An overhead map of the property at 933 Park Avenue with no housing on it. — The "carrot" option for the Five Acres Farm at 933 Park Ave. was the one chosen by Nanaimo city council at its meeting on Monday, Dec. 18, that leaves the property without any affordable housing being built on it. Map courtesy of the City of Nanaimo.

Nanaimo city council voted 8-1 on Monday to not build affordable housing on any portion of the Five Acres Farm at 933 Park Ave.

The city bought the land in 2019 to both protect the farm from development as well as a site for housing on part of the property.

Nanaimo Foodshare currently operates a community garden on the property and the former farmhouse is rented by tenants, but the plan is to demolish the house as maintenance and renovation costs are expected to exceed rent revenue, according to a city staff report. A large portion of the property is also a protected wetland

The community garden on the site is one of 10 city-owned properties that are currently growing food.

City staff reported that 76 per cent of respondents were opposed to any affordable housing being built on the property.

Jen Cody is a director and cofounder of Growing Opportunities an agricultural co-operative that worked on the farm up until April of this year.

“It's like realizing a dream,” she said. “It was so good to see the council come together and show such respect and support for what the community has said really clearly, which is that they really value the five acres farm as a five acres property.”

Councillor Erin Hemmens said one of the last remaining five acre farms in the city is a magical place.

“I've spoken with a lot of folks on this and I think the magic of the five acre farm parcels in Harewood is real, and I'm happy with going with the community's voice on this one.”

Councillor Hilary Eastmure had also attended the open house at Park Avenue Elementary in October.

“I also really appreciate that the conversation wasn't from that classic NIMBY perspective of ‘I don't want housing in my backyard’, it was really from the perspective that this property is so special and needs to be preserved because of the agricultural value of it.”

Cody says that the original idea for the property was to build an educational space for urban food producers.

“The original concept for that property was to maintain the same footprint that the current house has on the property and not to expand it,” she said. “One of the visions for that space would be for it to be a food and agriculture centre [that taught] cooking skills, food processing, all different types of skills connected to what the farm would be producing.

Councillor Sheryl Armstrong says her idea of housing on the property was something smaller than a multi-family apartment building.

“My vision was always four or five tiny little homes where workers could actually stay and work the land,” she said.

Councilor Ian Thorpe was the lone vote against the motion to not build housing on the property saying that he would like to see the idea of housing with a smaller footprint remain an option.

“That's an option that I would like to see developed, not a huge housing site there, but some type of small housing units on that land,” he said. “And it would still, at that point, allow space for what I'll call the large garden plots, I don't know that I would call them a farm at this point, space for education, certainly, and recreation green space, I just think that a compromise between the things that we're considering is is more appropriate.”

Mayor Leonard Krog supported the motion to not develop any housing on the land stressing the need to preserve green space in the city.

“This is really one of the last kicks we have at the can in order to have green space,” he said. “I use the term green space in the broad sense, whether it's parkland, whether some of it’s farming, whether it's wetland. I won't say it's inconsequential to me, but ultimately it is about having space that isn't covered by housing or apartments or whatever.”

Councilor Ben Geselbracht summed up the feeling of the community campaign to Save the Five Acres Farm.

“With housing there, we would lose at minimum an acre, up to two acres, and the big campaign for the Five Acre Farm was the Five Acre Farm, not the three acre farm or the four acre farm, it was a five acre farm.”

In an email to CHLY, BC Housing says while the site was raised as a potential location, it has not been under active consideration for some time and that the agency looks forward to working with the city on other housing projects.

Funding Note: This story was produced with funding support from the Local Journalism Initiative, administered by the Community Radio Fund of Canada.