predetermined  tax credit) either from  property  subtracted  the p r o v i n c i a l  A maximum c r e d i t  government  would  from t a k i n g advantage  the p o s s i b l e mechanics  from  also  of the pro-  o f t h e program:  exempted  tax credit.  forflexibility  ( a , b, and c) presented of the l e g i s l a t o r , of the property  this  For instance,  property  only  would  regard  Since  the three  can be changed  at the  make i t p o s s i b l e t o a d j u s t t h e  and then  i f the l e g i s l a t o r  t o l l o w income With  and e q u i t y .  i n the equation  tax credit  alternatives.  c o u l d be d e c r e a s e d .  plus  tax rate  program allows  taxes  income  tax credit  = property tax  constants  t o be c r e d i t e d  p t , Cpt = 0 i f > c  \- b  pt  The  shows  f  where C p t = p r o p e r t y  be compared  farmers  at a  minimum amount o f e x e m p t e d  or rebated  well-to-do  taxes  of property  farmed  t o the n e t farm  t a x were p a y a b l e .  The f o l l o w i n g e q u a t i o n Cpt  t h e amount  out) i s being  taxes  a certain  (the p r o p e r t y  i f no income  to r e s t r a i n  leased  of property  income t a x l i a b i l i t y  to  consider  T h e amount o f p r o p e r t y  income o v e r  tax  gram.  of property  of production.  be b a s e d  only  whose management  farmers, to equity,  allow  f o r a wide v a r i e t y o f  wanted  t o give  relief  t h e maximum p r o p e r t y  of  tax credit  t h e program decreases  the  54 relative ity  regressivity  t o pay  paid  principle  when p e o p l e ' s  of p r o p e r t y taxes. which  states  that  ability  t o pay  taxes  more t o t h e - l o w ^ i n c o m e  farmer  equitable  than use-value  principle  into  change  borne  the P r o v i n c i a l  t o be the of  are  land  an  inclined  to  of  making  both,  gram m i g h t perty  (generally On equity  be  i t s use  any  farmer,  abilbe  i s worth  i t i s more take  tax break  the  overall  this  be  i t might  being closer the whole,  the  of  (this  influencing c o u l d be  provide incentive  about  expected.  net  a  income,  shift  land  not  farmer  or  do  a  might  be  combination  tax  the  pro-  credit  t h e most  at higher  from  value  land.  program would  s t i m u l a t e the development farming units  to hold  taxable pro-  to i n c r e a s e the  being assessed  decreasing  program  Fifth,  from non-farm  In  the p a t t e r n  f o r farmers  the  c e n t r e s ) than marginal  of  be  high-income  done by  owners would b e n e f i t  the p r o p e r t y tax c r e d i t  the maintenance  i s to  Since the  investment,  i n order  is usually  and  i t  l a n d needs  f a r m i n g b u s i n e s s more v i a b l e .  to urban  of p r o p e r t y t a x a t i o n  s p e c u l a t o r s and  capable  farmer's  to bring  land  the program  TTftirdly,  previously  agricultural  their  of  First,  r e d u c i n g the a s s e s s o r ' s burden.  i s large  t a x a b l e p r o p e r t y uses prime  to the program.  Secondly,  v a l u e , thus  i n c r e a s e i n the  since  encouraging  the  S i n c e e t h e program  the cost  tax b e n e f i t s .  much l o n g e r t h a n  effective  Sixth,  the program  since  government.  from  I f the  related  i n c r e a s e o p e r a t i n g expenses or  to farm  return.  are  tax base  p r o p e r t y tax r a t e ) ,  about  differ.  on  t a x e s must  programs which p a r t i a l l y  p l a c e , the program might  i n farming  brings  local  excluded  development.  the net  by  the  assessed at  fourth  amounts o f  to the high-income  assessment  other advantages  does n o t  farmers  different  i t i s based  account.  Several  by  than  Indeed,  of  improve farming  i n production.  the areas  55 2.  The Study Recommends t h a t I n d u s t r i a l Development as W e l l as B u s i n e s s P r o p e r t y Taxes be R e g i o n a l i z e d Industrial  development s h o u l d be added t o 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 t h e B r i t i s h Columbia M u n i c i p a l A c t 1960, c h a p t e r 255).  (RSCB,  T h i s would p e r m i t a b e t t e r u t i l i z a t i o n of a l r e a d y  s e r v i c e d i n d u s t r i a l l a n d s 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 l a n d f r o m t t h e ALR.  By the same t o k e n , the r e g i o n a l i z a t i o n of  b u s i n e s s p r o p e r t y t a x e s would serve two purposes:  first,  i t would  reduce  c o m p e t i t i o n 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 g i v e 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 i n s t r u m e n t is,  w i t h o u t any doubt, n e c e s s a r y t o f u l f i l l  t o the community.  which  the r o l e of p r o v i d i n g s e r v i c e s  S i n c e the l a t t e r purpose i s beyond the scope of the  p r e s e n t s t u d y , i t w i l l not be s p e l l e d out t o any g r e a t e r e x t e n t . The need f o r t h i s recommendation stems from the now G l o u c e s t e r P r o p e r t i e s L t d . ' s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r removal from the A g r i c u l t u r a l  Land Reserve.  acreage as an i n d u s t r i a l p a r k .  well-publicized  of 626 a c r e s i n L a n g l e y  The company wanted t o develop  the  The M u n i c i p a l i t y of L a n g l e y 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 l a n d was needed a l though the F r a s e r V a l l e y s t i l l has 3,875 a c r e s of i n d u s t r i a l l a n d 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 L a n g l e y ' s b e h a v i o r seems t o be normal  c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t f i s c a l zoning through i n d u s t r i a l p r o p e r t y t a x i s v e r y attractive  to any m u n i c i p a l i t y .  I n t h i s c o n t e x t , f i s c a l zoning can be  d e f i n e d as an i n s t r u m e n t under which the c o s t of t h e i r p u b l i c s e r v i c e s .  i n d u s t r i a l landowners pay more than The  excess can then be used by a muni-  c i p a l i t y t o f i l l t t h e gap between c o s t and revenue producedbby the p r o v i s i o n of o t h e r m u n i c i p a l 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 b o t h b u s i n e s s p r o p e r t y t a x e s and  industrial  development would p e r m i t any r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t t o b e t t e r p l a n , manage and  56 control  the d i r e c t i o n  agricultural poor  soil),  districts either other  and  change of  land to land suitable or  to use  adjoining  the  excess  of revenue  municipalities  t o them b y  3.  Axel  C.  suggested  respected  two  committee  of  can  41, h a s  be  Kinnear  the  appeal  t h e new  used  present  i s necessary  cratic  society  and  vote  the  procedure  Fruit  ( i . e . having  allow  regional  business  property  which are poorer  taxes  than  the c o s t of o t h e r f u n c t i o n s  appeal The  route  which  appeal  study would argue and  even  to the  that  i s o v e r r u l e d by instrument. the p u b l i c  that  fundamental body  that  the  only  w i t h i n the  one  cannot  be  proposed Minister  which  i n the  t h e n be  district  the  demo-  procedure. Hence  Commission  submitted  would be  of a  appeal  i s responsible  appeal  used  page  level.  improved.  d e v i c e m i g h t be  on  further  level  Land  Chair-  all-party  stated  Kinnear  the p o l i t i c a l  i s the only  would  regional  the  political  i f the A g r i c u l t u r a l  ELUC d e c i s i o n  an  to the w e l l - f u n c t i o n i n g  system  ELUC, a r e f e r e n d u m  by  l a n d as  e l e c t o r a t e w i t h i n the p r e s e n t  i f and  The  the  Con-  experienced,  the Enyironment  appeals.  