Expropriation of heritage farm reflects troubling trend

© AgMedia Inc.

Description (Tag): 

Comments

You mention in this article that John Meyers supports his parents in this fight against the expropriation.

There is not one picture or video of Marjorie or John Meyers with the protesters at the site. There is not one quote from either of them that they support the protesters. The writer of this opinion piece did not talk to them. It is obvious the information came from Melissa Sherman?
These protesters are not stopping the demolition. The weather is what is holding it up. These protesters are giving themselves too much credit.

John Meyers started a Facebook page in 2010 to try and get attention to the plight of his family farm. He has been quoted in several articles that have appeared in various papers over the years (eg Watershed article 'It's David vs Goliath, Toronto Sun Jan 14. Frank's supporters claim no credit other than to stand by Frank Meyers against the decision to expropriate his farm.

Unsigned message deleted by editor in accordance with our guidelines.

Sounds a little like farmers that signed contracts with the Wind Turbine people and then later tried to get out of them..whats done is done !

It looks like Meyers stopped looking after that barn long before he began dealing with DND. Take a look at the rusted roof for example. This is not a case where DND went after an actual, farm.

Wow the guy has a rusted roof , tear the place down. So you are saying that if your roof has rust on it look out you could be on the list to have someone come in and tear your buildings down and tack your land because you are not an actual farm. Maybe you should have a job in government (if you are not already) , no soul or pity for someone that farmed most of their life or all. If someone farm and lived all their life on the farm and does not want to sell or move makes them a bad person and should roll over and play dead, come on this is Canada land of the FREE.

Maybe you aren't aware that successful farmers take of their buildings. Maybe you don't know that once a roof leaks the barn begins to rot and eventually falls down. So yes there comes a time when an unmaintained barn should be torn down for safety reasons and to reduce the tax burden. Is it possible that you don't know the difference between a bad person and a bad manager.

Does that say you should give up your land because you have a bad ROOF????????? I have a roof with rust on it and I for one do not want my land taken away because of it. Maybe I must be a bad person for thinking like that.

You should be the one to know whether you are a bad person.

Enjoy your rusting roof but please don't claim to be a competent farmer because it's not the kind of thing one would normally boast about.

Free speech, say what you like having rust on your roof does not make you a bad farmer. Must be a SM Farmer where you can say that rust on your roof will make you a bad person and incompetent farmer, or you have your Daddy Paying the Bills??

I agree with no rust why would someone not paint their roof when they are worried about expropriation

Anyone who does not know what a troll is, please google it. Also google the new medical studies in regards to trolls and mental health.

How is this expropriation part of a troubling trend?

Where is the municipal corruption?

dR

Interesting we send the military to fight other countries that try to invade and take land from others. I guess we are not as free as we think we are.

If the dairy quota was sold in 2007, I could be wrong, but it could have been sold for over $30,000 per kilo, and if my numbers are corrrect, he's getting over $7,100 per workable land, if one calculates the value of the buildings at zero.

People sell, and either re-locate, or retire, every day - it would appear this particular farmer hasn't done all that badly by either the timing of the sale, or by the proceeds of sale.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

It is one thing to sell and move, it is another to be forced to move without needing too. Land been in the family for that many years can be hard on someone who is being kicked off their land, it is not like he has debt and being taken back by the bank. The ones that do not have that tie to the land or the History can sit back and say they made the money out of it so go. There is people who can just walk away from their farm or house with the right money being put out and there are others who would not move for any money and would die fighting for it. Is that what lots of people die in wars for to keep their land and their value.

Your use of the term "die in wars" is somewhat odd, considering that this expropriation was by the military and, therefore, by definition, is designed to help reduce the number of people dying in wars.

In addition, it is odd considering that in this part of Western Ontario, a lot of farm land was expropriated by the military during WWII, and went ahead without all this folderol and flapdoodle - a lot of it returned to farmland, some didn't.

