Ontario Agriculture

The network for agriculture in Ontario, Canada

Surplus farm houses

Over the last year and a half in Perth County we have had the surplus farm house issue visited twice. Most recently about a month ago county council decide to turn the motion down for the second time. The issue we divide people easier than picking your favorite hockey team. I don't believe there is a right or wrong answer but my problem is if it has been defeated twice why in after only a month of being defeated is it back on the table. This almost feels like a federal election. Democercy has to be considered some where along the line perhaps we have to have the best 3 out of 5. In tough economic times does our elected people have nothing better to do. It is like the dog that has chased a cat up the tree and won't move until it comes down(alot of wasted energy and resources for no reason). Anyway just wanting to hear other thoughts on the severance of surplus farm houses. Yes or No

Views: 4533

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by rein minnema on October 17, 2009 at 1:13pm
Severing a house has more complications than just setbacks etc.
You will get a change in population, you will get ratepayers that are urban oriented in a rural setting who will influence the direction from your rural municapality and county.
For the last twenty years I have toured your county by-weekly and all I can see a huge difference, a book can be written about that.
.
Permalink Reply by Dale Ketcheson on October 17, 2009 at 3:31pm
Also people need to keep in mind that setbacks will almost certainly increase fairly steadily in time, and will affect more than just livestock buildings. There will certainly be restrictive setbacks on fertilizer, pesticides, maybe even tillage at some point in the future. They are very unlikely to stay the same or decrease.

rein minnema said:
Severing a house has more complications than just setbacks etc.
You will get a change in population, you will get ratepayers that are urban oriented in a rural setting who will influence the direction from your rural municapality and county.
For the last twenty years I have toured your county by-weekly and all I can see a huge difference, a book can be written about that.
.
Permalink Reply by rein minnema on October 18, 2009 at 12:51am
Thanks for that Dale,
I like to put a little more emphasis on ONE thing only I brought forward in my first reply.
Allowing severances is like farming in a URBAN setting.
What created the GREEN BELT around the Greater Toronto Area??
Answer,
The cloud of the urban ratepayer.


Dale Ketcheson said:
Also people need to keep in mind that setbacks will almost certainly increase fairly steadily in time, and will affect more than just livestock buildings. There will certainly be restrictive setbacks on fertilizer, pesticides, maybe even tillage at some point in the future. They are very unlikely to stay the same or decrease.
rein minnema said:
Severing a house has more complications than just setbacks etc.
You will get a change in population, you will get ratepayers that are urban oriented in a rural setting who will influence the direction from your rural municapality and county.
For the last twenty years I have toured your county by-weekly and all I can see a huge difference, a book can be written about that.
.
Permalink Reply by rein minnema on November 4, 2009 at 4:10pm
Surplus farm dwellings today are coming from the purchase of a farm property with a house on it.
A lifetime lease should be given if the seller has the need to retire on the property.
The change in zoning from agriculture to whatever is where we loose our agriculture freedom.

Joann said:
I have read the discussion about severing surplus dwellings and noticed this discussion is protective of long-term farming practices.

What I also noticed is the lack of information concerning farmers' true rights.

Farm lots were created and distributed by agents of the Crown. The very first Act of Upper Canada entrenches property rights, things such as drainage. Farmers' property rights are protected by 4 very important words. Free and Common Socage. In my opinion, there are no more powerful words than that phrase when it comes to farmers' rights in Ontario and yet so few really knows what that phrase entails.

Land grands were awarded under Free and Common Socage with each and every land grant Sealed by the Crown. The land grants (all?) were docketed by the Auditor general (speaking Upper Canada here, before confederation). These covenants are still valid. Excise is a condition of the land grants. Excise is a source of Crown income. The Crown kept the final rights to land and we as farmers only truly have 'tenure' to the land.


