This move could definitely benefit the city in terms of redirecting its urban growth inwards (which is much needed) and ensuring the protection of its most fertile soils.

My current understanding is this: the developers have zoned the surrounding areas as ‘industrial’. It’s more expensive to annex industrial land than agricultural land. So when maps are drawn, the roads go through the farms not interested in selling, not their industrially zoned lands. I will fully admit that this issue is far more complex than that, and that I’m not totally up to speed on it. But I think it boils back down to one issue: do we pave over our most fertile local soil, yes or no.

Dear Bob and Judy: If the developer (actually, land speculator is a more appropriate name in this case) have bought out landowners many years ago waiting to flip the property to the highest bidder, and that same land is also classified as having the most fertile soil (Class 1 & 2) and a very unique microclimate which provides favourable growing conditions (longest frost-free days), I hope you see the need for restricting the use of this land to a Permanent Agriculture Zone (which is what NEAP is proposing). Edmonton could be much more food sovereign and much less dependant on imported produce from California’s industrial farms if we keep our fertile peri-urban soils for responsible agriculture.

Edmonton City Council is currently waiting for the draft of a City-Wide Food & Ag Strategy, an Area Structure Plan for the Northeast land, as well as the terms of reference for a new Food Policy Council (http://edmonton.ca/foodandag). This gives me hope that our city and region are working towards more responsible food practices. Gotta keep ‘em honest, though, cause land speculators and developers are powerful, quick and sneaky.

Thanx