Just say NO! to a Calgary VETO
Related Issues
Canadian Guerilla: Offsite, offside, gravel, mutiny, etc.
Excerpt from the latest newsletter by Canadian Guerilla:
Tuesday, 05 January 2010
109 households sent in comments to the offsite-levy bylaw. I didn’t see one in favour, so let’s see if I can do the calculation: that would be … ummm … 100% against. Feel free to check my math.
Rocky View Council has deliberately tried to hide what this bylaw does. They have deliberately limited public knowledge and debate.
When I first saw the notice on the county’s website, I dismissed it. Who knows what an offsite levy is, let alone cares about a bylaw dealing with it? But, a little voice said, “Check it.” I looked up “offsite levy” on the web; I read about it in the Municipal Government Act (MGA); I read the municipal how-to cheat sheet published by the county’s lawyer (http://www.cpaa.biz/OffSiteLevyChecklistE0693042.pdf); I downloaded the bylaw.
In short, “offsite levy” is arcane terminology used to mask insidious behaviour: subsidizing developers at taxpayer risk. (On its face, it’s not supposed to do that; however, in practice, that’s exactly what it does.) Only warped minds could dream up this crap; only criminal minds would use it to hide development and borrowing on a staggering scale. The only reason council publicly announced this bylaw is the MGA requires that they do. Look at when they announced it (Christmas); look how much time they allotted for comment (a few weeks over the holidays); look at the informationless notice on their website. These scammers tried to sneak one past us. You know it; I know it; they know it….
Read the full post at: http://bit.ly/5oqBWl
Central Springbank Task Force takes on Rocky View Weekly newspaper
The following email message was sent out to members of the Central Springbank Task Force:
We hope you have all taken some time to bask in the summer glory of rural Springbank and are more resolute than ever to protect this beautiful land we call home from ravaging urbanization.
1. Keeping informed:
Unfortunately, the Reeve and Councillors have a different view of Rocky View’s future and they have been racing forward with their plans for massive development over our rural landscape. Members of the task force have been busy attending Public Hearings, writing letters to Council and our local papers, and trying to keep abreast of all development activity. One of most disturbing activities, was the recent vote by our Council to approve the Watermark Development in Bearspaw. This development extends high density sprawl of the city into the heart of Bearspaw and was opposed by most residents and the City of Calgary. Waste water treatment plans were not finalized and, according to Council’s own studies, the development will serve as a net loss to tax payers; still our Council approved it 7-2. The only Councillors with sufficient common sense to vote against it were Councillors Branson and Buckley.
There are many changes proposed for Springbank, most of which are being discussed without public input. These include a commercial corridor from the city to Highway 22 and a major north-south Calgary bypass along Range Road 34 that will transect Harmony. Residents have discovered that community opinion does not seem to matter to our Councillors, or to some media. In response, we have updated our website so you have a means to stay informed. News items and public contributions will now appear on the front page and we have added a blogging facility so you can comment on the latest issues. We encourage you to continue checking in and reviewing the updates at http://www.ourspringbank.ca and do all you can to help us in the battle that lies ahead.
Importantly, http://www.ourspringbank.ca is not-for-profit and we do not accept advertising dollars from developers.
2. Special Note about the Rocky View Weekly:
Until recently, members of the community have succeeded in expressing their views in the Rocky View Weekly but about the time when the Rocky View County (yep, our council has changed the name of the MD to attract US investment) advertising contract was renewed, the paper fired Enrique Massot, adopted a pro-development stance and stopped publishing letters from concerned residents about development issues.
Is it coincidence that “Rocky View County” signed their new advertising contract with the Rocky View Weekly about the same time Lynn Thurlow’s “Anti Nimby” letter appeared? (Lynn is a Springbank resident and investor in the proposed Pradera Springs development.) Other “anti-nimby” editorials have followed. We see this remarkable change of stance as a further indication of the degree to which commercial interests will go to gain profit at our expense.
We are planning to add a section to our website containing letters to the Editor that residents have submitted that have not been printed, or have been heavily edited. Please let us know if you send a letter to the Editor that is not published and we will post the letter on our website.