The land grants are in effect contracts awarded by the Crown directly to each and every farmer with rights, duties and obligations that are consistent with full and complete enjoyment of properties as defined by ancient servitudes. Individual rights awarded directly to farmers before collective rights of municipalities were even formed. The land grants are the farmers' sovereign production licenses.

If you reach back far enough you will find that farmers always had the right to "develop lots". As the farms were passed down through ancient rights of "tenure", most retiring farmers had little to no pension income. Therefore farmers were entitled to sever a lot for retirement purposes. The right to sever a lot and SELL to raise capital for retirement. It was the original pension plan for farmers and for many, it was the only pension plan.

Severing surplus houses on farms today is a societal problem and yet farmers are being pressured, again, to solve a societal problem by foregoing their rights without compensation.

The discussion about surplus dwellings must include farmers' rights in the broader forum for an adequate and just solution.

Severing lots by farmers is part and parcel of agricultural justice. It would appear that farmers willingly erode/forego their rights without compensation through a total lack of understanding their true rights.
Permalink Reply by Wayne Black on November 4, 2009 at 4:20pm
Thank you Rein - you are correct about changing the zoning and losing agricultural freedom. I was thinking about that lease option. It would give the retiree more cash for their retirement to invest as they see fit and less worry about property taxes.
Also - on the retiree thing - it has been proven that a farmer who severes a "retirement" property from their farm use that residence for an average of five (5) years. Locally we have seen it used less than 5 years. House or trailer removed in 6 years.
Yeah - that is a huge gain for society...???

rein minnema said:
Surplus farm dwellings today are coming from the purchase of a farm property with a house on it.
A lifetime lease should be given if the seller has the need to retire on the property. The change in zoning from agriculture to whatever is where we loose our agriculture freedom.
Permalink Reply by rein minnema on November 5, 2009 at 2:01am
for those who need to retire on the property after the sale the only option should be given is a live time lease.
Permalink Reply by Wayne Black on November 5, 2009 at 3:50am
Since when is creating residential areas in Agriculturally Zoned lands considered agricultural use? You stated it yourself "Farmers have the ancient right to have a dwelling on farm property so to have shelter on the property he possesses. When an additional dwelling is acquired it is deemed "surplus" and does not conform to agricultural use therefore the farmer has the right to dispose of items that are not agricultural to maintain the spirit of the Crown contract."
So when you have a house on a farm - it is for the farm use. When you have a severed house - it is no longer farm use and therefore creating a non-agricultural zone in a farming area and therefore in effect eliminating a farm use product. Yes a dwelling on a farm property - I agree. So when a new farmer buys the severed farmland - he has no house! he can not build a house on that remaining property. So you would suggest that the new owner of the bare land has a right to build a house, has the right to severe it once "it" becomes surplus.. and carry on until it is now "urban development".
You are suggesting it is okay to continue to severe off lots as the owner retires, or wants to remain on the farm. It is a "societial issue" that you suggest. So where do you draw the line? When do you stop the severances once you start them. Because you are stating that as an owner of farmland, I have a right to build a house and I have a right to severe it off once it becomes surplus - whether a house has been severed off yet or not. When are you going to stop it before it becomes urban development? It has already happened in a Township locally where a farmer - yes a true farmer - went around and bought farmland with a house on it. He then sold off the house as a severed lot, turned around and sold the bare land. ASAP he went and did it again. Around 4 - 6 farms he did this with before the township stopped him with a bylaw stating no surplus farmhouses to be severed.
Farmers have the right to use the land for agriculture - as you stated "for food production". Severing the farmland for lot creation is land development - not "food production".

Joann said:
True. But the land grants are about and for agriculture.
What that means is farmers working in conjunction with Mother Nature for food production by valid contract conditions.
Farmers have the ancient right to have a dwelling on farm property so to have shelter on the property he possesses. When an additional dwelling is acquired it is deemed "surplus" and does not conform to agricultural use therefore the farmer has the right to dispose of items that are not agricultural to maintain the spirit of the Crown contract.