from  an  lay behind  through  system  Commission  appointed  t o ELUC f o r e x c l u s i o n o f  the  mean, h o w e v e r ,  recommends  and  of  Land  r e p l a c e d by  body, perhaps  reasons  alternate  Growers A s s o c i a t i o n Annual  then A g r i c u l t u r a l  t o ELUC b e  s i n c e the p o l i t i c a l  accountable  does n o t  appeal  from  from  Act.  (1980),  to appeal  system  sion  for reducing  t h e B.C.  the L e g i s l a t u r e .  the removal  The  study  stemming  i n c r e a s e d d r a m a t i c a l l y t h e number o f  suggested  It  to  to three person  change were t h a t  for  It could also  away  The S t u d y Recommends t h a t t h e A g r i c u l t u r a l L a n d C o m m i s s i o n A c t A p p e a l P r o c e d u r e be E x t e n d e d t o I n c l u d e t h e Use o f R e f e r e n d a  vention,  which  or  development,  undertakings  to m u n i c i p a l i t i e s  the M u n i c i p a l  In a r e c e n t address  man  for industrial  to land already s e r v i c e d .  f o r p r o v i d i n g tax r e l i e f  granted  future industrial  as to  a  the deci-  second popular  last  group  to  decide  upon t h e i s s u e  affected\by is  implemented  appeal  development,  issues  i t could  could  upon argue  that  respect, acceptance  the American of this  4.  In  price  unearned  gains  way t o e a r n value  could  have  could  to r u l e out that  important  the public  i s not  be so i n t h e s h o r t r u n  to the proposal,  a change i n  o f t h e new d e v i c e .  In  uses,  land.  the increase  i t i s proposed  that  the use value  The reasons  i n value.  Estate  the conversion  lying  t h e d i f f e r e n c e between u s e v a l u e  behind  this  and market  thesburce  a windfall tax  and t h e s e l l i n g  s i n c e he d i d n o t improve Secondly,  of a g r i c u l -  scheme a r e  value  often i s  the land  i n any  of this  increase i n  s t e m s c f r o m t h e i n v e s t m e n t s made b y t h e c o m m u n i t y  such as the e x e c u t i o n  been  might be h e l p f u l i n t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n  on t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n  f o r the landholder  frequently  action.  d e c i s i o n o f t h e B.C. g o -  device.  s p e c u l a t i o n and.lhinder  non-compatible  o f any a g r i c u l t u r a l First,  and  recommendation.  t o curb  to other  be l e v i e d  twofold:  conservation  to i t s acceptance  experience  Indeed  energy  i n B.C. b e c a u s e o n e f e a r s  lead  device  Commission A c t  T h e S t u d y Recommends t h a t a T a x o n R e a l U n e a r n e d I n c r e m e n t Be L e v i e d  order  land  should  the use of this  the use of referenda  would  of this  be  Land  of years,  to react  a t t i t u d e s and v a l u e s  tural  the recent  t h e p u b l i c has been educated  its  and  about  This  once  this  f o r issues  f o ra period  r u n , would  of "hot i s s u e s . "  to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the process.  but  advantage  the A g r i c u l t u r a l  F o r example,  would be i n e f f e c t i v e  willing  a large array  be used  through  i n the long  An u n d e r l y i n g  through  uranium mining  decided  One  with  or the l i k e .  to stop  otherwise  to deal  and t e s t e d  procedure,  vernment  i t i s t h e one who,  t h e d e c i s i o n o f ELUC.  its flexibility  once  since  o f p u b l i c works  o r improvements  through  as a whole  government  58 A l t h o u g h t h e scheme c o u l d be used f o r any type o f l a n d , emphasis i s p l a c e d upon l a n d w i t h i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve. b e i n g r e l e a s e d from t h e r e s e r v e , an ad valorem the d i f f e r e n c e b b e t w e e n  Before  land i s  t a x s h o u l d be imposed on  the a g r i c u l t u r a l v a l u e and t h e new use v a l u e  by t h e r e l e a s e of t h e l a n d from the reserved.  created  The t a x y i e l d r e c e i v e d by t h e  A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission should be earmarked f o r t h e purchase of a g r i c u l t u r a l land.  The t a x r a t e imposed s h o u l d be very h i g h so t h a t t h e scheme  can meet t h e two a f o r e m e n t i o n e d o b j e c t i v e s . n  On t h e whole, t h e r e c a p t u r e  of w i n d f a l l g a i n s by t h e s o c i e t y would  make t h e r e t e n t i o n o f l a n d 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 l a n d p r i c e s because i t taxes l a n d more h e a v i l y than o t h e r i n v e s t m e n t s on w h i c h c a p i t a l g a i n s a r e l e v i e d and a l s o because l a n d supply  i s fixed.  As t o  whether o r n o t t h e s p e c u l a t o r o r t h e d e v e l o p e r would buy such a scheme, i t can be argued t h a t t h e f i s c a l p r i n c i p l e o f " 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 t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t a x a b l e c a p i t a l i n 1972.  gains  T h i s p r i n c i p l e can be d e f i n e d as t h e s t a t e o f g e t t i n g accustomed  toaa l e v e l o f taxes w h i c h , when f i r s t r e a c h e d , seemed too heavy.  Because o f  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 t o p e r s i s t except under v e r y special  5.  circumstances.  The Study Recommends t h a t t h e A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission A c t Be Amended so as t o G i v e t h e A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission the E x e r c i s e of t h e R i g h t of Preemption the In Subsection  7(d) o f t h e A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission A c t , i t i s  •mentioned t h a t t h e Commission has the power and c a p a c i t y t o a c q u i r e and d i s p o s e of l a n d and p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y .  I t i s proposed t h a t t h i s  be amended t o i n c l u d e the r i g h t of p r e e m p t i o n . as f e l l o w s :  subsection  The s u b s e c t i o n s h o u l d  read  "The Commission has t h e powerrand c a p a c i t y ... t o a c q u i r e and  59 d i s p o s e o f l a n d and p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y  e i t h e r b y > v o l u n t a r y s a l e o r by p r e -  emption." Under t h i s i n s t r u m e n t ,  when any p a r c e l o f l a n d w i t h i n t h e ALR comes  on the market, t h e 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 t o purchase t h e l a n d .  T h i s i s done b y c c o n s t r a i n i n g an owner who w i s h e s t o  s e l l , t o n o t i f y t h e Commission of h i s i n t e n t .  The Commission then has two  c h o i c e s : e i t h e r t o l e t t h e s a l e o c c u r - o r t o make use o f i t s r i g h t o f p r e emption where i t f e e l s t h a t i t i s i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . any  s p e c u l a t o r o r non-bona f i d e farmer t o t r y t o c o n v e r t  u n a c c e p t a b l e u s e , thereby  T h i s would h i n d e r t h e l a n d t o an  s t a b i l i z i n g l a n d use p a t t e r n s i n t h e A g r i c u l t u r a l  Land Reserve. 6.  