Niska Lands: A Third Cross-Governmental Option?

Written by: Dakota Cherry, Ward 5 Candidate

After attending the eight-hour delegation on Niska Lands a few weeks ago and having some time to reflect on the complex issues presented, a third option came to me that exists outside the parkland-versus-housing zoning binary.

As many Guelphites may know, Niska Lands has been under agricultural cultivation for the past 70 years, originally growing food for the waterfowl birds that grant the neighbouring park its namesake. Even before the land was enriched through decades of cultivation, the soil itself, like much of southern Ontario, would have contained some of Canada’s most productive farmland.

Being raised by a soil scientist who would scoop up a handful of fresh dirt and excitedly breathe in all of properties, I learned from a young age the value of this rich natural resources as well as the difficulties of revitalizing it after nutrients have been lost; a problem that is rapidly dominating the agricultural landscape worldwide. This is why, as we continue to lose more arable lands at a rate faster than we can replace them, soil quality has begun to be treated as a legitimate and compelling public interest that justifies restricting development. As a result, in many recent planning appeals to the Ontario land tribunal, courts have deferred to farmland protection. This is expected to become even more widespread with the recent introduction of our National Food Security Plan, which quite literally depends on the health and capacity of our soils to grow food locally.

Even without knowing the exact classifications of Niska Lands, the soils are, according to the GRCA’s own 2024 Niska Landholdings Management Plan report, very good. That helps explain why the land has remained in agricultural production for the past 70 years, despite being zoned for housing since 2012. But once it is paved over, it would be almost impossible to restore, at least not within the timeframe that would matter should border closures, volatile world markets, or another global crisis disrupt our food imports.

Rather than prioritizing passive parkland, we can recognize that regenerative food growing is one of the most powerful tools we have to address climate change. This is why the land should stay exactly as it is and be zoned accordingly. Especially since agriculturally-zoned lands can accommodate larger-scale community gardens to address the shortage in Guelph, a growing need most apparent in the South End. Many families are eager to grow their own food to help minimize costs, but are stuck on indefinite waitlists to community gardens with no capacity to further expand.

It was disappointing, yet understandable, that the City concluded the delegation by handing the issue off to the Province because it lacks the financial resources to retain the external lawyers and planning experts that would likely be required should the matter proceed to court, as the GRCA has suggested it will. Our own public servants did not support rezoning the land as parkland. However, I imagine they would be hard-pressed to argue against formally zoning the land for the agricultural purpose it has served for nearly three generations.

This approach would also be more consistent with the property’s original purpose as a wildlife sanctuary, as well as the broader environmental resilience objectives for which it was later acquired by the Province, the City of Guelph, and the GRCA. Although not the urban national park that some envisioned, this option a offers a genuine middle ground: one that conserves the land through food growth, rather than sacrificing it to the “build more” housing model that has yet to solve Ontario’s affordability crisis.

Ultimately, housing can be built in many places. Class-leading agricultural soils cannot. Once they are gone, they are gone for generations. We owe it to those who come after us to choose wisely.

Arial view of Niska Landholdings