Lot creation and the effects on land use planning is a societal issue. Farmers should not be the only members of society to bare the burden of such issues by being denied an element that is contrary to the original contract.

If society does not want surplus lot creation then society should compensate for the loss of farmers right to create and dispose of non-agricultural items on farmland.

A contract is a contract. It is time Mr. McGuinty respected the Crown contracts farmers possess.
Permalink Reply by rein minnema on November 6, 2009 at 1:19am
Times and society are changing, there are a lot more issues we need to focus on.

Wayne Black said:
Thank you Rein - you are correct about changing the zoning and losing agricultural freedom. I was thinking about that lease option. It would give the retiree more cash for their retirement to invest as they see fit and less worry about property taxes.
Also - on the retiree thing - it has been proven that a farmer who severes a "retirement" property from their farm use that residence for an average of five (5) years. Locally we have seen it used less than 5 years. House or trailer removed in 6 years.
Yeah - that is a huge gain for society...???

rein minnema said:
Surplus farm dwellings today are coming from the purchase of a farm property with a house on it.
A lifetime lease should be given if the seller has the need to retire on the property. The change in zoning from agriculture to whatever is where we loose our agriculture freedom.
Permalink Reply by Brent Royce on February 3, 2010 at 3:01am
The other day I recieved notice that 2 municipality's within our county are planning on fighting our county bylaw of no surplus farm houses in the county by taking it to the OMB. it doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with severing of a farm house. I believe that dividing up a county is far more complicated. If you start with surplus farm houses and move on to other things, you eventually end up with a broken official plan that puts township against township. In this day of larger farms and fewer rural people you need to keep consitency amongst the county. We have moved to bigger municipalitys and that will continue to happen perhaps on day everything will be run at the county level. I believe that the county should remain as one to make it fair for everyone.
Permalink Reply by rein minnema on February 5, 2010 at 2:28am
That common sence may lead to the right direction as it did in the past
Permalink Reply by Robert Wood on February 12, 2010 at 2:34am
I have several farm houses that I rent out and can see the merits of both sides of this argument. I do not think I want to sell mine . I would like to rent them out to some one that would take care of them. I am not interested in making a lot of money from them I would just like to breakeven, and have my building maintained.As renters come and go the the building seems to decline. I can not believe there are not people out there that would fulfill this goal, but they seem to be few and far between in my experience. It would be nice to be able to be to participate in some program for the distressed or under privileged that would help ensure payment and find the right tenants.

Not so happy landlord
Permalink Reply by Robert Hillman on December 12, 2011 at 1:28pm

i have lived in  logan township for  22 years in  a rented house

no one gives a crap about us   We could grow  enough food to feed  one hundred families   at half  what they would pay at the grocey store but they are to rich to give a dam and stop

 

THEY hate us because we speak the truth about money and  self righteous pricks that have it

WE  WORK HARD     we  have lived in the same place for 22 years

we want to farm  a hundred acers  BUT OUR  bank load went to gm   chrysler and the banks

WHEN INTEREST  rates in canada  go to   15 percent again and they will   I cant wait till all these MILLIONAIRE  debt farmers  WHO GOT everything handed to them     either from mommy and daddy or the banks   lose it all

then you can  be like us and told to get a  job at  WALLMART  selling  canadian flags  MADE IF  FRICKING CHINA

 

I VOTE  allow the people that have lived in the country to have five acers and GROW FOOD

then tell the rich idiots in the neighbourhood  TO BUY LOCAL instead of mexico

 

▶ Reply to Discussion

RSS

Agriculture Headlines from Farms.com Canada East News - click on title for full story

Which Situations Require the Use of a Soybean Inoculant?

