To the editor:

The Agriculture Land Reserve comprises just five per cent of B.C.鈥檚 total land base, so I don鈥檛 agree with E Barry Patterson鈥檚 letter in support of an RV park on ALR land. (Healthy Farm Income Good for Economy, Feb. 3 琉璃神社) Agricultural land has been recognized as a finite resource by the government, and therefore it鈥檚 protected from development for the public good.

Research shows it could cost up to $100,000 to develop these 10 sites, so it doesn鈥檛 make sense for a land owner to remove them once the land is developed in this way. As well, an RV park doesn鈥檛 at all support agriculture, it merely replaces it on valuable food-growing land.

Whether neighbours object to it or not isn鈥檛 the point, as ALR land is held for the public interest. And if people choose to grow hay on acreage that鈥檚 fertile and could grow much more, that鈥檚 their choice, and there's no reason for the city to approve RV sites on the property.

The strawberry farm at the corner of KLO and Benvoulin asked for exclusion from the ALR and the city didn鈥檛 support it.  The Bennett lot on Springfield was turned down from coming out of the ALR. Why then would this piece, in this same corner of town, be allowed to develop RV sites?

The city is setting a dangerous precedent, as there is no public value to an RV park, but there is immense value for all of us in arable land.

Moni Schiller, 琉璃神社