3. Expanding the network:
The Central Springbank Task Force has recently joined with other sensible development groups in the area and formed a coalition called “Albertans for Responsible Land Use” http://www.ab-land-use.ca. Springbank is not the only community being railroaded by council: other areas in “Rocky View County” are experiencing the same treatment.
Please stay tuned!
Here is the letter that was sent to the Rocky View Weekly newspaper:
As a reader, patron and past advertiser, I felt it was extremely unfortunate that the Editor of the Rocky View Weekly chose to inject his obvious disdain for some of the residents of Rocky View.
Regardless of where our neighbours live, we will find those who have contributed much to their workplaces and communities. Yes, some of our neighbours have earned a good living – some live in Bearspaw, some near Airdrie, while others are in Chestermere. All however, should be encouraged to express their aspirations for the communities in which they live. Governments and responsible media need to give intelligent and respectful consideration to all such expressions.
The most unfortunate part of last week’s editorial however, was that the editor completely failed to comprehend the real issue in these debates.
Issue: While our Councillors claim to represent the constituents and the interests of Rocky View, there is growing evidence they have abdicated all planning responsibility, accountability to residents, and even respect for the very voters they were entrusted to represent.
Example A: As president of the Social Credit Party, Earl Solberg complains that the Provincial Government “and its bureaucracy have succumbed to the ‘Big Brother’ complex evidenced by their lack of consultation while developing new legislation”. The same Earl Solberg dismisses Rocky View residents’ input as not “legitimate public comments”, stating “it doesn’t have an effect of causing us (Council) to change”.
Example B: Hopeton Loudon told residents to find accommodation with developers (Inland) because the Province will step in to impose and approve an application if the MD refuses to re-designate land.
Nothing could be further from the truth, and these are but two of many ways in which MD Council has squandered the trust of taxpayers in favour of representing THEIR “privileged few”, the developers.
While Council makes noises about consultation for ASP renewal, they have in fact become the partner, spokesperson and approver for the vision and financial interests of developers through numerous bylaw amendments. Watermark is just the latest example. The creation of the MD’s Growth Management Strategy – created by 2 Edmonton firms– afforded the public virtually no input. Add to all this the Provincial Government’s withdrawal of constituents’ right to hold plebiscites on any matters relating to land re-designation, development and financial matters, the actions of the current Councillors are nothing short of criminal.
Responsible and informed media organizations would focus on the public’s need for fair, transparent and responsive government, and not attempt to vilify those constituents who have chosen to speak out against a Council that clearly no longer represents those who
voted for them. A responsible media organization would sense the community’s need to find members of the public who better represent the aspirations of voters. Let the search for those representatives, start now.
David McKeand
MD of Foothills responds to criticism of its residents
One of the arguments often used to justify joining the Calgary Regional Partnership is the “parasitic fringe dweller” argument. It goes like this, “residents living on the outskirts of an urban community don’t pay for any of the infrastructure costs in that community and yet they use those services frequently.” These so-called “freeloaders” will be more easily controlled by the Calgary Regional Partnership.
So, I guess the people who make this argument don’t really take into consideration the amount of money flowing into these communities from the fringe dwellers as they shop and spend their cash at the local grocery stores, gas stations, restaurants, etc. They also seem to ignore the fact that the CRP will actually INCREASE the number of fringe dwellers by definition, as the whole point of the plan is to figure out where to put an additional 1.6 million people (water optional, apparently). At any rate, the argument fails to give credit where credit is due and the MD of Foothills has provided the following information about financial support given to various municipalities in 2008:
“The Municipal District of Foothills has a long history of working with its urban neighbours to jointly provide services to residents of the area. This support includes annual operating cost contributions and capital cost contributions on a case by case basis. In 2008 about $3.685 million dollars will be paid to urban municipalities or to groups providing services in an urban municipality. This total is broken down as follows:
Fire Operating $614,500
The M.D. of Foothills has agreements to provide fire suppression services with six urban municipalities – Towns of High River, Okotoks, Black Diamond, Turner Valley, the Village of Longview and the City of Calgary. The share of costs paid by the MD of Foothills reflects the percentage of use by the MD. The MD share of costs ranges from minimal with the City of Calgary to nearly 90% with the Village of Longview. The MD also pays full costs for four other fire stations in the MD.
