Editor, The News:
Re: Why are residents fighting to keep farmland? (Letters, Sept. 6).
The letter from Sandie Banni gives some really solid reasons why every effort should be made to preserve every bit of arable land there is in this province.
The capability for California to be able to supply produce for our province is and will be limited from here and into the future, because of the reasons she mentioned.
In the course of time, produce will take up a greater part of the family income (I believe this country has one of the lowest grocery costs in the world), as land becomes less and less available.
There can be no compromise (as authorities tend to continue to do ). A line must be drawn in the sand.
This letter should be mandatory reading by all civil authorities and inwardly digested, and with the endorsement of Ms. Banni, I would like to send a written copy to each of the ALC directors and our premier.
If population levels continue in an upward direction, I think the level of comfortable living standards will decline correspondingly, not only in this little part of the planet, but everywhere.
Motherhood issues, instinctively recognized as true and needed, part of the most basic need in sustaining life, are ignored or put aside, because people cannot see a solution.
I can only see one incentive to keep the remaining arable land away from housing, and that would be to alter the tax structure in favour of crop production.
If that is called a subsidy, then so be it.
Michael Buckingham
Pitt Meadows
