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

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:

http://www.rockyviewweekly.com/article/20110304/RVW0801/303049992/bearspaw-development-approved-by-county-council

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:

Potable_Water_Strategy_w_Report_Jan_2010

Paying for “water for life”: Calgary creates utility to deliver water to neighbours for a fee

In a development that reminds me of a Godfather movie, Calgary has taken steps to create its new water utility and Airdrie will be the first to sign on. Instead of the drugs that fuelled the infamous fictional crime family, this transaction will involve water and Mayor Bronconnier is looking more like Don Vito Corleone every day. Here’s the way it will work–the elected officials of a number of smaller communities surrounding the city are poised to enter into an arrangement for “protection.” They will sign on to this agreement to pay a newly created utility (soon to be approved by Alberta Environment) for water to be delivered to their community’s doorstep from the Bow River. And those of us living in the rural municipalities outside of Calgary will be on the hook for the cost–forever. It amounts to a new water tax that none of us had a chance to vote on.

Here’s the background from a short article that appeared in Airdrie City View, a free publication from Rocky View Publishing. (read the original) and a longer version in the Calgary Herald (read it here).

City of Calgary reorganizes water distribution
BY STACIE SNOW

Airdrie is among a group of municipalities surrounding Calgary that will have the opportunity to buy water from a new utility designed to provide excess supply to surrounding neighbours in the region.

However, the offer is only valid for those that are part of the Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP). Once the utility is approved by Alberta Environment, Airdrie, Cochrane, Turner Valley, Black Diamond, Irricana and Okotoks would have access to Calgary’s water supply on a cost-recovery basis.

Key phrases here are “excess supply” and “cost recovery.” As far as excess supply, make no mistake folks, communities surrounding Calgary are “second tier” when it comes to water from the Bow River, as far as Calgary is concerned. This is not a case of “sharing” water as has been suggested previously or recommended by various task forces and advisory groups. One can only hope that the municipalities are negotiating some type of supply guarantees and efficiency standards so they are protected from Calgary’s gluttonous water use! (Average Calgarian consumes 437 litres of water per day while the average Okotokian consumes 265 liters of water per day).

And as far as “cost recovery,” the question is,”what qualifies?” If it is the actual hard infrastructure costs, then eventually, that should be paid off, theoretically. However, I think we all know that the cost recovery will include ongoing maintenance of the utility in perpetuity. Communities surrounding Calgary are signing on to be at the whim of “Broncorleone.”

Airdrie Mayor Linda Bruce said while Airdrie’s water is already supplied by the City of Calgary, a utility makes sense.

“This is the first step to start really looking at delivering water among the region,” said Bruce. “I can’t imagine it will change the way we work with the City of Calgary much but in some ways Airdrie is a prototype. We have had a strong connection with Calgary for about 30 years and this is a great demonstration of how Calgary will ensure service to the rest of the region.”

However, those communities outside the Calgary Regional Partnership, such as Rocky View County, Wheatland County and the MD of Foothills, would be left high and dry.

At this point, Mayor Bruce is sounding like one of the Broncorleone’s most loyal thugs…

“It is a CRP initiative and Calgary always maintained that water is part of the land use and that is what the CRP deals with,” said Bruce. “The members of the CRP have worked hard to be a part of this and move forward.”

Calgary mayor Dave Bronconnier said the water supply is part of the region’s larger plans to curtail sprawl and make more environmentally sustainable choices. It would not make sense to push for higher densities in the city and then provide water to communities that weren’t on the same path, he said. The new utility would be a not-for-profit corporation that would reflect a return to Calgary taxpayers for the investment they have made in their plants and equipment.

The contention that Calgary is curtailing sprawl and making environmentally sustainable choices is just not supported by the facts. The recent “watering down” (excuse the pun) of the Plan It Calgary strategic plan has been blasted by critics as a failure (read related article). Calgary’s densities are now likely LESS than the densities that the CRP is insisting for rural areas (Calgary 9 units per acre vs. CRaP plans for a minimum of 10 units per acre). Of course, the ultimate irony is that pushing urban densities into a rural setting is completely ludicrous. It’s like building a skyscraper in the middle of a farmer’s field and saying that it’s not sprawl. The Suzuki Foundation commented on this in 2009 and said, “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.”