Fire Capital $1,621,400
In 2008 the MD of Foothills contributed to the capital cost of fire equipment and buildings located in urban municipalities. This included 30% of the cost of the Okotoks fire hall expansion ($1,161,400), 50% of the cost of a pumper truck in High River and 100% of the cost of a tanker truck in Longview.
Recreation Operating $688,500
The MD has recreation cost sharing agreements with five urban municipalities – Towns of High River, Okotoks, Black Diamond, Turner Valley and the Village of Longview. These agreements provide payments for operating costs of the various recreation facilities in the urban municipalities. The costs sharing formula is based on the percentage of rural residents who use the urban facilities.
Recreation Capital $250,000
In 2008 the MD of Foothills contributed $100,000 towards the construction of an outdoor artificial ice surface in the Town of Black Diamond. The MD also committed $150,000 to the completion of the Highwood Memorial Center Expansion in the Town of High River in addition to $596,000 in contributions in 2007.
Administration Services $226,000
The MD of Foothills shares an administration building and some staff with the Town of High River. Shared staff includes Information Technology, Human Resources and Grant Writer. The sharing of staff provides increased staff resources for both municipalities at a reduced cost. The shared building allows more efficient use of public space at a lower cost for both municipalities.
Water/Waste Water $109,500
The MD of Foothills purchases water and waste water services from the Town of High River to provide service for an industrial corridor and hamlet in the MD.
FCSS $171,000
Through FCSS funding the MD provides funding either directly to urban municipalities or to groups operating out of their towns to provide services to both urban and rural residents.
Enforcement Services $4,270
The MD has partnered with its urban municipalities to provide a court liaison worker to assist municipal enforcement personnel with administrative duties related to the court system.
In addition to direct support to urban municipalities the MD participates in two regional commissions – The Foothills Regional Emergency Medical Services Commission (FREMS) and the Foothills Regional Services Commission (FRSC). The MD also partners with the urban municipalities in our area to operate the Foothills Foundation to provide seniors housing.
FREMS provides ambulance and 911 Dispatch service for the region. The MD of Foothills pays about 1/3 of the total municipal share of the cost for these services. The 2008 cost to the MD of Foothills after provincial funding is deducted was $430,458.
FRSC operates the regional landfill and the MD of Foothills provides administration services as well as contracts with the commission to provide operating staff for the landfill. The landfill operates on a user pay basis and does not require municipal subsidies.
Foothills Foundation provides housing for seniors at facilities located in High River, Black Diamond and Okotoks. The M.D. of Foothills annual requisition is $489,875 representing 57% of the $852,427 requisitioned by the Foundation in 2008.
The Foothills Country Hospice is located in the M.D. of Foothills and provides hospice care to terminally ill residents of the region. The M.D. is a strong supporter of this regional initiative and to date has contributed over $80,000 to this excellent and needed facility.”
So much for “parasitic fringe dwellers.” Okotoks Town Councillors might be wise to think about the way they are describing MD residents in the future.
Calgary Herald: Canadian groundwater under threat, study finds
By Margaret Munro, Canwest News Service
It is ‘imperative’ that steps be taken to improve groundwater management across Canada, says the
report to be released Monday by the Council of Canadian Academies, a national science advisory body.
‘Rampant’ urbanization, climate change, energy production, intensification of agriculture and
contamination are growing threats to groundwater, which ‘Canadians often treat as ‘out of sight, out of
mind,’ ‘ says the 315-page report from an expert committee chaired by James Bruce, a former
Environment Canada scientist.
The 15-member panel laments that reliable estimates of groundwater in Canada do not yet exist–and key
information won’t be available for 20 years at the rate a national groundwater mapping program is
moving.
But it says the threats to the ‘vital resource’–from farmer’s fertilizers to Alberta’s oilsands operations to
the more than 28,000 contaminated sites across Canada — continue to mount.
The report, commissioned by the federal government two years ago, says it is generally believed there is
100 times more water underground than in rivers and lakes. ‘It’s a huge amount and it’s our future water,’
Bruce said, noting that Canadians will be even more dependent on groundwater as the country grows.
