I read with interest the columns in your March 3 issue by Barbara Duckworth, Harvey Buckley, and James Hargrave concerning the Alberta Land Use Framework. As an Alberta rancher whose family has farmed and ranched here for more than 100 years, I consider this draconian act entirely unacceptable. I agree completely with James Hargrave when he states that there are many contradictions within the act, and that they need to start over again from square one and not just make some amendments.
Also, throughout the ALUF, where it states what legislation the Alberta government plans to enact regarding preservation of agricultural land, the language is concrete, imperative and unconditional, with phrases such as “have to,” “must do,” and “will do.” However, when the ALUF is referring to compensation to the landowner for expropriation of private lands for “the common good,” the language used is conditional, with phrases such as: “may do,” “could do,” “could include” and “will consider.”
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
This whole Land Use Framework is what results when we allow “Ivory Tower” people to be in control.
JoAnn Jones-Hole,Calgary, Alta.
