Just say NO! to a Calgary VETO
JoslynLM
Okotoks’ Mayor’s denial of the Calgary veto is simply dishonest
It appears that Okotoks Mayor Bill Robertson has denied the Calgary Regional Partnership’s flawed governance model.
In the excitement leading up to the provincial election, I missed this letter to the editor of the Okotoks Western Wheel, which seems to indicate Mayor Robertson has “drunk the Kool-Aid” as they say (a very morbid reference to the Reverend Jim Jones mass suicide, sorry). In fact, the Mayor quotes word-for-word from page 17 of the Calgary Metropolitan Plan (formerly known as the Calgary Regional Plan during the consultation phase, but suspiciously changed to the CMP after public consultation with regional partners was concluded).
Robertson says, “Calgary represents close to 85% of the CRP’s population so any positive decision would require the city’s consent. However, any five of the 14 CRP member municipalities, no matter how small, could effectively block a decision by the City of Calgary. Therefore, Calgary cannot impose its will on the region, but neither can regional decisions be made without Calgary’s support.”
Let’s analyze this further–Robertson says “any positive decision would require the city’s consent.” In other words, if Calgary does not say “yes” to a planning decision by any of the regional partners, the decision cannot go ahead. Since the opposite of saying “yes” is “no” then Calgary has a veto over those decisions. Full stop. Let’s not mislead people by trying to confuse them.
The definition of veto is: “the power or right vested in one branch of a government tocancel or postpone the decisions, enactments, etc., of another branch.” This applies in the case of the Calgary Regional Partnership–no dispute.
The argument continues thus: “any five of the 14 CRP member municipalities, no matter how small, could effectively block a decision by the City of Calgary. Therefore, Calgary cannot impose its will on the region.”
This is a true statement but is an entirely different scenario. This refers to a situation where Calgary is putting forward a proposal. No one has ever disputed the City of Calgary could be thwarted by five CRP member municipalities. In this situation the governance model allows for those five CRP members to veto something that Calgary wants to do.
To summarize, there are TWO possible veto scenarios. But the existence of one veto does not negate the existence of the other.
The last sentence of this statement is an interpretation of the governance model that is simply false and misleading. The untrue statement is: “Calgary cannot impose its will on the region, but neither can regional decisions be made without Calgary’s support.”
This “key message” (as we call it in the public relations world) has been repeated by the Calgary Regional Partnership for several years and it now appears the Mayor of Okotoks is echoing the same message. And it is simply NOT TRUE.
Calgary CAN impose its will on the region BECAUSE regional decisions CANNOT be made without Calgary’s support.
Mayor Robertson is on the wrong side of this issue and I guess this is what is done when a municipality realizes it has made a mistake–they try to deny that a mistake was made by denying the facts.
Let’s just be honest about the situation. Premier Alison Redford has already admitted the Calgary veto was a mistake and the governance model will be revisited.
Okotoks Mayor Bill Robertson needs to be forthright with Okotoks citizens and admit the Town has signed on to giving Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi the sign-off on their planning decisions. The truth hurts.
Further reading:
http://www.westernwheel.com/article/20120327/WHE0801/303289997/-1/whe08/premier-visits-highwood
Premier visits Highwood
Premier Alison Redford was the guest speaker at the sold-out fundraiser for the Highwood PC Constituency Association in High River Friday evening, where she told the audience Calgary should not have the ability to veto decisions made by the Calgary Regional Partnership.
During her speech, Redford spoke of the importance of regional planning with provincial leadership to see communities come together and work with the City of Calgary to ensure resources are shared.
“One of the things that means is that Calgary can’t have a veto,” she said, which was met with applause.
Rural municipalities such as the MD of Foothills and Rocky View County have expressed concerns over Calgary’s veto power.
There needs to be a balance between local and provincial government decisions, Redford said, adding there are some areas where the Province needs to lead and take responsibility to work with local governments to ensure integrated regional planning happens and the Province joins in the conversation.
“Not because we know what’s best, not because we’re going to tell local decision makers what to do, but because we have a role with respect to the fact that we as a provincial government and as Albertans are making investments and contributions to infrastructure, to education, to health care and what we’re able to do as a result of that is to build a network that supports communities and people across this province,” Redford explained.