Groundwater typically moves slowly through porous rock, which the panel likens to ‘a firm sponge.’ Since
the water moves so slowly, the impact of land-use practices and over-exploitation can take years, even
decades, to show up. ‘Likewise, repair may take an extremely long time, is generally very expensive, and
may even be impossible,’ says the report, which calls for concerted action by all levels of government to
prevent overuse and misuse.
The contamination of ground-water in Walkerton, Ont., in 2000, stands out as a tragic example of the
threats: ‘It was the worst documented outbreak of pathogenic E. coli poisoning caused by municipal tap
water and led to seven deaths and sickened more than 2,300 with severe gastrointestinal illness,’ the
report says. And it points to chronic contamination of groundwater in Prince Edward Island and a large
aquifer straddling the Canada-U. S. border southeast of Vancouver as evidence of how intractable the
problems can be.
Tracking a trend: Losing our voice
It’s not only about land use any longer. The voice of the average Albertan is being suppressed in many different areas. I recently read in the Lethbridge Herald newspaper about the April 29th Alberta Health Services Board meeting:
“There’s no longer an opportunity for the public to be heard at board meetings, he (Dr. Stephen Duckett, the board’s chief executive officer) told a crowd of about 70 in the hospital’s County Hall, because the new authority is “an operating governance board.”
During the brief business section of their meeting, board members approved construction cost overruns for three Calgary facilities — two for a total of $40 million and another for a whopping $1.1 billion. There was no debate and no agenda item specific to southern Alberta programs or facilities.
The Lethbridge meeting, (Ken) Hughes pointed out, was the board’s first since Alberta Health Services took over responsibility for most of the province’s ambulance services.”
According to Democracy Watch Canada:
“A democracy is: a society in which all adults have easily accessible, meaningful, and effective ways:
- to participate in the decision-making processes of every organization that makes decisions or takes actions that affect them, and;
- to hold other individuals, and those in these organizations who are responsible for making decisions and taking actions, fully accountable if their decisions or actions violate fundamental human rights, or are dishonest, unethical, unfair, secretive, inefficient, unrepresentative, unresponsive or irresponsible;
so that all organizations in the society are citizen-owned, citizen-controlled, and citizen-driven, and all individuals and organizations are held accountable for wrongdoing.”
Previously, board meetings of the Calgary Health Region were open to the public and the public could submit questions to the board. It appears that this accountability has been removed with the creation of Alberta Health Services–with no consultation or discussion about this change with the public.
Environmental Law Centre: Alberta Land Stewardship Act Needs More Planning and Less Politics
The Environmental Law Centre media advisory says:
ALBERTA LAND STEWARDSHIP ACT NEEDS MORE PLANNING AND LESS POLITICS
Edmonton, AB, 1 May 2009 – On April 27, 2009, the Alberta government introduced Bill 36, the
Alberta Land Stewardship Act (ALSA). While the Bill is a positive step to give legal effect and
support to the provincial Land Use Framework initiative, it has some inherent weaknesses which are
of concern to the Environmental Law Centre, but which can be remedied by amendment.
The Centre’s chief concerns are:
• Broad discretion with little accountability. Bill 36 grants very broad discretion to Cabinet
for many of the key elements of the Land Use Framework, including creation and content
of regional land use plans, and governance structure and implementation of the planning
system. There are few, if any, limitations or checks on this discretion. This approach is
inconsistent with the vision and guiding principles set out in the Land-Use Framework
document, which emphasized accountability, shared responsibility of all Albertans,
collaboration, transparency and fairness.
• Limited rights to participate and appeal. Effective regional planning involves a good mix
of “top-down” direction from government and “bottom-up” input from the public.
Unfortunately, Bill 36 is solely a “top-down” process with all power residing in Cabinet.
Under the Bill, it is possible for Cabinet to make or amend a regional land use plan
without public or regional input. More troubling is that Bill 36 has limited avenues for
Albertans to challenge decisions that may be inconsistent with the regional land use
plans.
