Following are reprints of articles or columns

Reprinted from http://www.communitytransition.blogspot.com/

 Wondering About Aging Communities - A Reply to October's "Aging in Place" Column

by George Penfold

I recently moved from Comox on Vancouver Island to Castlegar in the West Kootenay, and was struck by the lower rate of in-migration of retirees compared to Vancouver Island. There is interest here in attracting retirees and other "amenity migrants," and clearly some level of demand, but we are just starting that process here compared to the Island. That interest, and the October 2008 column on Aging in Place on the CIT Information Resource site, got me wondering about how different Island and Interior communities really are, and how an "older" population will affect Kootenay communities.I looked at two communities. My new "home town" of Castlegar has a reputation as a "mill town." Locally we have a saw mill and a pulp mill, and the Teck Resources smelter in Trail is within commuting distance. Qualicum Beach on Vancouver Island, on the other hand, has a reputation as a retirement community with the "oldest" population in BC. I checked the Statistics Canada community profiles based on 2006 census data to see what differences I could find.The communities are relatively similar in size, but growth rates are quite different, as is median age:* Between 2001 and 2006 Qualicum Beach grew from 6,920 to 8,520 (23.1%). Castlegar grew as well, but at a significantly lower rate from 7,002 to 7,260 (3.7%);* Median age (rounded to nearest full year) in Qualicum Beach is 61 years, and 41% of the population is over 65. In comparison, Castlegar has a median age of 44 years, and 19.4% are over 65.

Those are pretty predictable differences, although the scale of difference in the age of the population and rate of growth surprised me. What do those differences mean in terms of the social and economic characteristics of the community? Some community characteristics are surprisingly similar:

* In Qualicum Beach, almost half (48.8%) of the population 25-64 has university or college level certificate or degree (not including trades) compared to Castlegar at 44.2%. Not a very big difference.* Median household incomes are also similar - $25,765 for single person households and $40,943 for all others in Qualicum Beach compared to $25,000 and $44,107 in Castlegar. It’s easy to forget that many retirees still have significant incomes, and that retiree incomes are "basic" incomes in that they bring in dollars from outside the region, just like export-based manufacturing jobs.* Neither community has ethnic diversity, with only 3.4% visible minority population in Qualicum Beach and 2.4% in Castlegar (compared to 24.8% provincially).* Like most rural communities in BC, both have had low immigration numbers (115 and 50 respectively).Neither community plays a significant role in the bigger provincial immigration pattern where approximately 75% of the net population growth in BC in 2007 was immigration.There are, however, some significant differences:* Qualicum Beach has high population mobility – 46% of the population did not live at the current address in 2001, and 35% came from outside the region, compared to 16% and 8% respectively in Castlegar. Given the 23% growth in Qualicum Beach, high mobility is not surprising, but I wonder how that high "changeover" rate relates to the touted advantages of additional "social capacity" and volunteerism in retirement communities? One thing it does mean is more employment in finance and real estate, 305 in Qualicum compared to 200 in Castlegar!* Only 33% of the total population is in the labour force in Qualicum, compared to 51% in Castlegar. The most obvious employment difference is that there are 420 employed in manufacturing and construction in Qualicum Beach, compared to 756 in Castlegar. Beyond that, it’s hard to compare as there is no large regional centre similar to Nanaimo in the West Kootenay.* Lack of difference in housing diversity was the biggest surprise. In Qualicum Beach, 80% of dwellings are single detached, compared to 74% in Castlegar.* In Castlegar, 62% of age 65+ households live in single detached homes, compared to 79% in Qualicum. Apparently housing retirees isn’t an easy pathway to increased housing choice and diversity!* There is a huge difference in average dwelling value ($399,682 in Qualicum Beach, compared to $197,863 in Castlegar), and there are also lower rates of rental (16% and 22% respectively), lower median monthly payments for owned dwellings ($399 per month compared to $751 per month), and slightly lower rates of households paying more than 30% of household income on shelter (18.4% compared to 20.4%). There must be much higher equity ratios on housing in Qualicum Beach compared to Castlegar, perhaps a benefit of moving from higher value real estate markets, or accumulated intergenerational wealth. On the other hand, rental households in both communities share significant challenges in terms of affordablility with 39.5% and 40.1% of rental households respectively spending more than 30% of household income on rental payments.