Redford told journalists she was in town to support Highwood PC candidate John Barlow, adding the PCs are not conceding Highwood to Wildrose Party candidate and leader Danielle Smith. Redford said she wants to ensure any constituency with a long-standing PC tradition such as Highwood, remains Tory blue.
“For me the symbol in this riding is whether or not the riding should be represented by someone who is from the riding and understands the riding inherently or whether it’s a candidate that’s come from somewhere else,” Redford said.
The association sold 400 tickets for the event and some people had to be turned away.
The event’s popularity is an indication of what a strong candidate Barlow is, Redford said in a follow-up interview, adding he has strong roots in the constituency and met people who told her they’ve known Barlow for years.
“This is what democracy is about,” said Redford. “It’s finding candidates that can truly speak to the values of a community, not just for the moment, but understand the history of the community and understand the future of the community.”
Redford also spoke highly of current Highwood MLA George Groeneveld who plans to retire. MLA for Livingstone-MacLeod Evan Berger and Barlow thanked Groeneveld for his help during their speeches.
Barlow told PC supporters a local representative is needed to represent the constituency.
“We are here for Highwood and Highwood alone,” he said.
Barlow has spoken about involving young people in the political process and arranged for students from high schools in the constituency to attend the event.
Highwood High School students Paige McCredie and Mikaela Valgardson attended the Forum for Young Canadians program, where they visited Canadian Parliament, and said they were excited to hear Redford speak at the event Friday.
Both students said it is hard to get young people interested in politics. Valgardson said ways to engage youths could include putting more attention on issues concerning them such as education and post-secondary opportunities.
“I know that some people don’t think of politics that way just because we’re youths and we kind of get ignored in that way,” she said.
McCredie said she can already tell education is becoming a focus in politics.
“They’ve already made that step,” she said.
McCredie added Barlow speaks with confidence, something politicians need to be able to do.
“He definitely seems to be able to talk to youths,” said Valgardson, “which is, I think, an admirable trait to have in someone.”
The PC Party is putting up a strong fight in the Highwood with recent funding announcements and Redford’s attendance at the fundraising dinner, said Wildrose contender Danielle Smith.
It’s no surprise to Smith, who said it is not new for a party leader to support candidates across the province, especially in key constituencies.
It’s something she said her party is also doing in Redford’s constituency of Calgary-Elbow.
“I have to say fair is fair – we’re throwing a lot into her riding too,” she said. “I’ve held two fundraisers in her riding in the last couple years so we have a nice war chest for our local candidate there, James Cole.”
Smith is confident going into the election, saying the PCs are in trouble and they don’t have any safe seats.
“I believe they’re going to outspend us three-to-one and we’re going to outwork them 10-to-one,” she said.
With files from Don Patterson. Copyright: Okotoks Western Wheel
http://www.westernwheel.com/article/20120418/WHE0902/304189970/0/whe
Okotoks mayor says there is no partnership veto
During this election season there has been statements made by both PC and Wildrose Party candidates about the City of Calgary having veto power over decisions made by the Calgary Regional Partnership. I believe these statements are incomplete and need to be grounded on the full facts.
First, our partnership is committed to achieving our regional decisions through consensus. Arriving at consensus has been a successful practice since this group voluntarily came together in 1999. In very rare cases, when consensus may not be reached, we have a decision making process in place to make regionally significant decisions:
A vote must contain at least two-thirds of the CRP’s 14 municipal members, or in other words, 10 out of 14 municipalities need to vote in favour; and a vote must contain a majority (50%) of the region’s population.
Calgary represents close to 85% of the CRP’s population so any positive decision would require the city’s consent. However, any five of the 14 CRP member municipalities, no matter how small, could effectively block a decision by the City of Calgary. Therefore, Calgary cannot impose its will on the region, but neither can regional decisions be made without Calgary’s support.
The process is a democratic model striking a balance between the principles of one municipality/one vote and representation by population. The candidates may not be aware that this is the same decision model the Province of Alberta has legislated for the municipalities of the Capital Region Board in Edmonton.
