Discussions

There are many campgrounds near farmland!!! Can you show any evidence of what you claim to be true?

Call it what you wish. We have to carry very expensive liability insurance the same as any other business. Such a development next to farm land would create a higher risk therefore increasing premiums substantially , the senior adjusters would be all over that like house flies. I would expect them to try whatever they could to wriggle out of a claim as well.  
The heightened risk from trespass, stealing and vandalism not to mention the risk of someone getting injured with the presence of farming operations nearby would make the operation of adjacent farmland untenable, potentially uninsurable. When that happens the property value will drop. Not rocket science really.

If I was local and voting I could see myself supporting phase 1, but phase 2 and 3 would be a hard no, if that makes me a NIMBY then so be it.  
 
Would the owner or a business manager/maintenance person be residing at the site or visiting and maintaining it daily ?  
 
It's all fine to say everyone has to pack out their garbage but I would think there should be some stipulation that at minimum a daily visit be made by the owner/manager to police the area and cleanup as necessary.

this is absolutely false.

Go ask a farm business insurance adjuster then.  
I know that our adjusters would definitely be factoring in the additional risk. They pick up on any little detail nowadays when reviewing coverage and we have a very good claim history.  
Every time that larger numbers of people and agriculture become close neighbours there are issues, especially increased trespassing, vandalism and theft. I’ve seen it many times.  
 
Increased risk is always factored into insurance premiums, and if it hasn’t been you’ll likely find that you’re not properly covered.  
 
Edited by Farmergeorge, 2023-04-09 09:24:16

In some situations, I can see why insurance would be different for everyone, and everyone has brought up good points for both cases so far. However, I know from dealing with my insurer, I have to pay higher yearly already, as I am not within proper range of a fire station, so putting up a 250 site campground in dry area right across from me will inevitably raise my premiums because of increased risk factor. It wont go up if there isnt anything there. I will also now have to re up the coverage on my pole barns just to ensure I have proper replacement coverage because I am in closer proximity to that proposed campground. I can only assume that from an overwriters viewpoint, the increased traffic and exposure will increaae theft risk, so thats probaly another price jump. Thats an increase on me, though as a homeowner, as it would be for anyone, I get that point, but that still doesnt change the fact that I dont want more risk, or more premuims to go up. I have a.valid point, and an opportunity to speak up for it.  
As an example, in comparison, its like the backup flood insurance every insurance provider wants home owners in the city to have because of increased flood risk and damge that is on the rise. The more risk, the more money out of everyone's pocket.  
The more that risk and variability that changes on my coverage, liability and risks go up, as do insurance costs. And if a fire does break out at that site, and it spreads to the fields , that one incident ruins a sector of land for a season for the farmer. Insurance only covers losses, it doesn't count for the blood sweat and tears put into land. It's a huge loss either way if a fire breaks out, because then the farmers insurance would show an incident on their land, within proximity to a property that had a fire, which raises risk and premiums. Does that mean we bubble wrap everything and cancel everything? No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Never have. I am stating that we need to evaluate risk vs return to make a sensible decision. Saying "I want" is far easier than saying "I'm sorry", but retrospect only factors into one of those approaches, and do any of us really want to say we were wrong about limiting fire risk?  
It costs nothing to make a safe decision.  
 
To finish off, I commend the RM for holding the meeting. From conversations I've had, they're all willing and open minded about hearing feedback on the proposal. To clarify, this is a proposal by an independent owner, and the RM is simply holding the hearing to gain feedback and make their decision in the best interests of the public. The RM is not involved with the development, just to be clear.  
 
Also, I wish no ill will to anyone. The owners of all of the properties around here are great people, the proponents i:ncluded. I do not wish them any ill will, and certainly don't aim to say that they don't have a right to do what they want with their property. Land is money, I get that. But the risks here are far too many to ignore, and as one who is affected greatly by this proposal, I have to represent my best for my property too.  
 
I commend everyone for their points, many of which have valid reasoning to them. Democratically, the approach and conclusion to the proposal be an outcome we will all learn to accept, and learn from.  
 
Edited by B-athome, 2023-04-09 10:10:46

I challenge a few of you to post insurance quotes with and without a nearby campground.  
 
Alot of assumptions being made let's see the facts.

Can't let the facts get in the way of a good story!

I guess you have none

There are already quite a few campgrounds that are adjacent to farm fields.  
 
Edited by TheBrofessor, 2023-04-10 18:34:51

Increased risk always leads to higher insurance premiums. If you haven’t figured that out yet you must be living under a rock, or you don’t review your policy every year and you’re underinsured.  
 
Edited by Farmergeorge, 2023-04-10 18:53:21

I don't think anyone is arguing more risk equals higher premiums, but rather we are questioning that having a campground nearby will automatically be assessed as higher risk. As other have pointed out, lots of campgrounds are adjacent to farmland, so clearly there's a way for them to co-exist.  
 
Most people live in a city and our insurance premiums aren't generally impacted by our neighbour. I literally just did my annual review and there are zero enquiries about what adjacent properties are up to. A factory could have been built next door for all the insurance company knows. My neighbours having wild parties and weekly visits from the police doesn't impact my insurance directly. My insurance is primarily influenced by my rebuild costs and personal claim history. So, of you're making the assertion that what happens on a neighbour's property impacts the insurability of a farm property, you need to provide support for this as it's far beyond everyone else's frame of reference and experience.  
 
I agree that this sounds a lot like NIMBYism. I mean, there are some legitimate concerns here about potential impact, but they don't seem insurmountable. Seeing how this is already acreages mostly, it's already impacting the farmability of the area. So it really boils down to residents not wanting this business in their area.  
 