If soybeans have been in a rotation on the field, an inoculant is not normally recommended. Most universities recommend that if the field has not grown soybeans in the last 3 or more years an inoculant may help to prevent a yield loss. Some environmental conditions, such low pH, floods, and drought may increase the need for periodic inoculation even in fields with a history of soybean production. Care must be used when storing and handling these products as they contain a living bacteria. Soybeans form a symbiotic (mutually beneficial) relationship with nitrogen-fixing bacteria that live in the soil (Figure 1). In this relationship, Rhizobia bacteria fix atmospheric nitrogen into a plant available form in exchange for plant-derived carbon. Because soybeans are the host for the bacteria, if soybeans are grown in rotation the bacteria will persist in the soil. However, if soybeans have never been grown or have not been grown in an area for several years, the bacteria can become deple

Effects of Frost & Freeze Conditions on Young Corn and Soybeans

Air temperatures at or below 28 °F can be fatal to corn and soybeans, depending on their duration and crop growth stage. Waiting a few days after the freeze or frost event to examine affected plants, is the best way to assess the extent of damage and make management decisions. Certain management practices such as herbicide applications, may need to be delayed when frost-freeze injury occurs. Air temperatures at or below 28 °F for just a few hours can kill corn outright, even when the growing point is below ground, while air temperatures above 28 °F have a variable effect on young corn. For soybeans, when the air temperature drops below 28-32 °F, plants can experience some degree of frost damage. If the freeze period lasts for several hours and damage occurs below the cotyledons, soybeans can die. When light frost occurs, it typically shows up in bottom ground and lower parts of fields where the cold air has a chance to collect. It may also show up in fields protected by trees, since

Bfo Statement: Ontario Court Upholds The Legislation And Intent Of The Security From Trespass Act

The Beef Farmers of Ontario (BFO) is pleased to hear that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has upheld the legislation and intent of the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act (2020), which has been under a court challenge since 2021. We understand that while the Act has been upheld, a ruling on sections of the underlying Regulation has been suspended. We will be actively monitoring further developments regarding this case. The Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act is a critical safeguard to protect farm animals, the food supply, farmers and others from risks that are created when trespassers enter places where farm animals live or when persons engage in unauthorized interactions with farm animals. The repercussions include the risk of exposing farm animals to disease and stress, as well as the risk of introducing contaminants into the food supply. Animal neglect, abuse and cruelty is never acceptable, and animal welfare is of the utmost importance

Federal Budget 2024 Misses Key Opportunities, says Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada

Budget 2024 unfortunately overlooks several significant measures that could have greatly supported the fruit and vegetable sector, such as a carbon tax exemption, financial protection against market volatilities, and the establishment of a Grocery Code of Conduct. Similarly, no funding was allocated for greenhouse agriculture or the Sustainable Agriculture Strategy, both essential for climate adaptation and sustainability. Nevertheless, Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada (FVGC) is cautiously optimistic about several included initiatives, like the extension of the Advance Payments Program’s interest-free limit to $250,000 and the introduction of the New Canada Carbon Rebate for Small Businesses. The budget also proposes funding for maintaining the pesticides regulatory system and promoting sustainable pesticide use, which underscores the importance of sustainable crop protection practices. FVGC is particularly concerned about the rising costs affecting both growers and consumers. As

Altona's E2 Trucking acquires Rosenort-based trucking firm

E2 Trucking, an Altona-based company, has expanded it's operations by acquiring PK Friesen Trucking in Rosenort. A big step for the company, the deal closed on February 9th. . E2 owner Evan Erlandson says they learned a lot and got to know a lot of good people that he's proud to have on the team. "That added 12 trucks to our fleet, roughly an even split of north-south routes and east-west routes. The east-west trucks and trailers and business was new to us, we were not involved in that business. The north-south wasn't new to us, so we just kept those guys on. Well, we kept everyone on, and we're doing our best to keep everybody busy." The fleet now totals about 35 units. Along with the repair shop, support staff, is made up of some 10 people, including three full-time mechanics, dispatchers, administration, a couple of managers and all the drivers. From the perspective of a business owner, Erlandson feels a responsibility, especially in small town, to do what he can to preserve

© 2024   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service