Agriculture isn't the only use of land - it's time we, in agriculture, realized that other uses, such as military uses, are also important to society.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Did Canada not close down Bases in Canada to save money? Why are they taken land and not keeping the Bases they have open, Guess they want to spend more money to give cousin Bob a job and money. During War time and Peace time are completely different , are we a War Monger Country now looking for Wars.
Canada has to use its money wisely and not close one place down and open it up in another because some MP wants it in his or her riding, some people in Government thinks the money is theirs to spend and figure the bank is a bottomless pit.
Its nice to see you are on the Case, wonder are you an Urban Government worker or a Want a Be.

Prime class 1 agriculture ( soil) is not replaceable.You can not order it online or go to Walmart or your local hardware store to buy more.When it is gone, it is gone forever....I agree, Military is important to society if and when there is war..or some sand bags need filling or cities need shoveling out etc..etc..But not at the expense of losing what little class 1 agriculture is left in Ontario ( which is less than 1% as of April.2014)..Even the Military has to eat and so do their pets....and certainly not at the expense of the history of this farm and family.

Hard to imagine anyone could make the statement that "the military .... by definition, is designed to help reduce the number of people dying in wars"

Millions and millions of dead might disagree.

People historically have died to defend freedom not the right of expropriation by the military.

In that context, there is nothing odd about the previous posters use of the term "die in wars". Their points are freedom and property rights.

Of course, agriculture is not the only use of land, that is not the poster's argument - it is yours.

I respect Canada's military but many Canadians or their families have experiences from wars of distant past, recent past or current wars. This forms an informed view of the military in many countries and they offer a vastly different "definition" of the military.

Freedom and property rights tend to be the refuge of scoundrels who want to have their use of something be the only legislated use - farmers are notorious for making these demands when it suits their purpose to do so, yet are equally notorious for not understanding that we are not a nation of farmers.

In addition, you are, in the true spirit of the narrow-mindedness of Canadian farmers, ignoring the fact that Canada's military has had a long-standing tradition of peace-keeping which, by definition, means helping to reduce the number of people dying in wars.

I stand by my statement which is far-more than you are able to do.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Although you might be too narrowly focused on your observation , I will disagree with you . You can twist things all you want but we are a nation of Agriculture . Agriculture is the top of the heap right now as far as driving the economy . We are an exporting nation . Is that not the crux of your fight with SM ? Caught again with double speak eh !!

We are about 2% of the population, and, in addition, you don't seem to understand that instead of driving the economy, both our ethanol and our supply managed sectors,for example, drive nothing, and if anything, suck from the economy, because anything dependent on tariffs and/or mandates for its existence, is net-negative for both jobs and economic activity.

Nothing agriculture can proffer will, or even could, mask the fact that our influence is constantly eroding, and rightly so - we don't have the numbers, we continually try to have it both ways, and we seem to think that nobody else matters but us. In other words, we still think we are the "star quarterback" and that the rest of the "team" just doesn't matter.

None of these things serve us well when trying to live and work in one of the most densely-populated jurisdictions in North America - unless, and/or until, agriculture has a serious discussion about why we still matter in the areas where we still exist, we're going to have an over-inflated opinion about our role in both society, and our communities.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Stephen, I suggest most farmers would like you to stop saying "we" when you talk about agriculture.
Whose views does your post reflect?
It is you, not us, so please only speak for yourself.
It is YOU saying nobody else matters but us.
It is YOU saying the rest of the team just doesn't matter.
No other poster said these things, you introduced them.
Don't put words in our mouths.
Your view of the "true spirit of the narrow-mindedness of Canadian farmers" permeates your view of all agriculture.
"We" farmers are not stupid.
Farmers understand the entire economy is connected.
All sectors are vital.
The service sector is vital.
The resource sector is vital across Canada.
The auto sector is huge and vital in Ontario and elsewhere.
Auto manufacturing and assembly is currently the second largest sector in Ontario.
And yes, Ontario agri-food is the largest sector in Ontario.
Yes, farmers are now only 2% of the population.
One hundred years ago it was 50% of the population.
Does that mean it is 25 times less important now?
What has changed is scale and productivity - both up dramatically.
Should we have kept small and ignored technology?
We do have the numbers - it is the output that matters and we have those numbers.