Edited by Abbysmum, 2023-04-11 11:25:05

Unfortunately the point (which is glaringly obvious) that everyone seems to be missing is that a farmer has to carry ( or at least should) substantial liability insurance for his business operations. This generally runs into several million dollars of coverage even for a small farm like ours.  
When land is farmed next to a populated or developed area such as a town or campground the risk increases.  
If a piece of my equipment caught fire during harvest for example and that spread quickly into a developed area or camp ground then I could be held liable for damage to buildings , vehicles, camping equipment and god forbid injury to or death of other people. Therefore it stands to reason that in such a case I would need increased liability coverage at the very least. That would make operation of such property less desirable for me as a farmer and potentially too risky. Coupled with increased risk of trespass , vandalism and theft ( which from experience will happen) and it may very well be not viable or worth the hassle or increased safety risk to farm that land anymore.  
 
Edited by Farmergeorge, 2023-04-11 12:20:00

Statistical info for those interested.  
 
Out of the many comments here, not one person has been involved with putting blood, sweat and tears into restoring the land I live on for the last 8 years.  
 
Out of the many people who have commented about me having NIMBY viewpoints, there are several of them who have also made comments on other posts about how much they dislike people trespassing, potholes on their roads, theft from yards, and unsafe and questionable infrastructure ideas. Sounds like NIMBY thinking to me.  
 
Out of the many comment from people supporting the idea of a campground, very few, if any, know the nature of the land in question, have not visited or driven past the area, and have only ever seen it on a picture from Google Earth.  
 
Out of all of the comments here, not one person will likely be involved in putting out any fires if they happen,evacuating people in an emergency, or be cleaning garbage out of the ditches left behind by campers.  
 
If inclement weather hits, high winds, rain and flooding hit, which is far more frequent now, exactly 0% of supporters of the proposal will be paying my insurance premiums when campers come onto my property and get hurt looking for safety, because in bad storms, the roads will be a mess and too dark for those who are not used to them. Likewise, if people end up in the ditch, exactly 0% of the supporters will be the ones helping to get vehicles out of the ditch, whereas I will.  
 
Absolutely 0% will be involved with preventing curious onlookers who may decide to step foot onto my property.  
 
Absolutely 0% will be paying taxes to our RM, and working to repair the roads which already have soft spots, which will get worse with more use.  
 
I may be "only" an acreage owner, but I am the one who owns property that is affected by the decision. I have the right to bring forth valid safety concerns and questions of cost, because I LIVE HERE. I look after what I can and when I can. I may be "only" an acreage owner as someone pointed out, but I am also the one who is out on the roads in winter plowing what I can with my uncovered sub compact tractor so I can help make sure roads are passable for neighboring farmers and ranchers hauling feed in the winter and to make it easier for other acreage owners because I know the RM plows are busy with other heavy areas of need. Very few, if any,of the proposal supporters on this discussion can say the same.  
 
This a farmland. Agricultural land. Farmers and ranchers work HARD to raise their kids, their crops, and their cattle here all in the same year, and they do it with the hope to leave behind a beautiful land and a legacy someday. This is home, this is our place of work. It is not a convenience store, it is not a tourist attraction.  
 
The owners have their right to propose a business, I will not, nor have I ever disputed that. I have nothing against them at all, and I wish them well, they are very nice people.What they choose to do with their land is their right to propose, and if approved, build.  
 
And when I, and any others are affected by that decision, I 100% have the right to democratically, peacefully and dutifully, oppose.  
 
The RM is doing the right thing by staying open minded about everything and will make their decision based on what they feel is right, and via democratic process. We all applaud them for that.  
 
Only time and dialogue will tell what the result ls will be.

What is happening??  
 
First, Brandon faces pushback for wanting to put forth a plan that improves access to services, now people are uprising against tourism and parks in their area??  
 
Seriously is this long haul covid affecting the mind??

Were you in Brandon when they were trying to pick a place for the fire hall? Those were fun times.  
 
As for this campground, unless it has a pool for the kiddos, I won't be there.  
 
I have no idea if it's needed in the area or if it would do well. I'm not sure I would call it a "park in my area" either, but I get what you mean though.  
 
Brandon and change go together about as well as oil and water.

How did the meeting go? Curious

I was wondering the same.

Recording should at some time be available on the RM of Whitehead site. The turnout was VERY largely NOT in favor of the proposal, based on opposition that brought forth several legitimate safety and financial concerns as well as other reasons I will not adress at this time. Council has decided to table the proposals to another date to allow for more logistical, environmental, and profesional technical presentations to be brought forth from the proponents, if they choose to continue to consider their plan, at which time a decision will be made by council.

Facts will be gathered to see if it is a viable spot for a campground.

So in your theory all campgrounds should be shut down then? Where do you think most campgrounds got established but on farmland whether in use close by or not. National parks camping areas are not only FULL of wildlife, they have trees, unkempt trails, and many hazards. Life is full of what if's - lord forbid someone wants to make progress that isn't a restaurant or convenience store. We live in Manitoba we are surrounded by farms, dirt, dust, wildlife, and animals in general there would be nothing on this land with the reasons you have given for NOT allowing a unserviced campground. jmo

Only other viable one is Turtle Crossing which is beautiful. Fills up quickly though.

Around Brandon besides Turtle Crossing there is MedowLark CampGround on the highway north side  
MarDee Campground 4 miles east on the highway also on the north side.  
Grand Valley Campground at the intersection of Grand Valley road and the TCH  
Many people don't know it but you can camp on the sites at the Keystone grounds.

Just curious if the stated distance is actually 3 miles  
Using google maps it comes up as 4.9 miles