The Study Recommends t h a t the Concept o f S t e w a r d s h i p Be Implemented Throughout t h e A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserve I n t h e i r impact a n a l y s i s o f the a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d r e s e r v e s  in Bri-  t i s h Columbia, Manning and Eddy. (1978) c o n c l u d e d t h a t because a r e t u r n t o any  form o f f a r m i n g  on l a n d p r e v i o u s l y purchased a t s p e c u l a t i v e p r i c e s would  p r o v i d e t h e d e v e l o p e r i n s i g n i f i c a n t r e t u r n s , many a r e a s of d e v e l o p e r - h e l d ALR  l a n d 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 t h a t 5% and 14% of l a n d  w i t h i n ALR b o u n d a r i e s were v a c a n t and unused l a n d r e s p e c t i v e l y .  In t h i s  c a s e , v a c a n t l a n d means an e n t i r e p r o p e r t y which i s n o t c u r r e n t l y used f o r any a c t i v i t y whatsoever w h i l e unused l a n d means some l a n d w i t h i n management u n i t s which i s i d l e . I t i s proposed t h a t an annual maintenance f e e be charged by t h e 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 l a n d s l e f t i d l e by t h e i r h o l d e r s i n o r d e r t o s t i m u l a t e a more p r o d u c t i v e use o f l a n d , o r a t l e a s t , t o make sure t h a t t h e i d l i n g o f one p a r c e l o f l a n d , o f t e n overgrown w i t h weeds, does n o t have d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t s on a d j a c e n t  and p r o d u c t i v e  land.  60 C.  P r o s and Cons of the Compensatory System and of the R e g u l a t o r y The methods which have been a n a l y z e d  System  i n Section I I I consider  the  need t o compensate farmers f o r the l o s s of r i g h t s i n p r o p e r t y or t o a s s i s t them i n m a i n t a i n i n g t h e i r l a n d i n a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t y by r e d u c i n g the tax burdens imposed on them. methods a n a l y z e d  On  substantially  the o t h e r hand, most o f the  i n S e c t i o n I I imply t h a t s i n c e l a n d w h i c h has  lopment r i g h t s i s b e i n g used i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , c o w n e r s p e c t 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 . i n p r o p e r t y v a l u e s due The  l o s t i t s deve-  s h o u l d not  Therefore  to r e g u l a t i o n per se s h o u l d not be  ex-  a decrease  compensable.  s p e c i a l f e a t u r e s 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 l a n d use p o l i c y s i n c e most of the methods r e l a t e d t o the government's p o l i c e power a r e w e l l equipped t o d e a l w i t h  spillover  e f f e c t s of u r b a n i z a t i o n and o t h e r e f f e c t s i n f l u e n c i n g theeuse of  agricul-  t u r a l land. decision-maker  Although  r e g u l a t i o n i s n o t the o n l y system a v a i l a b l e t o the  to cope w i t h the c o n 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 may  be the o n l y one a v a i l a b l e t o l o c a l g o v e r n i n g  b o d i e s a t an a c c e p t a b l e  as w e l l as because of i t s s i m p l i c i t y of o p e r a t i o n and tion.  cost,  ease of implementa-  In a d d i t i o n , the r i g h t to say what l a n d i s to be p r e s e r v e d  i s usually  c o n f e r r e d 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 z o n i n g 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 p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s not underpinned by s t r i c t enforcement of zoning p r o v i s i o n s would, t o u s , be too u n c e r t a i n i n i t s o p e r a t i o n t o p r e v e n t the e v e n t u a l d e t e r i o r a t i o n of these e x t r a u r b a n 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.  c a s e s , i t cannot compel t h a t l a n d be farmed. " I t o n l y a c t s as an i n c e n t i v e t o do so. people.  In most indirect  I t a l s o imposes s u b s t a n t i a l c o s t s on s e v e r a l groups of  These c o s t s i n c l u d e not o n l y those borne by the t a x p a y e r s who  p u b l i c s e r v a n t s ' s a l a r i e s and expenses, but the c o s t s borne by the  pay  developers  61 and  e v e n t u a l l y passed on t o the consumer.  t i o n s as r e d u c i n g  Moreover, farmers see t h e r e g u l a -  t h e i r l i k e l i h o o d o f an a f f l u e n t  retirement.  The e q u i t y i s s u e b o i l s down t o c r e a t i n g these b e n e f i t s by imposing a w e a l t h l o s s on t h e owners o f prime a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d by i m m o b i l i z i n g t h e l a n d i n t h a t use and thus p r e v e n t i n g l a n d use s h i f t s a t h i g h e r p r i c e s . Thus, u n l e s s compensation i s g i v e n , t h e s e landowners absorb l o s s e s i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e t h e 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 t h a t t h e c o s t o f p u b l i c b e n e f i t s should n o t be borne e n t i r e l y by p r i v a t e owners b u t d i s t r i b u t e d e v e n l y s o c i e t y through compensation t o t h e l o s e r s .  Since  among members o f t h e  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 t h e s u b s t a n t i a l a m e n i t i e s  and s o c i a l b e n e f i t s  stemming from t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d , t h e p e n a l t y p r i v a t e property  should be borne by every member o f t h a t s o c i e t y .  imposed upon But as  s t a t e d by Michelman (1967,.p. 1168): We may assume t h a t 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 t h e sense t h a t t h e new c o n d i t i o n s o f r e s o u r c e employment w i l l produce a g r e a t e r amount of w e l f a r e i n s o c i e t y than t h e o l d one d i d . Even so, t h e f a c t w i l l r e m a i n t t h a t 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 b e f o r e t h e r e a l l o c a t i o n . One e f f e c t o f t h e d e c i s i o n t o r e a l l o c a t e r e s o u r c e s w i l l have been t o r e d i s t r i b u t e w e l f a r e amongtthe members o f s o c i e t y . T h i s 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 t h e v a l u e s i n v o l v e d a r e c o n v e r t i b l e i n t o d o l l a r s , by p a y i n g monetary compensat i o n out o f t h e 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 t o add t h a t , a l t h o u g h n o t compensated f o r , f a r m e r s b e n e f i t from t h e e x c l u s i o n o f uses which a r e i n c o m p a t i b l e tions.  Likewise., i t h e l p s  with t h e i r opera-  them s t a y i n b u s i n e s s l o n g e r and reduce some o f  the u n c e r t a i n t i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h l o n g - t e r m commitments.  On t h e whole,  r e g u l a t i o n g i v e s farmers some p r o t e c t i o n from t h e t h r e a t s o f  suburbaniza-  t i o n ( M i t c h e l l , 1978). On t h e o t h e r hand, zoning  as a l a n d use c o n t r o l d e v i c e has some  weaknesses which a r e w o r t h w h i l e m e n t i o n i n g .  F i r s t o f a l l , t h e most c a r e -  f u l l y p r e p a r e d zoning map may be overwhelmed by v a r i a n c e s , ments, and s p e c i a l e x c e p t i o n s .  