The Calgary Regional Partnership is important to the long-term planning of the Calgary region. Membership in the partnership is voluntary, with local municipalities driving the work we do. Rather than go at it alone, municipalities can use knowledge that resides in other communities and share in the economic benefits that result from this type of collaboration.
Our local governments work together to resolve problems and develop common solutions for their communities. As mayor of a mid-sized town there is nothing worse than having to direct limited municipal resources on services that could have been better delivered by collaborating with other municipalities.
There is no catch-all solution for all the challenges that come with a growing region. But we will be much farther ahead by working together and sharing our knowledge for the betterment of our communities. The future of our region depends on it.
Bill Robertson,
Mayor, Town of Okotoks;
Secretary Treasurer, Calgary Regional Partnership
Association releases paper on “forced regionalization”
At the urging of Rocky View County, the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties (AAMDC) decided to take an in-depth look at the Alberta government’s trend towards “forced regionalization.” Their paper, released last month, confirms the worst fears about the governance structure of the Calgary Regional Partnership.
“Municipalities have a justifiable concern when elected councils no longer have the power to govern as granted by the Municipal Government Act,” says AAMDC President Bob Barss.
The Association has defined a model of cooperative regionalization that follows 10 principles:
- Voluntary participation – municipalities can choose to join or resign from the partnership at their discretion.
- Partners define the region – the participating municipalities determine which municipalities will be part of the regional partnership.
- Political autonomy – municipalities remain independent and their ability to make decisions in the best interests of their municipality remains intact.
- Non-hierarchical governance – the regional structure does not create another level of government.
- Voting equity – each municipality has one equal vote.
- Consensus decision-making – major decisions that require a vote are approached on the basis of reaching a consensus.
- User-pay cost sharing – for the most part, the cost of delivering a regional service is borne in proportion to the use of that service.
- Regional transparency – the operation and governance of the regional entity is easily observable and understood.
- Accountability of individual municipalities – when a municipality chooses to become a member of a regional service partnership, the individual municipality is accountable to its community for the value of that service.
- Opting out of programs – when a municipality is a member of a regional service partnership, and the partnership addresses more than one service, each partner has the ability to opt out of one or more of the service delivery programs
Rocky View County Reeve Rolly Ashdown has indicated that the County’s position on the CRP is reinforced by the AAMDC’s paper. The County, along with the MD of Foothills opted out of the CRP, while the Town of Okotoks decided to join the partnership on a trial basis.
“Rural development is different from urban development and it needs to be considered differently,” said Ashdown, in the Rocky View Weekly newspaper. “Our position has never changed, we can’t have city-sized lots in the country, and we can’t give up our autonomy.”
Sources:
http://www.aamdc.com/news-release/500-forced-regionalization
Mayor Nenshi and the Calgary Metropolitan Plan
I’m sure many of the members of the Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP) have been waiting nervously to see how Mayor Naheed Nenshi is going to proceed with implementation of the Calgary Metropolitan Plan. I was following His Worship on Twitter on Friday, June 17 as he attended the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association’s Mayor’s Caucus in Calgary and tweeted about regional planning. Here’s the conversation that resulted via Twitter:
[View the story “Mayor Nenshi: Regional Planning” on Storify]
It’s disappointing that the Mayor declared my tweet about the density targets as a misrepresentation. The numbers I quoted were correct. The densities for the compact urban nodes in areas like DeWinton, Balzac and Bearspaw are set at a minimum of 8-10 units/per acre (with a preference for higher densities). I had tweeted 10-12, which is a minor discrepancy. These are the numbers that were originally proposed–I forgot that they had dropped it down to 8-10. But no matter how you look at it, these are at least five times (and in some cases more than 10 times) the densities that are currently found in some of the rural areas that have been singled out to be transformed into “compact urban nodes” or as the locals like to call them, “the blue blobs” (referring to the original blue areas presented to the public during the “consultation” phase). See this map for the exact location of the these clusters of high density housing that the CRP wants to build just outside the City’s boundaries . The bottom line is, these blue blobs are on the outskirts of the city and are based on transit lines coming out to the communities.
