Agricultural land concerns must be part of the affordable housing discussion
By Lethbridge Herald on May 31, 2025.
Editor,
Re: Housing is more unaffordable than ever, Herald, May 22.
Around the world, urban populations have skyrocketed. In most European countries, strict land-use regulations are critical to limit urban sprawl and to protect land used for food production. Anyone driving from Lethbridge to both Coaldale and Calgary will see an explosion of acreages with huge single family homes. This has removed some of the most productive land anywhere in the world from agricultural use. In major cities in all countries, people live and work in high rises. This is completely normal. Not limiting land for development will lead to more expensive food and, inevitably, food shortages. Once you build on it, that agricultural land is gone forever. As Joni Mitchell put it “You pave paradise and put up a parking lot.” Let’s not do that!
Leslie Lavers
Lethridge
6-5
The UCP has taken away the right for Municipalities to control sprawl.
This is to allow the wealthy to build large suburban homes under the guise of ‘affordable’ housing (a brainchild of our inestimable MLA?). Then again, it probably would be more affordable to build three storie McMansions on what-was-recently good farmland.
Sorry but for many, many years now your city hall with their in house land corporation (for max profit) has developed and promoted several exclusive neighbourhoods. That means no to even very low levels of basement suits, duplexes etc.. Drive around Riverstone and the like. Back in the late 80’s it started with a plan of about 184 higher density units. I believe they have one basement suit and one duplex. The city’s lawyer signed off on it and council voted down the higher density. Even some councilors who went on to support and run for the NDP party. What happened? It’s called power and wealth and voting. A powerful group organized a petition against higher density than single family and city council were more than happy to honour it. The city made more money because there was an increased demand for what the city was offering. Never mind that the peasents helped pay for the infrastructure and the staff for the city’s capitalistic venture, which continues to this day.
Many people don’t say a word about this unless a UCP tag is somehow included. And of course many people don’t seem to drive around their city with their eyes open. Many high paid /wealthy NDP supporters(some university profs,scientists, school principals and community planning department staff) etc.) live in these acreage type and exclusive neighbourhoods. At city hall meetings they are happy to suggest that low income and or addiction support services are put ,”somewhere else” . They support low income at SAPAC etc. it just has to be “somewhere else” other than their neck of the woods. Then after these meetings they drive back to their exclusive neighbourhoods and or acreages .
A number of these exclusive areas were approved when the NDP was in power in this province.
Not sure what you’re on about, here. Except maybe that some specter called ‘NDP’ is haunting the discussion.
My only point is that the Government of Alberta adheres to the lowest possible building and energy standards, and actively prohibits municipalities from setting them higher, or limiting sprawl, or promoting the electrification of heating.
It is short sighted and makes homes much less ‘affordable’ in the long run.
That low standards and sprawl are good for developers and builders (and good for political donations and graft) is obvious. But it is not good for Albertans.
a simple equation for sustainability: the more humans we have, the fewer wants can be accommodated. that is to say, while the planet can absorb some of our follies, there is indeed a limit to which we can plunder and pollute, particularly where our jollies are concerned.
I found HGTV House Hunters International on YouTube! Canadians are spoiled rotten when it comes to space for living. Everyone wants more and more space. More bathrooms, more private outdoor space and more indoor space so no one has to be in the same room at the same time.
It can be amusing watching North American citizens looking for living space in Germany, France, Spain etc. These places, inhabited by humans for centuries, ran out of space a long time ago. They saw the downfall of building on farmland with abandon and pulled that back. Food security is a thing and always has been. In fact, I think Jared Diamond blames the fall of ancient civilizations on the cities growing the point where they couldn’t grow enough food close enough to get it to citizens before it went bad.
That said, I also think we pave too much and don’t offer people willing to live in a small space something in the way of outside. A balcony is one thing, but a park is another all together. Some European high rises have internal court yards with trees and flower beds. I’d add in some community garden space to grow some simple food items. Maybe even small urban farms run by professionals.
Alas, I think until we start building homes for humans instead of money makers we won’t see much change.
a thoughtful piece – well shared
The equation of poor bunny is simple: the more people there are, the fewer individual desires the planet can sustainably support. Earth can handle some mistakes, but there’s a limit to how much we can take and waste—especially for the sake of our pleasures.
why does the herald allow spam?