zoning amend-  As i t i s p u t by White (1968, p. 4 9 ) :  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 , and l a r g e unbroken t r a c t s were what d e v e l o p e r s now wanted most. They r a i s e d the o f f e r s t o $3,000 an a c r e , t o $4,000, t o $5,000. Farmers began t o ponder. They had g o t t e n themselves zoned; they c o u l d get themselves unzoned. They c o u l d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , ask the n e a r e s t c i t y t o annex them. One byoone, they began t o do so. 2  Another weakness i s t h a t z o n i n g d e c i s i o n s a r e n o r m a l l y 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 zoning has, unless  indeed,  c o n t r o l l e d by  polit-  f a c i l i t y w i t h which  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 ,  i t s permanence i s i n c r e a s e d by b e t t e r p r o c e d u r e s 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 l a n d p r e s e r v a t i o n i s s e v e r e l y l i m i t e d by the s h o r t - s i g h t e d a d m i n i s 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. P i e c e m e a l and ad hoc a d m i n i s t r a t i o n f a i l t o meet b r o a d e r r e g i o n a l needs. To b e t t e r c o n t r o l l a n d r e s o u r c e s of areawide i m p o r t a n c e , r e g u l a t o r y powers s h o u l d be e x e r c i s e d by r e g i o n a l g o v e r n i n g board w i t h r e v i e w by s t a t e a g e n c i e s (Roe, 1976, p. 422). As mentioned i n the s u b s e c t i o n r e l a t e d t o 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 l a n d use c o n t r o l seems t o be a n e c e s s i t y i n o r d e r t o cope w i t h the d i f f e r e n t and o f t e n i n t e r e s t s i n land uses.  A l t h o u g h a l l of those who  c o n t r o l s must be a l l o w e d  t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  conflicting  a r e a f f e c t e d by  these  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 use  land  strategy. F i n a l l y , i t i s a f a c t beyond q u e s t i o n  t h a t , i n some c a s e s ,  some  k i n d of i n c e n t i v e s or compensation a r e needed to s u p p o r t p r o t e c t i o n of a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d and complement r e g u l a t i o n s .  S i n c e the a c t o r s on  p o l i t i c a l scene o f t e n have d i f f e r e n t s t a n d p o i n t s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t i o n of n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s ,  the  preserva-  the coming i n t o p l a y of b o t h r e g u l a t i o n s  and  compensation might h e l p r e a c h a consensus on what c o u l d be done t o 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 Since than  regulations  tionship has  incentives  to  between  be  rational well  in  kept basis  ascon  farmland,  many  both  in  such  are  as  on  whatsoever  not  be  carried  out.  tions  as  to  affected  at  the  land,  interests of  whole,  are  agricultural  taking  land  supported  the  regulations  the  early  land  it  most  or  use  of  of  i f ,  rights  and  and  some under in  area.  suitability  ecological and  explore  implemented  without  agricultural  on  for  values  a  use  will  accepted  by  land  controls  and as to  educational has  should  process  important the  there,  implica-  interests  large. that  for  special  use  preserving,  inducements  land.  sound  controls  process  way  it  attached  overall  at  rela-  farming,  the  be  the  discrimination,  land an  efficient  However,  of  argued  effective  are  less  integration  public be  to  geographical  capability  controls  could  thoughtful  regulations  the  the  although  affected  particular  strict  stage  p o l i t i c a l l y but  be  intelligently  why  by  might  aesthetic  Moreover  whether  and On  an  acceptable  it  if  soil  exercised  reasons  kind  a  social,  no  some  cases,  that,  are  of  more  within  mind  economic, and  are  may  be  in  the  helpful  circumstances,  to  there  based  public  on interest,  relieve is  unfair  64  BIBLIOGRAPHY  A g r i c u l t u r a l I n s t i t u t e o f 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 o f 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. 1976, 280 pp.  Report and Recommendations.  A l b e r t a , January  A l d e n , R i c h a r d F., S c h o c k r o , M i c h a e l . " P r e f e r e n t i a l Assessment o f 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 o o r 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. Lands: A Land Use Studies.,  P r e f e r e n t i a l T a x a t i o n of A g r i c u l t u r a l and Open Space P r o p o s a l f o r W i s c o n s i n . Working Paper 8F, F a c u l t y Problem D e f i n i t i o n Seminar, I n s t i t u t e f o r E n v i r o n m e n t a l U n i v e r s i t y o f W i s c o n s i n , December 1972, 53 pp.  Amato, P e t e r W. '"Wisconsin Hopes a New Law W i l l P r e s e r v e i t s P l a n n i n g , V o l . 45, No. 1, J a n u a r y 1979, pp. 10-12.  Farms."  Anderson, W.D., G u s t a f s o n , G.C. and B a x l e y , R.F. " P e r s p e c t i v e s 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 o f S o i l and Water C o n s e r v a t i o n , 3 0 ( 1 ) , 1975, pp. 36-49. B a k e r , 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 U s i n g S p e c i a l G a i n T a x a t i o n t o I n t e r v e n e i n the Land M a r k e t , the Vermont E x p e r i m e n t . " E n v i r o n m e n t a l A f f a i r s , V o l . 4, 1975, pp. 427-480. Barrows, R i c h a r d L. and P r e n g u b e r , Bruce A. " T r a n s f e r o f 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 J o u r n a l o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, 57, 1975, pp. 549-557. B a r l o w e , R a l e i g h . Land Resource Economics: The Economic o f R e a l P r o p e r t y . Englewood, N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l I n c . , 1972, 616 pp. B a x t e r , D a v i d . The B r i t i s h Columbia Land Commission A c t - 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 B u s i n e s s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , U.B.C, Vancouver, B.C., 31 pp. Beaubien, C h a r l e s and T a b a c n i k , Ruth. P e o p l e and A g r i c u l t u r a l Land. on P o p u l a t i o n , Technology and R e s o u r c e s , P e r c e p t i o n s 4, S c i e n c e C o u n c i l of Canada, Ottawa, O n t a r i o , 1977, 137 pp.  Study  65 Beecroft, E r i c . " R e g i o n a l Government and C o n s e r v a t i o n . " J o u r n a l of S o i l and Water C o n s e r v a t i o n , V o l . 26, No. 2, M a r c h - A p r i l , 1971, pp. 66-69. B e l l o w s , W i l l i a m J . M a r y l a n d 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 F o u n d a t i o n : A Summary. L e a f l e t 88. C o o p e r a t i v e E x t e n s i o n S e r v i c e , U n i v e r s i t y of M a r y l a n d - C o l l e g e P a r k , E a s t e r n Shore, 1977, 12 pp. B e r r y , D a v i d . " 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 Growth and Change, J u l y 1978, pp. 2-8.  Activities."  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 t h e R u r a l Urban F r i n g e : " B u s i n e s s and Government Review, May-June 1970, pp. 12-18. Bosselman, F r e d , C a l l i e s , D a v i d . The Q u i e t R e v o l u t i o n i n Land Use C o n t r o l . C o u n c i l on E n v i r o n m e n t a l Q u a l i t y , Washington, D.C. December 1971, 327 pp. , C a l l i e s , D a v i d ? B a n t a , John. The T a k i n g I s s u e : A Study o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n a l L i m i t s o f Governmental A u t h o r i t y t o R e g u l a t e t h e Use o f P r i v a t e l y - o w n e d Land Without P a y i n g Compensation t o the Owners. C o u n c i l on E n v i r o n m e n t a l Q u a l i t y , Washington, D.C, 1973, 329 pp. Boyce, D a v i d 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 P u r c h a s e of Development Easements." Remarks t o P a c i f i c Northwest R e g i o n a l Economic C o n f e r e n c e , 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 R e p o r t y e a r ended March 31, 1979, Burnaby, B.C. 1979., 22 pp. B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission. Annual R e p o r t y e a r ended March 31, 1978. Burnaby, B.C., 1978, 48 pp. B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Commission. Burnaby, B.C., 1975, 15 pp.  