The money for those transit lines has to come at least partially from the provincial government. I haven’t seen much funding coming from the provincial government recently for regional transit services. There has been a trickle of dollars to some communities, but the problem is that the houses will be built first and those homeowners will be commuting into Calgary on city roads and at great cost to the infrastructure, not to mention the environment. The sprawl will continue with transit service promised to offset the strain on City of Calgary roads (and on the City’s taxpayers) but the blame laid on the provincial government for not coming through with the dollars. Even if they do fund major transit lines to the urban nodes in areas like Okotoks and Airdrie, the jury is still out in the planning community as to whether this is good practice.
According to Mayor Nenshi, the density requirements apply to only some of the blue blobs. If this is the case, it is certainly not what was communicated during the public consultation. The message was clear–these densities apply to all of the compact urban nodes and have already taken effect in most of the communities that signed on. Even though the plan looks out over the next 60 years, municipalities must immediately begin aligning with the Calgary Metropolitan Plan, which is part of the regional planning and Land Use Framework. The penalties for non-compliance are quite significant and discussed in the Alberta Land Stewardship Act. This is the same Act that has raised the ire of many Albertans for its heavy-handedness and which was only slightly amended under extreme pressure from the Wildrose Alliance Party recently. The reality is that any new municipal development plans have to conform to the new regional plans or the municipality faces financial penalties.
On density: The David Suzuki Foundation
“Density is often used as an excuse for more development. Increasing density within city areas that already have development can work to minimize a city’s footprint. Developing areas where there is little or no existing development is nothing more than sprawl.”
Panos Grames, The David Suzuki Foundation
CRP has its way with Rocky View County
A prominent architect of the Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP) is now an elected councilor and the Deputy Reeve for Rocky View County. You may remember Rick Butler as one of the two main representatives of the CRP and their Calgary Regional Plan (aka Calgary Metropolitan Plan, as it was renamed AFTER the public consultation was completed). Butler led most of the public consultation sessions and was a paid contractor working for the CRP throughout most of the process.
Just as a refresher, the Town of Okotoks voted to join the CRP (thereby agreeing to the metropolitan plan, which gives Calgary a veto over land use planning decisions within the town). At the same time, Okotoks Town Council voted to honour the population cap, which is totally at odds with the metropolitan plan. This apparent contradiction has been unresolved for the last several years now and is yet to be addressed.
Meanwhile, two of the largest municipalities in the Calgary region (land-wise), the County of Rocky View and the MD of Foothills said “no way” to the CRP and voted not to join, both preferring to remain autonomous in their decision-making. Or so they thought at the time. Little did they know their “single” days were in jeopardy.
Fast forward to more than a year later and CRP front man, Butler, shows up on the ballot in Rocky View County in the 2010 municipal election. Then, not only was he elected to Council but he was elected Deputy Reeve of the County by his peers on council. Gosh. I guess he just suddenly became interested in municipal politics. The County’s flirtation with the CRP had begun.
All became clear this last week when Rocky View County voted to approve a development called Watermark in the community of Bearspaw. The development is considered high density and will see 560 new homes built on the outskirts of Calgary. The development is consistent with the “blue blobs” mapped out by the CRP. Folks, this is urban sprawl in every sense of the word…except it has been cleverly kept below the radar of Calgarians fed up with the high cost of sprawl, because it is technically outside of the City’s boundaries.
The Councilor for the Division (8) is Al Sacuta, who voted against the development. He has posted his reasons on his website in a fully transparent look at the rationale for his opposition (see www.ourbearspaw.ca).
According to the Rocky View Weekly, Sacuta is quoted as saying, “Throughout its history, the proposal has had significant resistance. Neighbourhood resistance continues to be around 70 per cent. The density will be about seven to 16 times that of the adjacent acreage communities.”
In the same article, Butler was quoted as saying, “I believe it is a good plan. It is the plan I worked for for eight years in the Calgary Regional Partnership.”