In spite of having a much older population, I was surprised to find that Qualicum Beach has a lower proportion of single person households (26%), compared to Castlegar (29%). When I dug a little deeper I found that 68% of those households are seniors aged 65+ in Qualicum Beach, compared to Castlegar (48%). There are 510 senior aged 75+ single person households in Qualicum Beach compared to 250 in Castlegar. I wonder what that means, especially as those numbers increase over time, in terms of the need for home support services?Although there are some similarities between the communities, the differences are significant. My sense is that seniors in any significant number are not an "add on" to an existing community, but represent a significantly different community in social and economic makeup and with a very different personality. The data doesn’t make those differences very clear or at least clear enough to inform planning and development decisions. Given that our communities are getting "greyer," we need to be asking some questions. For example:* How is this generation of seniors actually using community services and facilities compared to the general population?* What proportion of seniors use recreation facilitates and transit? On an anecdotal basis, my observation is that I'm seeing more older folks at the recreation centre. On the other hand, I'm also seeing many more in parking lots than I do on the bus in my public transit travels around the City.

If these anecdotal observations are valid, what should we be doing with regard to local land use, development, and community services?

About the author:GEORGE PENFOLD is Regional Innovation Chair in Rural Economic Development at Selkirk College in Castlegar, BC (www.selkirk.ca), and Adjunct Professor at the School of Business and Economics at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, BC (www.tru.ca).

 

Who Ownes the Future of the Kootenays?

by George Penfold

The Kootenay region has been undergoing a significant transformation over the last decade. The primary focus for economic development has been on resort and residential development, focussed on the outdoor activities available in beautiful mountain, lake and river resources we have here. Places like Revelstoke , Golden , Fernie , Kimberley , Radium , Invermere , and Rossland are well down this path, and new development is proposed for the Nelson area. The province supports this type of development with its own BC Resort Strategy and Action Plan .One of the consequences in the Kootenay region has been a significant increase in construction activity. Between 2001 and 2008, for example, construction related employment increased from 3,600 in 2001 to 9,200 in 2007, with a drop to 8,000 in 2008. Over the past decade, resort and recreation related residential development and construction has become a major new economic driver in this region.But what has this resort and recreation focus for residential development – what folks in the research community call amenity migration – meant at the community level? online here, at Selkirk College http://selkirk.ca/research/ric/housing-resources     In the housing data we gathered we found that non-resident ownership – that is, property titles held by people whose mailing address was outside region – increased from 21.8% to 29.9% of all titles from 2001 to 2008. On residential property titles only, non resident ownership in 2008 ranged from 13% for single family dwelling properties to 14% on acreage properties to 66% in strata titles, especially in the ski resort and Windermere Lake areas.In some of the higher amenity rich areas, non-resident ownership was much higher – 60% in the Radium Windermere area, over 40% in the Boundary, Slocan/Arrow Lakes and Kaslo regions, and over 33% in the Valemount and Elk Valley areas. Although these areas saw development over this period, they saw little population growth. In some cases, despite development and construction activity, communities experienced decline in permanent residents.Non-resident ownership of undeveloped land is even higher. In the Columbia Basin Trust and Boundary regions in 2008 there were 12,544 titles assessed as vacant residential and 7,186 titles assessed as vacant acreage lots 2 acres or larger. Non resident ownership of these titles was approximately 50% across the region and 60% in the 6 higher amenity areas noted above.What does all that mean for communities and planning? There are far more questions than answers. For example, what does it mean to have 50% to 60% of the residential development potential owned by people who don’t live in the region? I suspect it means opportunities for development of housing on those lands that focuses on the needs of the regional housing market and communities is very limited. I also assume that most of those owners have not taken the time to get involved in local planning processes, and may have very different ideas about the future of their properties than the community, so there will be lots of future challenges managing development applications.Beyond the short term benefits of the construction phase, if the growth trend in non-resident ownership continues, what will the future of these areas look like? How does non-resident ownership result in an economic base, jobs, and in a functioning volunteer sector that provides some basic services such as fire protection? And 15 years down the road, with an aging population, who will be interested in owning these properties, especially the fractional ownership strata titles for example?The recent economic downturn has added another set of questions to the value of amenity migration based development. The fragility of this economic development strategy has become quickly and dramatically very apparent: residential building permits virtually disappeared in the resort areas in the first 3 months of this year. What will construction related employment figures look for 2009? How will the permanent resident population deal with inflated property taxes now that the boom of recent years appears to have busted, at least in the short term? Selkirk College in Castlegar , BC and Adjunct Professor at the School of Business and Economics at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, BC. InReal Estate Foundation contributed $100,000 to the RIC endowment fund at Selkirk College as part of its support for sustainable community planning and informed development in the greater Kootenay region.

Studies from around the world are consistent in identifying some common issues related to amenity migration such as:

increasing property values and housing price; displacement of both local people and parts of the local economy; social and economic change resulting from the pattern of non-resident ownership.