K e e p i n g the O p t i o n s Open.  B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , Environment and Land Use Committee S e c r e t a r i a t . 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., 44 pp.  Agricul1976,  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 S t a n d i n g Committee on A g r i c u l t u r e . I n v e n t o r y 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. B r y a n t , C R . 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 . " P l a n 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 Y o r k . " A I P J o u r n a l , Nov. 1975, pp. 390-396.  66 B u r s a , Dr. M a r j o r y . "The P o l i t i c s o f Land Use." 1975, pp. 27-28.  The A g r o l o g i s t , Autumn  Cahn, R o b e r t . "Where Do We Grow From H e r e ? " I n S c o t t , R a n d a l l W. ed. Management and C o n t r o l o f 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. Chapter 7, S e c t i o n s  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 o f 1965. 51200-51295.  C a l i f o r n i a Land-Use Task F o r c e . The C a l i f o r n i a Land: P l a n n i n g f o r P e o p l e . Los A l t o s , C a l i f o r n i a : The P l a n n i n g and C o n s e r v a t i o n F o u n d a t i o n , 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 R e p o r t , C a l i f o r n i a O f f i c e o f S t a t e P r i n t i n g , F e b r u a r y 1970, 122 pp. C a l i f o r n i a O f f i c e o f P l a n n i n g and R e s e a r c h . Prime A g r i c u l t u r a l Lands R e p o r t . Sacramento, C a l i f o r n i a , 1974. Carmen, Hoy F. and P o i s o n , James G. "Tax S h i f t s O c c u r r i n g as a R e s u l t o f 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. C a r t e r , S t e v e , K e n d a l l , B e r t and P e t e r . N o b e r t . " L o c a l Government Techn i q u e s f o r Managing Growth." In Scott, R a n d a l l W. ed. Management and C o 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.. C a s t l e , Emery N. " P r o p e r t y R i g h t s and t h e P o l i t i c a l Economy o f 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 T h e i r R e s o l u t i o n . " J o u r n a l of S o i l and Water C o n s e r v a t i o n . V o l . 27, No. 5, S e p t . Oct. 1972, pp. 207-210. C e n t r a l F r a s e r V a l l e y R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t P l a n n i n g Department. R e g i o n a l Farmland Study. Report p r e p a r e d by E.L. Lee, R e g i o n a l P l a n n e r , A b b o t s f o r d , 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 . L a f l e u r , 2nd ed., 1963, 630 pp.  M o n t r e a l : W i l s o n and  C h i n g , C.T.K. and F r i c k , G.E. " E f f e c t of Use V a l u e Assessment on P r o p e r t y Tax R a t e s . " 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 ! 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 . Agricult u r a l Land P r e s e r v a t i o n i n B l u e E a r t h County. P r e p a r e d f o r : B l u e E a r t h County Board o f Commissioners, November 1976, 38 pp. Clawson, M a r i o n . "Urban Sprawl and S p e c u l a t i o n i n Suburban Land." Economics, 38, 1962, pp. 99-111.  Land  67 Clawson, M a r i o n . 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 . P u b l i s h e d f o r Resources f o r t h e F u t u r e by John Hopkins P r e s s , B a l t i m o r e , 1968, 398 pp. (A) "The Scrambled P a t t e r n of Land C o n v e r s i o n . " J o u r n a l of S o i l and Water C o n s e r v a t i o n , V o l . 27, No. 4, J u l y - A u g u s t , 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 R e s o u r c e s . " J o u r n a l of S o i l and Water C o n s e r v a t i o n , V o l . 27, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1972, pp. 202-206. Community P l a n n i n g 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 P l a n n i n g Conference P r o c e e d i n g s , R e g i n a , 1974. 72 pp. C o n k l i n , H.E. and B r y a n t , 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 t o 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 J o u r n a l of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, V o l . 56, 1974, pp. 607-613. C o s t o n i s , J . , B e r g e r , C. and S c o t t , S. R e g u l a t i o n 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 . B e r k e l e y , C a l i f o r n i a , I n s t i t u t e of Governmental S t 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. C o u g h l i n , Robert E., B e r r y , D a v i d , and P l a u t , Thomas. D i f f e r e n t i a l A s s e s s ~ mcnt of R e a l P r o p e r t y as ah I n c e n t i v e t o Open Space P r e s e r v a t i o n and Farm!arid R e t e n t i o n . 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.: R e g i o n a l S c i e n c e R e s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e . , 1978, 33 pp. C o u n c i l of S t a t e Governments. May 1974, 37 pp. ^  The Land Use P u z z l e .  . Land Use - P o l i c y and Program A n a l y s i s . t u c k y , November 1974, 35 pp. . A L e g i s l a t o r ' s Guide t o Land Management. Dec. 1974, 63 pp.  Lexington, Kentucky, No. 3. L e x i n g t o n , Ken-  Lexington, Kentucky,  C o u n c i l on E n v i r o n m e n t a l Q u a l i t y . U n t a x i n g 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., P o u l s o n , 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. U n p u b l i s h e d 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 t h e O p t i o n s Open. S c h o o l of Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , 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 t h a t Wasn't: The W i l l i a m s o n A c t Needs R e p a i r . " Cry C a l i f o r n i a , Summer,.'. 1975, pp. 18-23.  68 D e l a f o n s , John. Land Use C o n t r o l s i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s . B o s t o n : Massac h u s e t t s I n s t i t u t e of Technology P r e s s . 2nd ed. 1969, 203 pp. D e l o g u , Orlando E. "The T a x i n g Power as a Land Use C o n t r o l D e v i c e . " Denver Law J o u r n a l , V o l . 45, 19'68, pp. 279-295. D e r r , Donn, S m a l l , L e s l i e and D h i l l o n , P r i t a m . " 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 a t 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 C o n s e r v a t i o n . May-June 1977, pp. 118-122. D i c k , B r i a n R. A g r i c u l t u r a l Land L o s s i n New B r u n s w i c k . M.A. T h e s i s , S c h o o l o f Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , 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 o f H o l d i n g Land." 1968, pp. 10-12.  Urban Land, 27, October  E l l i c k s o n , R o b e r t C. " A l t e r n a t i v e s t o Z o n i n g : Covenants, N u i s a n c e R u l e s and F i n a n c e s as Land Use C o n t r o l s . " U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago Law Review, Summer 1973, V o l . 40:2, pp. 681-781. F e l l m e t h , R.  The P o l i t i c s o f Land.  New Y o r k : Grossman, 1973, 715 pp.  