Which begs the question, just who is Butler serving here? It seems clear that residents are opposed to the development. The ELECTED councilor for that Division opposed the development (Sacuta ran his election campaign on this platform) and yet six other councilors from other Divisions joined forces to decide in favour of the development (two other councilors voted with Sacuta in opposition).
According to Butler’s quote in the media, it seems that he sees this as simply a continuation of his work with the CRP. I guess I naively thought elected officials served the public? The CRP is a private corporation created by the Alberta government to manage land use planning decisions. It is not accountable to anyone but perhaps the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development.*
Of course, all of this is tied directly to the infamous Alberta Land Stewardship Act (which will soon be altered to try and quell a Wildrose-fuelled property rights uprising in the area). The Act is the overarching authority over all of this mess, including the CRP, and it gives the Minister the authority to overrule everyone on land use issues, including local governments.
Most importantly, Butler’s admission that he supported the decision because it is in line with the CRP plan (which the County has not even signed up for yet) deserves to be questioned.
_____________________
*It’s disturbing to note the CRP is under no legal obligation to disclose anything it does to the public. Its decisions don’t have to be reported nor do any of the reasons for its decisions.
Read the Rocky View Weekly article here:
Rocky View Weekly: Partnership hoping to entice rural municipalities back to CRP
Truper McBride, the chair of the Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP), says the organization is hoping to entice estranged rural municipalities to rejoin the alliance.
He said the organization is seeking dialogue and cooperation with several municipalities, including Rocky View County.
“The task is to re-engage with the rural communities with a dialogue,” said McBride. “There are some things that we would like to talk about. We hope we can bring the family back together.”
The statement came after a Jan. 20-21 CRP retreat, during which representatives of the 15 member municipalities discussed the Province’s recent response to the organization’s planning document, the Calgary Metropolitan Plan (CMP).
McBride reiterated that residential developments densities of between eight and 10 units per acre are non-negotiable.
“We are committed to the densities,” said McBride. “We can have conversation on how we phase-in over time, we don’t expect everyone to get to eight to 10 overnight.”
Rocky View County Reeve Rolly Ashdown said the County is willing to sit down and talk, as it does see advantages to regional planning. However, he said the CRP’s targets for residential densities are not compatible with development in the county, nor is the current voting structure, which gives Calgary a veto.
“We wouldn’t be able to join,” said Ashdown. “Rocky View wants to maintain its autonomy.”
According to Ashdown, the County will continue to work with neighbouring municipalities.
“We would still look forward to cooperating on a friendly basis,” he said.
In its response to the CMP, the Province directed the CRP to reach out to neighbouring non-member municipalities. McBride said he didn’t sense that the Province was looking to force the non-member rural municipalities into the Partnership, but it could happen.
Crossfield Mayor Nathan Anderson, who represents his community within the CRP, said he wouldn’t support the partnership if it became mandatory, such as happened in northern Alberta’s Capital Region.
“I don’t think (membership) should be forced on anybody,” said Anderson. “I think we should work together as opposed to having the Provincial government try to tell us what to do. If the CRP starts going in a direction, as far as morphing into another layer of government, I won’t be supporting it.”
However, Anderson said his original pessimism about his community being part of the CRP was unwarranted after attending the retreat.
“I am optimistic that the counties will rejoin the CRP,” he said. “Everyone is so close to seeing more or less eye-to-eye. I was very impressed with the way Mayor Truper McBride led the conversation, it was about building bridges with the rurals as opposed to any kind of strategy to get them back in.”
View original article here:
2010 in review
The stats helper monkeys at WordPress.com mulled over how this blog did in 2010, and here’s a high level summary of its overall blog health:
Crunchy numbers
A Boeing 747-400 passenger jet can hold 416 passengers. This blog was viewed about 3,000 times in 2010. That’s about 7 full 747s.
In 2010, there were 5 new posts, growing the total archive of this blog to 86 posts. There were 14 pictures uploaded, taking up a total of 3mb. That’s about a picture per month.
The busiest day of the year was March 29th with 213 views. The most popular post that day was SLAPPing residents in Rocky View: Culture jamming and propaganda battles.
Where did they come from?