“Farmers understand the entire economy is connected” was right on.

Yes, Stephen, please stop saying "we" when you talk about agriculture.

I doesn’t make any sense why you choose to have anything to do with farmers when you believe in the "true spirit of the narrow-mindedness of Canadian farmers" and that farmers are "notorious cowards".

Why would we want to have anything to do with you?

Your participation in “Ontario’s Online Community of Professional Farmers” is almost entirely to attack and belittle farmers.

You don’t really reply to posts points, you attack and belittle.

You don’t ever seem to contribute constructively.

Is that professional?

The reply policy of BF is “We welcome thoughtful comments and ideas. Comments must be on topic. Cheap shots, unsubstantiated allegations, anonymous attacks or negativity directed against people and organizations will not be published.”

You often attack the anonymous angle, but the BF policy does not go on to say that “Signed cheap shots, unsubstantiated allegations, attacks or negativity directed against people and organizations are encouraged”

I believe that if the BF forum’s policy was truly followed, few if any of your posts would ever be published.

It's amazing the differences of opinion I get subsequent to my postings - I get the all-too-familiar, and always anonymous, gibberish about not "stirring the pot" as seen in the posting above, yet I get e-mails all the time from people who not only enjoy my postings, they thank me for making mincemeat out of those who don't know what they are talking about, and who have nothing to say, and therefore do it anonymously.

Get over it - there are a LOT of very-angry farmers who detest the status quo represented by those who don't want to rock the boat or upset anyone else's feelings, and I seem to be a lightning rod for them. There are a lot of changes pending in agriculture, and a lot of deadwood people, and a lot of deadwood attitudes, are going to be quite-unceremoniously discarded.

If you don't like me, if you don't like my style, and if you don't like my message, too bad because there's a whole generation of farmers who not only agree with me, they think I'm not strident enough in my criticisms.

It's like this - "you ain't seen nothing yet".

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Anonymous comment removed by editor.

Sad forum. Goodbye.

Mr.Thomsons posts are blunt, accurate, to the point, with great analogies and expressions. Great reading. A writing style and opinion that ranks right up there with the likes of Mark Steyn, Kevin O'leary, and Andrew Coyne just to name a few. Why wouldn't we want someone with his level of education to post here? It is almost always the anonymous who believe free speech is good for them, but no one else, and want to choose who should be removed from this site. Screw that. Raube Beuerman

Guess if all some people heroes are on TV and not in the real world must have to realize to shut the TV off and get out of the fantasy world. Some of the people in the world would sit and watch TV and idolize a person who is in the real world do not produce food for people ,just take their hard earn money .

Flawless logic so there could be no comeback

It is not rubbish . You don't have a clue of how the real world works .

I really don't think I need to go on about it since many other posters have already .
One question though . Why is it that you are the only "Star Quaterback" for all things negative about agriculture in a world full of economists ? We never hear from any other economists on here likely because they don't agree with you .

Yes, I am able to stand by my statement, which was to point out....... "In that context, there is nothing odd about the previous poster's use of the term "die in wars". Their points are freedom and property rights."

Freedom and property rights were the first things taken from Europe's Jews before more than six million were slaughtered by the military. That was the poster's context.

Most readers would understand that "Confused understanding of history" was obviously written about the Second World War when it included....

"Millions and millions of dead might disagree.  People historically have died to defend freedom not the right of expropriation by the military."

WWII was in the period before Canada was peace-keepers, they were just one of many military forces on the killing fields of Europe. That was the poster's context.