As part of my work as the Regional Chair in Rural Economic Development at Selkirk College I was recently involved in a study of housing affordability for the Columbia Basin and Boundary regions. research findings at posted

The biggest question for me, however, has to do with the vision for the future of these communities. Has that future of this part of BC already been "sold" to those folks in Alberta, the lower mainland, and other parts of BC who own such a big piece of this region, but who do not play a part in the year-round lived experience of these communities?

About the author:GEORGE PENFOLD is Regional Innovation Chair (RIC) in Rural Economic Development at Selkirk College

 Thoughts on Regional Food Security

by George Penfold

A recently published a report on BC’s food self reliance shows that in spite of our large productive agricultural areas in the Lower Mainland and the Okanagan, BC is only 48% self reliant in food. http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/Food_Self_Reliance/BCFoodSelfReliance_Report.pdf  On the other hand, Canada continues to be a net exporter of agricultural and related food products to the tune of $6 Billion in 2007.  http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1228246364385&lang=eng#a2

Given that Canada produces more agriculture and agri food value than we consume, what does "food security" mean in the context of a discussion about local food? I prefer the term food self sufficiency to describe what we are trying to achieve. Food security is a term that has been traditionally used to deal with the issues of lack of food, hunger and starvation. That is not what most local food initiatives in BC or across Canada are about. They are focused more on increasing local/regional food self reliance and expanding that part of the regional economy.　 By labeling this as food security, the fact that there are hungry people in our communities and around the world can be overlooked, and that would be an unfortunate outcome of the local food movement.

The drive for local food seems to hinge on concerns about higher energy costs. But, higher energy costs don’t necessarily mean we won’t have food. We will still probably be able to get most of what we want, but higher energy costs mean we will have to pay more for it. The implicit assumption that increasing local/regional food supply is an insurance plan against higher costs needs a second look, especially in the Kootenay region.　

Transportation costs and the energy related concern about "food miles" can be misleading if looked at only on a distance basis. Yes, trucks do travel 3,500 km. or more from California, but they carry 20 or more tonnes, about 6 kg of　food per km travelled. Those trucks usually go back with other goods on board. If a local farmer travels 100 km from Grand Forks to the Castlegar farmers market, his or her truck, even using half as much fuel per km, would need to carry 300 kg of food product to use the same amount of energy for kg of food delivered as the truck from California. If the farmer goes back empty and consumers make a separate trip to go to the farmers market, the amount of fuel used per kg of food delivered could be more than the transport truck from California. 　

Food is energy, and regardless of where it is grown, it will still take lots of energy to grow food in the future, especially if we rely on anything resembling current technologies. Our regional energy sources include hydro electricity, wood and coal, none of which are easily adaptable to the oil based production systems we currently rely on. Converting to　steam may be possible, but the GHG trade off isn't great unless much better steam technologies are developed.　Going back to manual labour or horses is a romantic idea, but one that would be very unlikely to produce the amount of food needed to support regional demand and definitely would not produce it at current price .

If we want to be more self sufficient regionally, we need a clearer focus on what we need to be growing. Most images of local food initiatives show fresh fruit and vegetables, and the average Canadian consumes about 45 kg of fresh, frozen and processed fruits and vegetables annually. But the core　component of the current Canadian diet is grain,　both eaten directly (cereals, bread etc.) and processed through poultry and livestock for eggs, milk and related products and meat. The self sufficiency report noted above estimates that the average person in BC consumes approximately 80 kg of grain directly (mostly wheat), and another 395 kg of feed grain consumed indirectly in the form of meat, eggs, milk etc. For the approximately 170,000 folks who live in the Columbia Basin and Boundary regions, that means we would need about 80 thousand tonnes of grain, or at 2.5 tonnes per hectare yield, approximately 32,000 hectares of grain to be self sufficient. In 2006, we grew less than 4,000 ha including all grains, beans, flax and canola – just over 12% of our theoretical demand, significantly less than overall BC levels of 14% self sufficiency in food grain and 43% in feed grain.

Why aren’t we producing more? Lack of land doesn’t seem to be the major issue. We have approximately 375,000 hectares in the ALR in the three Kootenay Regional Districts, and about half of that is in "farms" as defined by Census Canada. The main issue is that we simply don't pay enough for food to give regional farmers a reasonable income.　 In 2006 there were 1,394 census　farms in the three Kootenay Regional Districts, with only 40 of those producing certified organic products. The average capital value (land, livestock, equipment) of farms ranged from $1,325,360 in R.D. East Kootenay to $746,165 in R.D. Kootenay Boundary and $682,663 in R.D Central Kootenay. Average farm receipts were $39,420, $59,801 and $53,388 respectively, but after gross expenses, net income was -$133, $1,680 and $5,422 respectively.　 That math is pretty clear.　 From significant capital investment, the average farmer makes very little, or loses money. We will have to pay a lot more for food, even at current energy prices, if there is any realistic opportunity to reach regional self sufficiency based on the premise of regional farmers producing more.　 The diversified "family farm" local food model we seem to want, and that generally existed 40 years ago, was based on spending almost 20% of average household income on food. We now spend less than 10% and in BC about 1/3 of those food dollars are spent in restaurants.