Calgary’s water licence currently provides enough water for about three million people. Only about half of that supply is currently used.

“Calgary’s water licence is for the population in the Calgary region and that is expected to more than double over the next 50 to 75 years,” said Bruce.

“This will ensure service to the region into the future.”

I’ll just end on two notes related to the above statement. First, let’s not forget that this is, after all, only “paper water.” We don’t actually have reliable information on how much water is available and the provincial government is making no effort to find out either. If you don’t believe me, read the status of the surface and groundwater studies for the South Saskatchewan River Basin. A government-appointed advisory group made recommendations in 2004 that have yet to be acted upon, including strong support for the need for “improved studies of the environmental condition of the rivers and the use of these studies in future adjustments to water management.” Relying on water license allocations to determine actual supply is a lot like my pal, Al Sacuta (www.canadianguerilla.com) says, “looking at the number of hunting licenses you’ve issued to determine how much food is in the larder.”

And secondly, if the City is licensed for more water than it needs, why wouldn’t the licenses be revisited and the water supply more equitably distributed? The water doesn’t belong to Calgarians, it belongs to all of us. (see here for a related article)

Towns like Okotoks, in particular, would be better served by building their own infrastructure and sourcing an alternative water supply than hooking up with Calgary for the city’s leftovers. At a minimum, a cost comparison of the two alternatives should be required before any decision is made regarding taxpayer dollars. Unlike the Godfather’s tagline of “an offer you can’t refuse,” we DO have a choice and should be exploring all options and considering their consequences.

Don Corleone said it best, “I want no inquiries made. I want no acts of vengeance. I want you to arrange a meeting with the heads of the Five Families. This war stops now.”

Response to Enrique Raw’s blog: Rocky View’s role needs clarification

Enrique Massot, a former reporter for the Rocky View Weekly newspaper has posted a blog entry on http://www.canadianguerilla.com relating to the current situation in the MD of Rocky View (http://canadianguerilla.com/ER/Entries/2009/9/4_Commentary_Rocky_Views_role_needs_clarification.html). The following is my comment/response to Enrique, who was always a very thoughtful and thorough reporter when covering citizen’s complaints about land use and development in the MD of Rocky View.

Hello Enrique,

I’d like to challenge you on a couple of points in your blog. You say the CRP is a “flexible regional plan” and that it gives the “option to create urban nodes.” You suggest that “A new Rocky View comfortable in its rural role would have a different mission from that of urban municipalities, and could form a new relationship with the other CRP members, reducing frictions and rivalry.” You also mention the high cost to MD taxpayers of providing infrastructure for dense urban developments and suggest leaving this up to existing cities, which seems to suggest that the cities will either cover that cost themselves and/or keep it within their boundaries. More on this near the end of my note…

First, the Calgary Metropolitan Plan is only vaguely outlined right now, but the intention is certainly to make it more specific and detailed. What it will look like is unknown at this point and as one MD of Foothills councillor described it, “it’s like signing a blank contract.” One thing we do know is that urban nodes are in no way optional, although the location of the urban nodes has been left up to the local government (see p. 17 of the CMP which puts these nodes in the MUST category). There has been no indication that the overall CMP is “flexible.” In fact, the opposite is true. The Alberta government’s own news release states that “Regional plans will be binding on provincial and local governments and other decision makers.” Amendments will be made to the Municipal Government Act as part of Bill 36, the new Alberta Land Stewardship Act that is working its way through the legislature right now. Since the PC government is in a majority position, there is no reason to believe it won’t pass as is. The bill has been called “scary” by Opposition critics and the Environmental Law Centre says it gives “broad discretion” to the government and limits rights to appeal (https://nocalgaryveto.wordpress.com/2009/05/31/land-development-bill-scary/). Here is the complete list of changes planned for the MGA:

• Compliance amendments require that municipal plans and bylaws and the decisions that flow from these (by subdivision authorities, development authorities, municipal planning commissions and development appeal boards) are in conformance with regional plans.

• Intermunicipal development plan amendments allow the Minister of Municipal Affairs to require two or more municipal authorities to establish an intermunicipal development plan and to define the matters to be included in, and the timeline for completion of, the plan.