Fishman, R i c h a r d P. " P u b l i c Land B a n k i n g : E x a m i n a t i o n of a Management T e c h n i q u e . " I n S c o t t R a n d a l l W. ed. Management and C o n t r o l o f Growth: Volume I I I . Washington, D.C. : The Urban Land I n s t i t u t e , 1975, 594 pp. F o e r s t e l . , Hans-Joachim. The E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f Land Use C o n t r o l s i n C u r b i n g Urban S p r a w l . A Case Study i n Richmond, B.C. M.A. T h e s i s , Commun i t y and R e g i o n a l Planning., U.T.BcC;.V, Vancouver, B.C., 1964. 234 pp. F r e i l i c h , R o b e r t H. "Development T i m i n g , 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 R e p o r t . " I n S c o t t R a n d a l l W. ed. Management and C o n t r o l o f Growth:. Volume I I . Washington, D.C. : The Urban Land I n s t i t u t e . 1975, 596 pp. Gardner, D e l w o r t h B. "The Economics o f 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 J o u r n a l of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, V o l . 59, 1977, pp. 1027-1036. Gloudemans, R o b e r t . 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 o f A s s e s s i n g O f f i c e s . 1974, 73 pp. Good, D a v i d A., F r a n k e l Bruce W. Income D i s t r i b u t i o n and I n c i d e n c e A n a l y s i s : A Study o f t h e D i s t r i b u t i o n B e n e f i t s o f P u b l i c OpenSpace i n an Urban A r e a . Working paper A.73.6. M i n i s t r y of S t a t e - U r b a n A f f a i r s , Canada. 1 9 7 3 . 5 3 pp. Goodenough, R i c h a r d . "An Approach t o Land-use C o n t r o l : 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 . " Urban S t u d i e s , 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 B o a r d , R e f e r e n c e Paper No. 3. F e b r u a r y , 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 E x t e n s i o n S e r v i c e , C o l l e g e of A g r i c u l t u r e , Washington S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1975, 8 pp. G r e a t e r Vancouver R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t . Farm V i a b i l i t y i n G r e a t e r Vancouver. F i l e no. 7501, Vancouver, B.C., March 1976, 11 pp. G r e a t e r Vancouver R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t P l a n n i n g Department. Open Space Conservacy: Manual of L e g a l T e c h n i q u e s . November 1978. Gregor, H.F. "Urban P r e s s u r e s on C a l i f o r n i a Land." 33, pp. 311-325.  Land Economics, 1957:  Gruen, C l a u d e . "Costs and B e n e f i t s o f Land Use R e g u l a t i o n s . " I n S o i l C o n s e r v a t i o n S o c i e t y o f A m e r i c a : Land Use: Tough C h o i c e s i n Today's World . The P r o c e e d i n g s o f a N a t i o n a l Symposium. March 21-24, 1977, -Omaha, N e b r a s k a , 454 pp. G u s t a f s o n , Gregory C , and W a l l a c e , 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 o f Farmland on t h e R u r a l - Urban F r i n g e . " American J o u r n a l o f 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. S t a t e Programs f o r the D i f f e r e n t i a l A s s e s s 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 R e s e a r c h S e r v i c e , Washington, D.C, 1974, 65 pp. Hagman, Donald G. "Open Space P l a n n i n g and P r o p e r t y T a x a t i o n - Some S u g g e s t i o n s . " W i s c o n s i n 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 V a l u e Capture and Compensation. American S o c i e t y o f P l a n n i n g O f f i c i a l s , C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s , 1978, 660 pp. Hansen, D.E. and S c h w a r t z , S . I . "Landowner B e h a v i o r a t the R u r a l Urban F r i n g e i n Response t o P r e f e r e n t i a l P r o p e r t y T a x a t i o n . " 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 t h e Environment: An A n t h o l o g y of R e a d i n g s . Compreh e n s i v e P l a n n i n g S e r i e s , V o l . One, 1973.  H a r t , J . F . "Urban Encroachment on R u r a l A r e a s . " 6 6 ( 1 ) , 1976, pp. 1-17.  G e o g r a p h i c a l Review,  70 Hason, N i n o . The Emergence and Development o f Z o n i n g C o n t r o l s i n N o r t h 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 P l a n n i n g and D e s i g n , Department o f Urban and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , U n i v e r s i t y of T o r o n t o , 1977, 68 pp. H e a l y , Robert G. and S h o r t , James L. " R u r a l Land: Market Trends and P l a n n i n g 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. H e f f e r o n , Dennis C. "The B r i t i s h Land Commission." R e s e a r c h Monograph No. 6: Survey o f A l t e r n a t i v e Urban P o l i c i e s . C.M.H.C, J a n . 1971. Heyman, I . M i c h a e l . " I n n o v a t i v e Land R e g u l a t i o n and Comprehensive P l a n n i n g . I n Marcus, Norman and Groves, M a r i l y n W. Eds. The New Z o n i n g : L e g a l , A d m i n i s t r a t i v e , and Economic Concepts and T e c h n i q u e s . New Y o r k : P r a e g e r , 1970, 263 pp. H i l l m a n , Jimmye. S. and M a r t i n , W i l l i a m E. "Elements o f 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 C o n s e r v a t i o n . V o l . 27, No. 5, S e p t . - O c t . 1972, pp. 211-217. Holmes, D a l l a s . "Assessment o f Farmland Under the C a l i f o r n i a Land Conserv a t i o n A c t and the "Breathing Space" Amendment." C a l i f o r n i a La.w Review, V o l . 5 5 5 , No. 1. B a r k e l e y : U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , Schaool o f Law, 1967, pp. 273-292. James, F r a n k l i n J . , G a l e , Dennis F. Z o n i n g f o r S a l e - A C r i t i c a l A n a l y s i s of T r a n s f e r a b l e Development R i g h t s 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 . e t a l . "Land Use P l a n n i n g : the C o r n e r s t o n e o f L o c a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l P l a n n i n g and C o n t r o l . " Land Use and the Environment. An A n t h o l o g y o f R e a d i n g s . Comprehensive P l a n n i n g S e r i e s , Volume One, 1973. Kamm, S y l v a n . "The R e a l i t i e s o f L a r g e - S c a l e P u b l i c Land B a n k i n g . " I n S c o t t , R a n d a l l W. ed. Management and C o n t r o l o f 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 o f D i f f e r e n t i a l Assessment f o r P r e s e r - a v i n g F a r m l a n d . " Urban Law A n n u a l , 1977, pp. 11-56. Kinnear, AAxel C "Address t o B.G7. F r u i t Growers A s s o c i a t i o n A n n u a l C o n v e n t i o n . " J a n u a r y 23, 1980. 15 pp. K r u e g e r , R a l p h R. "The P r e s e r v a t i o n o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Land i n Canada." I n K r u e g e r , R a l p h R. and M i t c h e l l , B r u c e , Eds. Managing Canada's Renewable R e s o u r c e s . T o r o n t o : Methuen, 1977, 333 pp. Land, A l l e n . "Toward O p t i m a l Land Use: P r o p e r t y 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 S t r e n g t h e n i n g t h e 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 55. Report t o the C a l i f o r n i a L e g i s l a t u r e , Assembly S e l e c t Committeenon Open Space Lands, D i v i s i o n o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l S t u d i e s , U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , D a v i s , December, 1974, 167 pp. Lane, W i l l i a m T. "The Emergence o f a Counter-theme: Some Recent Developments i n Canadian Land Use P o l i c y . " I n Rutan, Gerard F. ed. C a n a d i a n American R e l a t i o n s i n t h e 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 S t a t e C o l l e g e , 1974. ________ S e l e c t e d 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 R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 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 . L a p p i n g , Mark. " P r e s e r v i n g A g r i c u l t u r a l Lands: t h e New York E x p e r i e n c e . " Town and Country P l a n n i n g , Sept. 1975, pp. 394-397. L a p p i n g , Mark B. " P o l i c y A l t e r n a t i v e s f o r t h e P r e s e r v a t i o n o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Land.Use." J o u r n a l o f Economic Management, V o l . 