There are lots of other issues to consider in trying to reach regional self sufficiency such as who will our "farmers" be, where will the farm labour come from, where will the soil nutrients come from - not just oil based nitrogen, but phosphate and potash, where will the water come from to irrigate, how do we rebuild regional storage, processing and distribution systems, and what are the environmental consequences of opening up thousands of hectares to tillage, for example? There is no question that local food awareness, direct farms sales, farmers markets, and community and private gardens all help farmers and increase regional food self sufficiency, but that focus is mainly on fruits and vegetables. The "grain gap" is huge, and unless we are willing to make some significant changes in our consumption patterns, or in shifting to a grass based meat production system and paying more for local food, regional food self sufficiency is probably not a realistic expectation.

About the author:GEORGE PENFOLD is Regional Innovation Chair (RIC) in Rural Economic Development at Selkirk College

 Where is B.C.’s Rural Development Strategy?

by George Penfold

In my role as Regional Innovation Chair, I have the opportunity to participate in many great workshops and conferences. Two recent events stand out – the Reversing the Tide conference in Prince George in October 2008, and more recently the OECD conference in Quebec City in October 2009. Both were on the theme of rural development and revitalization. What stood out at both events was the focus that all other Canadian provinces and other OECD countries and place on rural issues and rural development compared to the province of BC.

In Canada for example, Quebec has a "national" policy that says that Quebec wantsstrong rural areas, wants to ensure the survival of rural areas and identity, and to rethink ways ofbuilding on the extensive development potential of rural areas, all in a sustainable way. Those sentiments are backed up with a signed formal rural partnership agreementbetween the provincemunicipal organizations andtwo province wide ruralinterest groups. All provincial parties have agreed so it will transfer if government changes. The main outcome is a dedicated funding portfolio. Implementation happens through a regional priority setting and planning process, that leads to a long term funding agreement between the region and the province. They work with 7 year program time frames and provide support for management of implementation. That’s quite different than the project by project fund chasing and trying to access federal and provincial programs that seem to be in perpetual motion in terms of priorities, administrative structures and funding thatrural interest groups in BC have to deal with.

An international example in is Scotland, where in 1965 they decided to improve social and economic conditions in rural Scotland and to enable rural areas to play a more effective role in national development. They established and funded two regional development boards. In 1991, the development board in Northern Scotland evolved into Highlands and Islands Enterprise. It serves just over 440,000 people and has a budget of approximately $180 million annually. Their current focus is on supporting high-growth businesses and sectors, thereby raising growth rates across the area, on creating the infrastructure and conditions to improve regional competitiveness, and on strengthening fragile communities in the region. To address those goals, they aim to establish around 500 business relationships by 2011 to help those businesses develop and implement a growth plan that can be assisted with HIE financial support. In response to the infrastructure objective HIE has invested in wind turbine manufacturing, and a relater marine energy centre,

Other international examples include Sweden, and Finland, which has a Rural Policy Committee (RPC) established by legislation in 2000. Finland has recently established an objective of developing 100mbps internet access throughout the country. Most of our rural areas have, at best, 10mbps service and there are still some communities on dial up.

A significant common theme in these examples is a strong national or "upper tier" government statement about the importance of rural to the future development of the province or country, and a strong regional development focus along with local development initiatives. In BC we have no clear statement about the importance of rural BC to the future of the province. We do have the provincial regional trusts, and various federal programs, but those initiatives focus on specific projects, mostly at the local level. We have few regional development organizations, policies, management capacity or investment dealing with the "big picture" or the types of regional needs and opportunities that are being addressed in Scotland for example.

We in Rural BC also need to be clear about what we want. We do have history in BC with regional development, but were never patient or committed enough to make it work, or bold enough to allow real investment in the future. So to some extent, we have what we thought we wanted. But the reality is that under a strategy of local and municipal focus for rural development, rural BC has not done well over the last 2 decades compared of the lower mainland, the southern half of Vancouver Island, and the Okanagan region. Is that strategy one we want to continue with into the "teen" decade?

 About the author:  GEORGE PENFOLD is Regional Innovation Chair (RIC) in Rural Economic Development at Selkirk College