• Minister’s power amendments allow the Minister of Municipal Affairs to exercise additional actions to ensure compliance if a municipality does not comply with regional plans.

• Process amendments require municipalities to determine whether public consultation is necessary in amending plans and bylaws to conform with a regional plan. If council determines that further consultation is not necessary, it may proceed without giving notice and holding a hearing.

(Source: Government of Alberta http://bit.ly/fzWZM)

On your second point about the different rural mission, compared to urban municipalities, the CMP thus far has shown very little recognition of the differing nature of the rural communities and imposes an entirely urban formula on the MD’s and small towns covered by the plan. Even the compact urban nodes, which have been pushed out in the middle of the rural countryside, would suggest little or no understanding of the nature of the rural lifestyle. And as for reducing friction and rivalry, I fail to see how taking away the MD’s control over its own land and handing it wholesale to Calgary will reduce friction or rivalry–it can only aggravate it. On the other hand, by forcing a double majority voting mechanism on the CRP and giving Calgary a veto, the MD is pretty much bound and gagged into doing what the urban planners say is good for Calgary. I guess the screaming is somewhat muffled by this scenario!!

Also, all indications are that the City of Calgary intends to require that it provides the necessary infrastructure to support the mandatory compact urban nodes (sewer and wastewater) and charge the MD’s for this service. There is no word yet on what this will cost so it is completely premature to speculate that it will be less costly. (https://nocalgaryveto.wordpress.com/2009/05/31/part_one_calgary/)

I know that the MD of Rocky View is a source of great frustration for many in the area. But I’m afraid that your call for “open and empowered citizen debate” has LESS chance of taking place under the Calgary Regional Partnership than under the current MD of Rocky View. At least you can vote for the MD of Rocky View councillors…you can’t vote for the mayor of Calgary.

Thanks for listening.
Jody

Letter to the Editor, Cochrane Times

The following letter was sent to the Cochrane Times from Albertans for Responsible Land Use and appeared in the newspaper on July 1, 2009:

Dear Editor:
With respect, we take strong exception to the “NIMBYism at its core” editorial commentary appearing in the 2009 June 24th issue of the Cochrane Times.

You left your readers with an impression that Southern’ Alberta’s water issues have most to do with the economics of drawing water from the Bow River. Our coalition has questioned the availability of water for the Calgary Metropolitan Plan’s (CMP) predicted 2.8 million regional population, within the context of a Bow River currently under stress.

You also somehow managed to gloss over the opinion held by many within the region’s rural and urban municipalities, that a Calgary Metropolitan Plan (CMP) governance structure that gives Calgary a veto – granting urban voters a superior voting power over rural voters relating to matters within their own community – is fatally flawed and an affront to democracy. Excuse us if we think 14 wolves and 3 sheep voting on what to have for dinner is absurd.

Your position does not seem to be shared by the editors of another community newspaper:
“No one is arguing the merits of the Calgary Regional Partnership, but the rural municipalities do not want their decision-making authority ripped from them either”. (Okotoks Western Wheel Editorial, June 24, 2009)

You have conveniently ignored the argument reasonably advanced by our coalition that compact urban nodes as defined within the CMP, serve to encourage rather than limit urban sprawl. Overlooked too is a reality that The City of Calgary is already the world’s 5th most sprawling city. You’ll excuse us if we are suspicious of giving the City of Calgary a veto in decision-making of such grave importance, given its track record.

With all due respect, it is our belief that the CMP as it stands now needs major revision and will certainly not assure sustainability within the region. Ultimately, the cry of NIMBYism is the refuge of those who have not taken the time to truly understand the concerns of those residents who care enough to get involved. Apathy is the enemy here, NOT the people who actually CARE about their communities.

Sincerely yours,
Albertans for Responsible Land Use

Representing:
• Bearspaw Sensible Development Group
• Central Springbank Task Force for Sensible Development
• Citizens for a Sustainable Okotoks
• Highway 8 Sensible Development Group
• Just Say No to a Calgary Veto Petitioners
• Priddis-Millarville Residents’ Assoication
• Springbank Community Planning Association.”