The top referring sites in 2010 were calgaryherald.com, jodymacpherson.ca, canadianguerilla.com, ourrockyview.com, and en.wordpress.com.
Some visitors came searching, mostly for wind walk okotoks, rocky view utility corp, al sacuta, larry spilak, and windwalk okotoks.
Attractions in 2010
These are the posts and pages that got the most views in 2010.
SLAPPing residents in Rocky View: Culture jamming and propaganda battles March 2010
3 comments
Rocky View also creating a new water utility February 2010
2 comments
Look west to see what can happen when a council is out of control January 2010
2 comments
Paying for “water for life”: Calgary creates utility to deliver water to neighbours for a fee December 2009
3 comments
Central Springbank Task Force takes on Rocky View Weekly newspaper August 2009
New commentary in Rocky View County News: Rural-urban rivalry impacting region
The contradiction between the Growth Management Strategy (GMS) which calls for a large increase in urban-style residential development in nodes across the county and Councillor Solberg’s call for a larger industrial tax base has been forcefully pointed out by others so I will focus my comments on three specific concepts. The first is the connection between municipal finances and tax revenues, the second on an underlying anti-city bias that has shaped Rocky View policy since the end of regional planning and the third is the lack of a long-term vision for the fiscal, social and environmental sustainability.
In his 1995 book “Building Cities that Work” York University political scientist Edmund Fowler asks “Why did we do it?” that is, why have we built urban places that are, in the long run, unsustainable? One reason Fowler points to is a universal desire for municipal politicians to increase tax revenue. Local government policy encourages intensive use of land in hopes that new uses will bring in more taxes. But intensification requires more urban services, which in turn require more tax revenue.
Read the full commentary by Geoff Ghitter…
SLAPPing residents in Rocky View: Culture jamming and propaganda battles
Just when you thought you’d heard and seen it all, there is growing evidence that residents in Rocky View County are being subjected to legal intimidation in order to silence their ever-growing concerns about the actions of their elected council.
Two community website owners have received “cease and desist” orders from lawyers representing the Rocky View County, raising fears that the County’s own residents are now the target of a campaign known as SLAPP–Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. (Read the letter received from the lawyers here: http://bit.ly/9ojXMz). The County has recently posted the cease and desist letter on its website in response to hundreds of letters from citizens demanding transparency.
We have what appears to be a “made in Alberta” example of SLAPP happening in the communities west of Calgary, including Bearspaw and Springbank. At http://www.ourspringbank.ca, the site owners received a letter asking them to “cease and desist using the county NAME and mark in all respects” which may be unprecedented in Alberta as an approach to dealing with local citizens who are critical of a municipal council’s decisions. (read a related commentary).
What makes this letter completely “over the top” is its inclusion of the word, “name” in its demand. Residents are not only forbidden from using the mark of the County “in all respects” (including for satirical purposes) but also from using the name? How are bloggers, commentators and residents in the area going to discuss County issues and decisions on line with this type of a gag order hanging over their heads?
Also of interest is that not all websites in the community received the cease and desist orders–only those critical of the County’s actions. Other websites supportive of the County (some of which coincidentally accept advertising dollars from developers and are run by spouses of Rocky View councillors) have NOT been served with cease and desist orders asking them to stop using the name. It appears that certain websites have been singled out for legal action based on their content while others can continue.
What is all the ruckus about?
Www.canadianguerilla.ca had created a spoof of the County of Rocky View’s logo (involving at various stages a bulldozer and a cartoon turkey) and the accompanying slogan, “Paving Paradise.” There was also a parody of the County’s question and answer sheet relating to a recent by-law that was proposed. The by-law was advertised just before Christmas and in early January passed third reading. Critics had charged that the County tried to rush the by-law through over the Christmas holidays when people are less likely to come out and oppose it. (for a taste of what Canadian Guerilla was talking about prior to being SLAPPed)
The by-law was of concern because it essentially paved the way for the County to justify further borrowing on a water and wastewater project to support the CrossIron Mills Mall. The project is already substantially overbudget and many fear it is driving the County much deeper into debt than should be legally allowed. The parody of the County’s original FAQ document attempted to provide residents with truthful answers to questions about the complex by-law. It was titled, “Frequently Asked Questions UnSpun.”