You had the choice to graciously recognize this different and valid broader perspective or attack farmers as "notorious" for being demanding and not understanding, as well as the "true spirit of the narrow-mindedness of Canadian farmers".

Your choice and attack on farmers speaks volumes about you.

Anonymous posters are the worst kind of cowards - we have no idea who you are because you are too cowardly to admit who you are, and that speaks volumes about you, and why you should be, and must be, ignored.

In addition, on this site, and especially on this topic, farmers are notorious cowards because 99% of the postings are anonymous, as well as narrow-minded - maybe the posters choose to be anonymous because they don't want to admit being narrow minded, but, in any event, the posting speak volumes about the "true spirit of the narrow-mindedness of Canadian farmers".

Furthermore, the sentiments expressed on this topic by the anonymous posters on this site to the effect that the heritage of this farm and the need to preserve agricultural land should be reason enough to stop this expropriation, show an appalling lack of understanding and consideration for anything but the totally-selfish belief that agriculture should be/must be allowed a bully when it comes to the preservation of agricultural land.

This lack of consideration for others when it comes to the preservation of farm land truly does show the "true spirit of the narrow-mindedness of Canadian farmers", if for no other reason that while, on one hand, we complain about the disappearance of farm land, yet we also complain that farm gate prices are too low, which indicates we have too much farm land. We, of course, simply can't see that, as usual/as always, we are trying to have it both ways.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Anonymous comment removed by editor.

Well said. Enough said.
Of course, prepare to be attacked.

You think that the Farmers are the Lowest of the Low?

Comment will be published in its entirety if the author will sign it and resubmit

That's not the point Stephen. It is not about the money at all obviously. It is about keeping what is rightfully his and his families...Its about a family who's history is entrenched in the area ( since 1798) and at that farm. Its about saving what little prime class 1 farmland that is left in Ontario.( Less than 1% left in the entire province) It is about sustaining that land for all future Ontarians and Canadians.....

A number of years ago when the airport in Wingham was about to expand substantially in order to accomodate the private jet(s) owned by Wescast, a major local industry, and/or the jets owned by their customers who were coming to Wingham to visit the manufacturing facilities, we, in the Huron Federation of Agriculture, were asked by several of our members to oppose the airport expansion on the basis that agricultural land needed to be preserved.

The Huron Federation decided to not support that petition because we believed that we lived, and farmed, in a community which supported more than agriculture, as well as the obvious fact that many of our members, and their immediate family members, worked at Wescast with the result that the airport expansion would indirectly benefit their farms through increased employment at Wescast.

Simply stated, we took the position that the needs of many in the community far outweighed the position that saving so-called "prime" agricultural land should be of paramount importance.

Or, to look at it another way, to have opposed the expansion of this airport by trotting out the "need to sustain farm land for all future Ontarions and Canadians" mantra, would have been the most selfish, and most stupid, thing we could possibly have ever done.

In other jurisdictions, in particular in that part of Southern California from Chino and Ontario to the east, commonly called the Inland Empire, I have seen most, if not all, of the farmland in that area disappear over the past 30 years, and nobody, including the farmers, seems to care - for example, instead of mounting the fruitless, and meaningless arguments about preserving farm land, one dairy farmer I met there 30 years ago, long ago moved his cows, and his family, to a farm to Arizona.

Therefore, the sustaining farm land argument makes farmers look like dogs in the manger, and rightly-so - it's dumb, it's selfish, and it's stupid to try to deny the obvious reality that we do not, and should not, be able to dictate to anyone that their need for land is less than ours.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Absolutely correct Stephen.
1.OFA should turn all of Ontario into one large industrial park.
2.Better yet, OFA should also included huge increases in housing parkland and recreational parkland.
3.But most of all, in order to free up land for these so called societal needs, OFA policy should also abolish the inefficient use of crop production to feed livestock.