5, 1977, pp. 275-287. , B e v i n s , R o b e r t , J . and H e r b e r s , P a u l V. " D i f f e r e n t i a l Assessment and Other Techniques t o P r e s e r v e M i s s o u r i ' s F a r m l a n d s . " 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 . " I n Shepard P. and M c K i n l e y , D. eds. The S u b v e r s i v e S c i e n c e . B o s t o n : Houghton M i f f l i n , 1969, 453 pp. L e s s i n g e r , J a c k ( A ) . ^ 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 : An A p p r a i s a l I . A g r i c u l t u r a l S h o r t a g e s . " 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 Z o n i n g : An A p p r a i s a l - I I . Comparat i v e Advantage." Land Economics, V o l . 34, 1958, pp. 255-262L e v i n , M e l v i n R., Rose, Jerome G. and S l a v e t , Joseph S. New Approaches t o S t a t e Land P o l i c i e s . L e x i n g t o n , Mass.: L e x i n g t o n 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 ture." .Americj^ December, 1974, pp. 1143-1152. L i n o w e s , R. Robert and A l l e n s w o r t h , Dan T. The P o l i t I C S o f Land Use: Plan—i™ ' n i r i g , Zoning and t h e P r i v a t e D e v e l o p e r . New Y o r k : P r a e g e r P u b l i s h e r s , 1973., 166 pp. r  ________ and A l l e n s w o r t h , Dan T. The S t a t e s and Land-Use Control.. York:. P r a e g e r P u b l i s h e r s , 1975. 243 pp.  New  L o c k n e r , 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 O v e r l o a d : 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, J u l y / A u g u s t , 1373, pp. 16-17.  72 MacKenzie, R o d e r i c k M. "Land Use and Development C o n t r o l i n B r i t i s h Columb 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 Z o n i n g . " The A d v o c a t e , V o l . 36, P a r t 6, October-November, 1978, pp. 511-531. McPherson, J a c k . " I n S e a r c h of a Land Use P o l i c y . " 1975, p. 29.  The A g r o l o g i s t , Autumn  M a g u i r e , Robert K. The B r i t i s h Columbia Land Commission A c t and I t s E f f e c t on t h e Land Commission P r o c e s s . Honours E s s a y , Department of Geography, Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y , Burnaby, B.C. 1977. Malzahn, Manfred. Reserve."  "B.C.'s Green A c r e s - A Look a t t h e A g r i c u l t u r a l Land 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 o f 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, O n t a r i o , 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 C e n t r e s : An Overview o f t h e S i g n i f i c a n c e o f Urban C e n t r e s t o 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, l l ~ . p p . Meshenberg, M i c h a e l 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 T e c h n i q u e s . Report No. 318, P l a n n i n g A d v i s o r y S e r v i c e , American S o c i e t y of P l a n n i n g O f f i c i a l s , 1976, 62 pp. Michelman, Frank I . " P r o p e r t y , U t i l i t y , and Farmers: Comments on t h e E t h i c a l F o r m u l a t i o n of " J u s t Compensation" Law." H a r v a r d Law Review, V o l . 80, No. 6, A p r i l 1967, pp. 1165-1258. M i n e r , 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 P l a n n i n g . " I n S c o t t R a n d a l l W. ed., Management and C o n t r o l o f 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 R e t e n t i o n and Open Space P r e s e r v a t i o n . " I n P r o p e r t y Tax I n c e n t i v e s f o r P r e s e r v a t i o n : UseV a l u e Assessment and t h e 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 . P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e 1975 P r o p e r t y 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 o f A s s e s s i n g O f f i c e r s , R e s e a r c h and T e c h n i c a l S e r v i c e s 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 S e l e c t e d S t a t e s . Research B u l l e t i n 1100. Ohio A g r i c u l t u r a l R e s e a r c h and D e v e l o p ment Centre., Wooster, Ohio. 1978, 25 p p . s  N e l s o n , B r y a n E. " D i f f e r e n t i a l Assessment o f 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 P r o p o s a l . U n i v e r s i t y of Kansas Law Review, V o l . 25, 1977., pp. 215-245. N e l s o n , Kalebv. " D e s p i t e Hearsay, C a l i f o r n i a I s n ' t L o s i n g F a r m l a n d . " P l a n n i n g , V o l . 45, No. 1, J a n u a r y 1979, pp. 15-16.  73 Neutze, ..G. Max. The P r i c e of Land and Land Use P l a n n i n g : P o l i c y I n s t r u m e n t s i n the Urban Land M a r k e t . O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r Economic C o o p e r a t i o n and Development, 1973, 95 pp. Nieswand, George H., A i r o l a , Teuvo M. and Chavooshian, Budd. The T r a n s f e r of Development R i g h t s Game. New B r u n s w i c k , N.J.: Cook C o l l e g e R u t g e r s 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 Resource.": I n K r u e g e r , R a l p h R. and M i t c h e l l , B r u c e , eds. Managing Canada's Renewable R e s o u r c e s . T o r o n t o : Methuen, 1977, 333 pp. O d e l l , R i c e . " C a r r y i n g C a p a c i t y A n a l y s i s : U s e f u l but L i m i t e d . " I n S c o t t , R a n d a l l W. ed. Management and C o n 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. O r d e r —i n - C o u n c i l No. 420, b e i n g B.C. R e g u l a t i o n 93/75 p u r s u a n t t o the Land Commission A c t , approved J a n u a r y 30, 1975. P a s o u r , E.C. "Real P r o p e r t y Taxes and Farm R e a l E s t a t e V a l u e s : I n c i d e n c e and I m p l i d e a t i o n s . " American J o u r n a l o f 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 o f R e a l P r o p e r t y Taxes L e v i e d on Farm R e a l E s t a t e . " A m e r i c a n 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. P e a r s o n , 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. E x p e r i c n e . " Canadian J o u r n a l o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, 1975., C.A.E.S. Workship P r o c e e d i n g s , B a n f f , A l b e r t a , pp. 64-73. P e a r s o n , Norman ( A ) . "The E f f e c t o f 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) " F r a s e r V a l l e y - Rape i t o r P r e s e r v e i t ? " In Land Use i n the Fraser- V a l l e y - Whose Concern? P r o c e e d i n g s of t h e Seminar on Land Use i n the F r a s e r V a l l e y , C e n t r e f o r C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n and F a c u l t y of A g r i c u l t u r a l S c i e n c e s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , Vancouver, B.C., October 1972.. (A) A g r i c u l t u r e and Land P l a n n i n g . P l a n t R e s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e Seminar, Canada Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e , J a n u a r y 12, 1973, 42 pp. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (B) " P r e s e r v i n g Good F a r m l a n d . " ^ A u g u s t 1973. pp. 4-8. " P r e s e r v i n g Canadian F a r m l a n d . " W i n t e r Issue., 1974.  