(As it turns out, the County has actually decided to create a private corporation to assume the debt. The water utility will be called “Aquaduct Utilities Corporation” and it’s not at all clear as to the financial model and liability to be assumed by the taxpayer, but that’s another post at: https://nocalgaryveto.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/rocky-view-also-creating-a-new-water-utility/)
Reeve of “Habberville” responds…finally
The Reeve claims in her recently posted response to the growing controversy (see http://bit.ly/9aZr0I) that it is not an issue of free speech but one of mis-use of the brand identity. There is no doubt that the logo was altered, but it was done in the fine tradition of parody logos (see some examples at: http://bit.ly/bA4LHM)? This is known to the rest of the world as “culture jamming” and is a legitimate method of fighting corporate propaganda. Apparently, the local government in Rocky View feels it should be immune to this kind of propaganda-busting and is willing to spend taxpayer dollars to hire lawyers to fight for this immunity. Strangely enough, the county is effectively suing its own boss, as the lawsuits are against citizens they’ve been elected to represent!
At http://www.canadianguerilla.com, the site owner has also received a second legal threat warning him against publishing or posting a publication he was working on called, “Building Habberville.” The short booklet, named after County of Rocky View Reeve, Lois Habberfield and detailing the history of “rampant urbanization” in the county, including a look at tactics used to approve construction of the CrossIron Mills Mall. The monster-sized shopping mall north of Calgary is one of the most controversial developments in the province in the last 10 years. (see background) All work on that book project has been put on hold as a result of the legal action. Another win for the bad guys.
Why should I care?
According to Wikipedia, SLAPP is a technique “intended to censor, intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.” Quebec is the only province to have anti-SLAPP legislation in place. British Columbia had such legislation in 2001, but it was repealed after only a few short months. The Church of Scientology has been known to employ the SLAPP technique to silence its critics.
As the authors of the http://www.ourspringbank.ca website point out, the Ontario Superior Court has said:
“… Governments are accountable to the people through the ballot box, and not to judges or juries in courts of law. When a government is criticized, its recourse is in the public domain, not the courts. The government may not imprison, or fine, or sue, those who criticize it. The government may respond. This is fundamental. Litigation is a form of force, and the government must not silence its critics by force.”
Even more disturbing is that the residents report they have requested that the Minister of Municipal Affairs step in to order retraction of the cease and desist notices. Thus far, the residents’ plea for help from the Minister have gone unanswered. A letter sent to all MLA’s asking for their help received not a single response, let alone any offers of help. The MLA for the area, Finance Minister Ted Morton, has been strangely silent on the entire debacle. It seems that the provincial government also sees nothing wrong with threatening legal action against citizens who voice disagreement. The ramifications are frightening.
Rocky View also creating a new water utility
It’s called “Aquaduct Utilities Corporation” and soon it will be joining the list of utilities providing water and wastewater systems to municipalities across the province.
(By the way, one of the reasons the County is doing this is because of a monstrous mall on the outskirts of Calgary that continues to be plagued by water and wastewater problems costing taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. Read the background at http://bit.ly/b9YkRM)
The City of Grande Prairie, the County of Grande Prairie and the Town of Sexsmith created the Aquatera Utilities Inc. in 2004. (www.aquatera.ca) and now the County of Rocky View is getting in on the act. They’ve already incorporated the municipally owned and controlled corporation.
The scope of the corporation is “to fulfil a role of owning and operating treated water production and distribution system assets and services, wastewater collection and treatment systems and assets, and solid waste collection and disposal assets. Initial focus will be on water systems.”
The full discussion paper can be found on the Rocky View County website at:
http://bit.ly/aviVrU (PDF download)
Accompanying the discussion paper is a draft policy (pp. 35-37), but there is no statement recognizing the limited supply of water. They talk about geographic limitations, economic realities and infrastructure limitations but it’s perhaps not surprising at all, that there is no mention of limitations on the actual supply of water!