As is typically the case when anonymous posters reply to something appearing on this site, it's hard to tell whether the individual behind this particular posting is trying to be sarcastic, or is simply being obtuse.

To all appearances, he/she is failing miserably at the first and is being quite-successful at the second.

Simply stated, a policy of preserving farm land in all instances, and at all costs, and with no consideration of societal requirements for alternative land uses, is as stupid as the poster's suggestion that Ontario become one large industrial park.

The fact of the matter which seems to be continually lost on most farmers and most farm organizations, is that we, especially in southern Ontario, are farming in one of the most densely-populated areas of North America, and, as such, we have no right to insist that agriculture should enjoy any more land use priveleges than any other use.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

So you appear to be saying OFA's land use policy is either not realistic or rubbish or both.

Quote: we have no right to insist that agriculture should enjoy any more land use privileges than any other use.

That comment is not supported by the Provincial Policy Statement or PPS which states:” Prime agricultural areas shall be protected for long-term use.” So, the question becomes who is correct, Stephen or the PPS?

We don't have the moral right to insist on what the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) allows - and as a purely practical matter, the PPS is one of the worst pieces of legislation in existence, in part because it provides oodles of work for my friends in the consulting business, and even on occasion, myself, whenever land is proposed to go out of agriculture and into something else.

My experience has been that in these circumstances, people from the government show up at hearings, listen to nothing, think about nothing, parrot the PPS, and generally be obstacles to the process, rather than be helpful.

The PPS, like supply management, is a relic from another day and another time and serves no purpose in this century except impede progress in the name of some sort of long-departed agricultural fundamentalism - we'd be better off without it.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

I agree. People forget you need a farmer on the land to call it farmland. Consumers think of their wallet when buying food. They buy the cheapest price and dont think about where it comes from. If the community really wanted to preserve farmland there would be no need for programs like "Buy Ontario" or "Buy Local". There would not be too many imports either.
The public speaks loud and clear when they choose imported food over local food. They are saying they really dont value Ontario farmers and that means they dont value Ontario farmland.

Farmers think with their wallets when buying anything, and they also buy for the cheapest price and don't think about where it comes from.

Why should we expect to have our concerns supported when we support nobody in return?

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

UNSIGNED attack deleted by editor

It's a pity we don't have an update from Joe Callahan. I know nothing about farming, but I support animal welfare laws, buy local when I can, and encourage sustainable farming. My opinion in this matter is that both sides have a valid claim, and perhaps some open communication between the parties could result in a better solution. I believe what's at stake is not the corn & soy plants, but the buildings that Mr. Meyer doesn't want torn down. Perhaps he would accept compensation for the land, if the buildings were preserved and thus his family heritage? Here in the city, if someone comes knocking on the door to your house and sells you a policy and you sign an agreement for say hot water tank rental or fixed gas prices for the next ten years, you have 24 hours 'buyer's remorse' clause to get out of the deal. If he signed the agreement while his wife was in hospital and he was under duress, I think that is taking unfair advantage. The military wants that track of land because it is the most convenient. Perhaps having to build around the existing structures might be a little less convenient, but if it helps to preserve a part of Canada's heritage, then why not? Farmers are an important part of our society, as are engineers, the military, etc., everyone does their part to make the world go round. I don't see why we can't create/encourage more densely populated areas elsewhere, and preserve our rich agricultural land that currently exists? Living in harmony and having a balance between country and city, is what enriches our lives and makes them worth living.
Just one woman's opinion.
Ana Inglis, Toronto, ON

Post new comment

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Image CAPTCHA
We welcome thoughtful comments and ideas. Comments must be on topic. Cheap shots, unsubstantiated allegations, anonymous attacks or negativity directed against people and organizations will not be published. Comments are modified or deleted at the discretion of the editors. If you wish to be identified by name, which will give your opinion far more weight and provide a far greater chance of being published, leave a telephone number so that identity can be confirmed. The number will not be published.