A g r o l o g i s t , V o l . 2, No. 4, J u l y / Queens Q u a r t e r l y , V o l . 81 ( 4 ) ,  P e t e r s o n , George E. and Yampolsky, Harvey. Urban Development and t h e 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 , R u t h e r f o r d H. Land Use C o n t r o l : I n t e r f a c e o f Law and Geography. Resource Paper No. 75-1, A s s o c i a t i o n o o f " A m e r i c a n Geographers, Washington, D.C, 1976, 39 pp. "The Loss of Farmland: E v o l u t i o n o f P u b l i c Response." g r a p h i c a l Review, 67, 1977, pp. 93-101.  The Geo-  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 L o s s o f Farmland a t the R u r a l - U r b a n F r i n g e : A N a t i o n a l and R e g i o n a l P e r s p e c t i v e . D i s c u s s i o n Paper S e r i e s No. 94, R e g i o n a l S c i e n c e R e s e a r c h 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 R e a l P r o p e r t y Tax, D i f f e r e n t i a l Assessment and t h e L o s s o f Farmland on the R u r a l - U r b a n F r i n g e . D i s c u s s i o n Paper S e r i e s No. 97, R e g i o n a l S c i e n c e R e s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e , 1977, 23 pp. P r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h Columbia. Land Commission A c t . 1973, V i c t o r i a : Queen's P r i n t e r .  R.S.B.C, Chapter 46,  Qadeer, Mohammad A. " I s s u e s and Approaches o f R u r a l Community P l a n n i n g i n Canada. P l a n Canada 19/2, June 1979, pp. 106-121. Raup, P h i l i p M.."Urban T h r e a t s t o R u r a l Lands: Background and B e g i n n i n g s . " AIP J o u r n a l , November 1975, pp. 371-378. Rees, W.E. The Canada Land I n v e n t o r y 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. R e g i o n a l S c i e n c e R e s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e . S a v i n g the Garden: the P r e s e r v a t i o n o f Farmland and Other E n v i r o n m e n t a l l y V a l u a b l e Land. P r e p a r e d f o r N a t i o n a l S c i e n c e F o u n d a t i o n , 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 t o Urban Growth. A t a s k f o r c e Report sponsored by the R o c k e f e l l e r B r o t h e r s Fund, Thomas Y. C r o w e l l Co., 1973. Rodd, R.S. and Van Vuuren, W. ." A New Methodology i n C o u n t r y s i d e P l a n n i n g . " Canadian J o u r n a l o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, 1975 C.A.E.S. Workshop P r o c e e d i n g s , B a n f f , A l b e r t a , pp. 109-140. Roe, C h a r l e s E. " I n n o v a t i v e Techniques t o P r e s e r v e R u r a l Land R e s o u r c e s . " E n v i r o n m e n t a l A f f a i r s , V o l . 5, 1976, pp. 419-446. R o y a l Commission on Land Ownership and Land Use. R e p o r t o f t h e P r i n c e ' Edward I s l a n d R o y a l Commission on Land Ownership and Land Use. Queen's P r i n t e r , P.E.I., 1973, 98 pp. x  Runka, Gary &. " J u r i s d i c t i o n a l R i g h t s : Who Has t h e 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 L a n d " P r e s e r v a t i o n Program." I n S o i l C o n s e r v a t i o n S o c i e t y of A m e r i c a Land Use: Tough C h o i c e s i n Today's W o r l d . The P r o c e e d i n g s o f a N a t i o n a l Symposium, March 21-24, 1977, Omaha, N e b r a s k a , 454 pp.  75 S a r g e n t , F r e d e r i c 0. R u r a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l P l a n n i n g . 1976, 199 pp.  U n i v e r s i t y of Vermont,  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 T a x a t i o n and the C o n t r o l o f Urban S p r a w l : An A n a l y s i s of 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 . : J o u r n a l of E n v i r o n m e n t a l Economics and Management , 2, 1975, pp. 120-134. Shoup, Donald C. "The O p t i m a l T i m i n g of Urban Land Development. Papers and P r o c e e d i n g s o f the R e g i o n a l S c i e n c e A s s o c i a t i o n , 25(1970), pp. 33-44. S i e g a n , Bernard H. Land Use W i t h o u t Z o n i n g . Books, 1972, 271 pp.  L e x i n g t o n , Mass.: L e x i n g t o n  S l a v i n , R i c h a r d H. "Toward a S t a t e Land Use P o l i c y : H a r m o n i z i n g D e v e l o p ment and C o n s e r v a t i o n . " Land Use and the Environment: An A n t h o l o g y of R e a d i n g s . Comprehensive P l a n n i n g S e r i e s , V o l . One, 1973. Smith, B a r r y Edward. The B r i t i s h Columbia Land Commission A c t , 1973. M.A. T h e s i s , Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g , t h e U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia., Vancouver, B.C. 1975. Snyder., H e r b e r t 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 C o n s e r v a t i o n A c t o f 1965." Land Economics, V o l . X L I I , No. 1, F e b r u a r y 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 U r b a n i z e d A r e a s . " J o u r n a l Of Farm Ec onomics, V o l . 48, No. 5, December 1966, pp. 1306-1313. Stockman, R o b e r t L. A g r i c u l t u r a l Z o n i n g Handbook. P l a n n i n g Commission. June 1978, 47 pp. S u r r e y , S t a n l e y S. Pathways t o Tax Reform. U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1973, 418 pp.  West M i c h i g a n R e g i o n a l  Cambridge, Mass.: H a r v a r d  Timmons, John F. and Cormack, J.M. "Managing N a 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 C o n s e r v a t i o n , 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 o f Water and S o i l C o n s e r v a t i o n , V o l . 27.,' No. 5, S e p t . Oct. 1972, pp. 195-201. Toner, W i l l i a m . S a v i n g Farms and Farmlands: A Community Guide. Report No. 333. P l a n n i n g A d v i s o r y S e r v i c e , American S o c i e t y of P l a n n i n g O f f i c i a l s , 1978, 45 pp. "Zoning A l o n e Won't Save o u r F a r m l a n d . " No.. 1, J a n u a r y 1979, pp. 13-14.  P l a n n i n g , V o l . 45,  Urban Land I n s t i t u t e . S e c u r i n g Open Space f o r Urban A m e r i c a : C o n s e r v a t i o n ' Easements. T e c h n i c a l 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 S t r a u s s , Anne. U r b a n i z a t i o n o f Prime A g r i c u l t u r a l Land i n the U n i t e d 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 S e r i e s No. 99, R e g i o n a l S c i e n c e R e s e a r c h 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. V o g e l , Ronald J . , and Hahn, A l a n J . "On t h 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 Land." Land Economics, V o l . 48, May 1972, pp. 190-193. Vuuren, W. Van. Problems o f Change i n R u r a l Land-Use i n S o u t h e r n O n t a r i o . The C e n t r e f o r Resources Development, U n i v e r s i t y o f G u e l p h , P u b l i c a t i o n no. 58, March 1972, 20 pp. Wagenseil, H a r r i s . " P r o p e r t y T a x a t i o n of A g r i c u l t u r a l and Open Space Land." H a r v a r d J o u r n a 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 C o n s e r v a t i o n S o c i e t y of A m e r i c a : Land Use: Tough C h o i c e s i n T o d a y ' s i ' W o r l d . The P r o c e e d i n g s o f a N a t i o n a l Symposium, March 21-24, 1977, Omaha, Nebraska. 454 pp. W h i t e , 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 A r e a s . " I n M i l l s , Edwin S. and O a t e s , W a l l a c e E. eds., F i s c a l Zoning and Land Use C o n t r o l s . L e x i n g t o n , Mass.: L e x i n g t o n Books, D.C. Heath and Co., 1975, 205 pp. Whyte., W i l l i a m H. The L a s t Landscape. I n c . , 1968, 376 pp.  New Y o r k : Doubleday and Company,  

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