Following in Calgary’s footsteps towards rampant urbanization
The principal goals of Aqueduct include “capital expansion, growth and infrastructure.” This utility was created using taxpayer dollars and my guess is that it will need to keep adding customers to stay profitable. This seems similar to what the City of Calgary is doing by creating its own water utility. We are not only accommodating growth, we are creating a necessity (and an incentive) for growth. It’s a treadmill that we just can’t seem to get off!
I think ratepayers in Rocky View should ask questions about the financing of this new utility, the transfer of infrastructure from County ownership to private ownership and the financial model driving it all. My take on this is that it’s the County’s answer to the accusation that they will be going to go into debt to finance the water and wastewater systems–technically, it is the private company that is going to assume the debt. But what exactly are the risks and liabilities to County residents? That is certainly downplayed in this document.
Given the make-up of the board of directors of the similar Grande Prairie corporation (Aquatera http://www.aquatera.ca) where the majority on the board are elected officials, I think we can safely assume that several members of the Rocky View council are probably looking at a some supplementary income for their new gig on the board of Aqueduct. It is customary for board members of private companies to receive compensation of some type. Can we assume that this board will be any different?
Calgary Regional Partnership and the “water supply business”
The discussion paper also offers some insight into the behind-the-scenes discussions about water. The following section outlines the position of the Calgary Regional Partnership with respect to water:
Over the last three years, the Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP) has also staked a position in the water supply business. The focus of the CRP has been on examining and planning for the potential water supply to urban style developments from a central supplier (Calgary) or from sub-regional centres such as Cochrane. Studies conducted have focused on triple bottom line analysis which has been over-shadowed by the economic considerations. Clearly, supply from a single plant through pipelines is, in most instances, less expensive than building and operating several new water treatment plants.
Conclusions reached by the CRP assume that only urban style development is economically feasible to service and sets aside any other development opportunities. That leaves many of the developments contemplated outside urban nodes searching for solutions for water services. Politics aside, the studies and conclusions of the CRP should not be lost on the County. Fewer treatment plants and longer trunk lines are still less expensive than building and operating several treatment plants.
The discussions above put the County in a position to carefully consider its needs and long term directions, thereby charting its own course for the supply of water to its constituents.
The County of Rocky View decided not to join the CRP and is looking for alternate ways of securing water. During the public consultations on the Calgary Metropolitan Plan (CMP), representatives of the Calgary Regional Partnerships were less than forthcoming about the partnership’s position on the “water supply business.” There was no mention of Calgary getting into the business of supplying water to their rural neighbours as part of the CRP.
In fact, when residents turned out to the open houses in large numbers and identified water supply as a major concern, it didn’t even rate as one of the top concerns in the final report on the public consultation. The rationale was that water issues would be covered in the consultations for the South Saskatchewan River Regional Plan. There certainly was no clear communication of the plans by the City of Calgary to create a new water utility to provide water and wastewater services to members of the CRP. As if having a veto isn’t enough, the City is also given the green light to control the water distribution to communities on the outskirts.
New corporation was quietly approved by Cabinet
The discussion paper also indicates that the new Aqueduct Corporation has already received Cabinet approval. Ironically, the author of the paper, Rocky View’s Chief Administrative Officer, Robert Coon goes on to say that prior to any action there is a need for “policy development and adoption by Council to provide direction and care and clarity to administration, system operators and developers about how water services are delivered in the County. Without those policies and their coordination with other planning documents, including the Growth Management Strategy, Rocky View is left without formal direction and unable to supply consistent answers to concerns raised by constituents.”
I guess none of that direction and coordination was important to Cabinet, as they approved the corporation anyway! If this isn’t an example of irresponsible decision-making, I don’t know what would be. Basically, what he’s saying is: “Jiminy Cricket, we’ve gone ahead and made the decision, without the facts–so we’d better hurry up and get our facts together so that it looks like we knew what we were doing.” (see page 7).
Ah, it’s these little nuggets buried in a 41 page document that make reading the other 40 pages worthwhile.
P.S. In case Rocky View County decides to remove the report from their website, I’ve also posted a copy on this blog at:
Just say NO! to a Calgary VETO 