Archives for October 13, 2019
Civic: 7910 Highway 97, Oliver, BC
Area: 1.0 ha
EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
Issue: Whether the Proposal would impact the agricultural utility of the Property.
 To assess agricultural capability on the Property, the Panel referred to agricultural capability ratings. The ratings are identified using the BC Land Inventory (BCLI), ‘Land Capability Classification for Agriculture in B.C.’ system. The improved agricultural capability ratings applicable to the Property are Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3, more specifically the eastern half of the Property is 70% Class 3PA and 30% Class 1 while the remainder is 60% Class 2W and 40% Class 3AP.
Class 1 – land is capable of producing the very widest range of crops. Soil and climate conditions are optimum, resulting in easy management.
Class 2 – land is capable of producing a wide range of crops. Minor restrictions of soil or climate may reduce capability but pose no major difficulties in management.
Class 3 – land is capable of producing a fairly wide range of crops under good management practices. Soil and/or climate limitations are somewhat restrictive. The limiting subclasses associated with this parcel of land are A (soil moisture deficiency), P (stoniness) and W (excess water).
 Based on the agricultural capability ratings, the Panel finds that the Property has prime agricultural capability.
 The Application submits that there is currently no agricultural activity taking place on theProperty. The Application also submits that the Property is small, has highway frontage and
is located within a primarily residential area with a demand for outdoor storage. Despite the small size of the Property and its current use, the Panel considered that the Property has prime agricultural capability and recognized that the Property has been used for agricultural purposes historically.
 The Panel considered that an approval would require the RDOS to rezone the Property for industrial uses in order to accommodate an outdoor storage facility. If the Property were to
be converted to industrial uses, the Panel is concerned that this would eliminate the possibility of the Property being farmed in the future. While demand for an outdoor storage facility may exist in this neighbourhood, the Panel finds that the outdoor storage facility would be more appropriately located in an area outside of the ALR that is zoned for the proposed use. Based on the restriction to future agricultural activities and the negative impact that the storage facility would have on the agricultural land base, the Panel finds that the Proposal would negatively impact the agricultural utility of the Property.
 The fill placed on, and soil removed from the Property was to accommodate the parking of stored vehicles associated with the storage facility. In light of the Panel’s refusal of the
storage facility, the fill placement and removal of soil is not approved. After reviewing photographs of the site included within the RDOS staff report, the Panel finds that the placement and compaction of fill required to accommodate the proposed use of the Property would harm the agricultural capability of the underlying soil and, therefore, would be in opposition to the Commission’s purpose of preserving agricultural land.
 For the reasons given above, the Panel refuses the Proposal.
We Stand on Guard for Thee – Canadian Version
The US Version was about Senators and Trump. The WTF Version was about the USA and the Kurds. This Canadian Version is about us and our country. Do We Stand on Guard for Thee or just sing about it?
The world agrees that the Ukraine has de jure sovereignty over Crimea, but Russia possesses de facto sovereignty over Crimea. By de jure I mean that the international community and law recognizes that you (eg Ukraine) are the ultimate authority over your territory (including Crimea). By de facto I mean that actual control over your territory (Crimea) has been lost (to Russia) because you do not have the ability to defend against armed invaders or (Russian-backed) internal rebels. For Cyprus substitute Turkey for Russia. Now substitute Canada for Ukraine and Arctic for Crimea.
The Presidential unit citation given to USS Nautilus after she cruised from west to east under the Arctic ice in 1958 says, “This voyage opens the possibility of a new commercial seaway, a Northwest Passage …” using nuclear-powered cargo submarines. The ice melted. Then came the tanker Manhattan when she made transit through the Northwest Passage in 1969. Neither the owner nor the US government asked permission. In 1985 the US Coast Guard – part of the US Armed Forces – icebreaker Polar Sea went through the Passage. The US told Canada that prior notification was not required.
That forced the Mulroney government to actually draw lines around the Arctic Archipelago to define Canada’s historic inland waters. Only two countries objected. Who objected? The USA and the UK.
Two years later, Mulroney and Regan agreed that the US would seek consent before sending ships into Canadian waters and that Canada would give consent when asked. Why? Because it was in the self-interest of the USA to have a friend and ally who has de jure sovereignty over the Northwest Passage. In other words, the Northwest Passage was seen as an internal waterway under Canadian control and friends could use it. All settled, right?
In 2010, the Harper government instituted an Arctic shipping reporting system and the US protested. Why? Because the US now takes the position that the Northwest Passage is an international waterway and therefore available for use without asking. That is still the US position.
If Canada has de jure sovereignty within the Mulroney baselines, then the question is: Does Canada have de facto sovereignty within that same territory? Well, sort of, at least until the first foreign troops arrive and stay. Like Russia in the Crimea. Like Turkey in Cyprus.
What assets and capabilities do we have to defend and repel within our Arctic Archipelago and our inland waters of our Northwest Passage without depending upon NATO or NORAD or Trump and without sending our Forces abroad to fulfill any other national or international commitments? Sources disagree but the RCAF might still be using one of the original three Arcturus sovereignty patrol aircraft and we do have 14 of our 1980’s Aurora aircraft – some of which can fly. Only 76 of our original 138 1980’s CF-188’s (popularly known as the CF-18) remain but we are getting more – used, from Australia. Add four 1980’s submarines, twelve 1990’s frigates, and twelve 1990’s coastal defence vessels none of which are purpose-built for Arctic service. As many as eight Arctic & Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) are being built. These are the first and only purpose-built Arctic patrol vessels in the RCN under a Conservative program that has been continued by the Liberal government. Permanent military installations in the Arctic are few – one (maybe two) is under construction – but none house ground forces. Except for the Canadian Rangers who live in the Arctic, the Canadian Army would be flown in – one small unit at a time.
Is there a will among adults to Stand on Guard for Thee where “Thee” means Canada?
This is usually just a pit stop to rest up before continuing on the long journey south. It seems to want to hang at this end right in front of my place and although it can be easily spooked, I was lucky enough this afternoon to catch him on the beach preening before he left to join the geese who were doing the same thing in the water a little further along.
Submitted by Carolyn Madge
Last day of regular business hours is November 15.
All floor models are on clearance and are going quickly – check the store out for a bargain……
We are open Wednesday to Friday 9:30am -4:00pm.
Watch our Southern Valley Appliance Facebook page for updates, new mark downs and special hours…we will be open a few Sundays from 11:00am-3:00pm!!!!