Farm severances to open up…

Farm severances to open up development can be done while protecting the agricultural industry and here is a proposal on how and why it needs to be done.

We need to look at the past present and future of all farming types and classes.

It has been decades where agricultural lands were protected from severances. The “spirit” behind this decision was to protect farmland, but its intention has failed and we continue to loose farmland. It’s what I call the “all or nothing” approach.

Farms are different across Ontario, dairy, meats, grain, produce etc. Soil and land topography are also different so to best serve the need of each farm then we need to collectively address this issue on a case by case issue.

Reasons why a farmer may want to sever comes for many different reasons, to allow a child to live near the farm operation to assist and work the farm, to transition the farm operation with improved technology without taking on high interest debt or to eliminate debt or taxes on transition to the next generation. Each reason ultimately is to keep farms farming.

When a farmer meets these business frictions they may find themselves (under the current rules) in an “all or nothing” situation. This may cause the farmer to have to sell. Most prime ag land is in southern Ontario and close to developing cities, as these farms go up for sale investors purchase the land and “land bank” the property for future development that is anything but agricultural.

My proposal is to treat prime ag severance similar to rural but with added protections.

First the farmer must be a registered farmer working the land. The land must of been owned by the farmer for 10 yrs before the first severance and then subsequently every 5 yrs thereafter for any additional severance. The total maximum allowed to be severed cannot exceed 5% of the total land owned. (Ie 100ac farm will only be able to sever a total of 5 ac regardless how many lots make up the 5ac severed). Further to this the farmer must provide proof the land to be severed is not viable to farming and then relate how the severance will promote and sustain the farm business.

There was a recent article written about an Ontario farm that was forced to be sold due to business frictions and then it was developed into a housing development project. The son of the farmer regretted not being able to take over the farm and later moved onto a lot that was severed by another farmer who is still farming. The difference to notice here is one farmer could sever and one could not. The farmer allowed to sever is still farming and the other isn’t and the land has now been lost forever. So is it not better in todays time of high land values and high inflation to be willing to sacrifice 5% of non viable land to save the remaining 95% to support agriculture?

In my opinion to say no to a solution that supports both views for new homes and saving agriculture by continuing with our status quo will only accelerate the reduction of the farming industry as it has over the past several decades especially in todays economic landscape.