• Lack of substantive planning criteria. Bill 36 sets out a variety of regulation making
powers that allow government to pursue valid planning goals, including dealing with the
establishment of thresholds, transitional provisions and monitoring and enforcement.
However, leaving substantive planning criteria to future regulations rather than including them in the Act is of significant concern.Substantive and robust planning criteria must be
laid out in the legislation, including stated objectives for environmental, social and
economic indicators.
These problems can be eliminated by amendment of the Bill to build in limitations on discretion,
public rights to act as a check on inconsistent decisions, and specific, detailed criteria for
regional land use plans.
For more detailed information, visit http://www.elc.ab.ca and read the backgrounders related to each of
the abovementioned issues. The ELC will release a more detailed commentary and
recommendations in the near future, when staff complete their analysis of Bill 36
About the ELC: The ELC’s vision is a clean, healthy and diverse environment protected through
informed citizen participation and sound law and policy, effectively applied. Its mission is to
ensure that laws, policies and legal processes protect the environment.
-30-
Contact: Cindy Chiasson, Executive Director, Environmental Law Centre, 1-800-661-4238 or
780-953-5128, cchiasson@elc.ab.ca.
Western Wheel story: Small communities may be in jeopardy
Beiseker’s mayor is warning his fellow small town leaders to be on guard against a possible wave of provincial government interference.
Bruce Rowe, who also serves as chair of the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association’s (AUMA) Small Communities Committee, said the Province may dissolve a number of small towns, rolling them into larger municipalities.
“Sixty to 70 municipalities may be in trouble,” he said.
However, Rowe said his warning is based on rumour at this point. He has not received any definitive answers on the issue from Ray Danyluk, minister of Municipal Affairs, and a spokesperson with the department could not confirm or deny such a provincial initiative last week.
“We do not know what is fact and what is not,” said Rowe. “The rumours are there.”
After unofficially learning the provincial government may be preparing changes to the way small municipalities are governed, the AUMA launched a survey to poll its members’ opinions on eventual changes. The survey requested municipal representatives provide an opinion on the merger of municipalities into regional governance authorities, with the goal of achieving economies of scale.
“Out of 300 municipalities, there were 250 responses,” said Rowe. “Never has AUMA got such a response before.”
It is not known which communities are being looked at by the Province, but it is unlikely the move will impact communities in the Foothills region.
Verna Staples, administrative assistant for the Town of Black Diamond, said the proposal does not have a direct impact on Black Diamond.
“I understand it does not include larger towns, but towns that are not self-sustainable,” said Staples. “I don’t know which towns, but small communities like summer villages.”
Dissolution is nothing new in the Foothills area as the hamlets of Blackie and Cayley were formerly villages that dissolved and became hamlets within the MD of Foothills. Blackie and Cayley dissolved willingly.
Staples also said this latest possible move by the Province is also not mandatory as she understands.
“It is not something that is being forced on people,” she said.
The issue will come up for debate at the AUMA President’s Summit, to take place in Red Deer on April 30 and May 1. The Summit will focus on the future of local governance in Alberta, as well as issues affecting local governance.
“It is a big ticket item,” said Rowe.
Read the article online.
emassot@airdrie.greatwest.ca
Western Wheel says: “Minister makes changes to controversial land bill”
In an effort to address concerns raised by Alberta landowners Alberta Infrastructure Minister Jack Hayden tabled a series of amendments to the controversial Bill 19 in the Legislature on Thursday.
During a teleconference on Friday Hayden admitted the mishandling of Bill 19 was a lesson learned for his department.
“I am a landowner and a farmer in Alberta and I was so comfortable and pleased with this legislation I did not pay enough attention to how emotional this issue would be,” Hayden said.
Hayden said the amendments tabled to the Land Assembly Project Area Act (Bill 19) will address the concerns raised by Albertans.
The backlash to Bill 19 was almost immediate when it was announced earlier this month as landowners voiced their concerns that Bill 19 was a “land grab” by the provincial government.
Hayden said Bill 19 is a means to find a balance between Alberta landowners and the provincial government’s need to secure land for future infrastructure expansion.
Read the full article at:
Just say NO! to a Calgary VETO 