-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
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:
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.
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.
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
If you’re like me, you may think that municipal governments in Alberta are accountable to taxpayers and will respect their wishes. In this last year, I’ve become more actively involved in monitoring municipal politics in and around Calgary. What I’ve seen is shocking and disturbing.
I’ve seen the creation of a new entity called “‘The Calgary Regional Partnership,” (CRP) an incorporated body paid for by the taxpayers who live in and around Calgary. This entity falls outside of government, it has no obligation to share information directly with the taxpayers who fund it. It reports directly to a Cabinet Minister.
It also has a governance model that gives one member veto power over the other 16 members. If Calgary does not agree with plans in a neighbouring municipality relating to land use, they have the power to shut it down. This power is guaranteed in the Alberta Land Stewardship Act, passed in the Legislature this past fall by the Stelmach government. In order to pass this Act, the government had to make amendments to more than 25 other Acts, including the Municipal Government Act. The Alberta Land Stewardship Act is at the top of the hierarchy of government Acts. It supersedes all other acts, giving the new Land Use Framework ultimate authority, and along for the ride is Calgary and Mayor Dave Bronconnier.
The Stelmach government continues to ignore rural voters who are vehemently opposed to the governance structure of the CRP. All three rural municipalities next to Calgary have rejected the CRP…but one municipality stands out. The MD of Rockyview has thus far opted out of the CRP, but not for the reasons you might think. The MD of Rockyview by all accounts, is opting out because it wants to urbanize and develop the MD even more than the Calgary Metropolitan Plan has in mind. They are alone in their single minded pursuit of “rampant urbanization.” And no one in the Stelmach government seems prepared to stop them. If there was ever a reason to intervene, Rockyview’s council is IT.
Now, in the latest sad chapter of the ongoing controversy in Rockyview, the residents found out recently (December 8, 2009) that council wants to borrow up to $200M to pay for a Balzac-Langdon wastewater system that was only supposed to require a loan of $41M because developers were going to cover this debt via levies. That was 2005 and now they’re proposing a new borrowing by-law and residents have only until Jan. 5, 2010 to comment. Activists have calculated that each household in the MD will be responsible for a $15,000 debt as a result of this latest by-law.
Read the full background at: www.ourspringbank.ca
Not to worry, you might think. If enough people are opposed to this new by-law, council won’t pass it. Not so, council has so far shown no regard for residents or even its own paid consultants, who’ve warned as part of the Growth Management Strategy process, that residents are opposed to council’s plans. Several councillors may be in a conflict of interest, but Municipal Affairs Minister, Ray Danyluk has refused to get involved. Some residents are considering a lawsuit. By the time the election is held in October of this year, a lot of damage can be done by a council that refuses to recognize it is out of step with the majority of residents.
Holding the previous $41M debt has already cost the county $9M in interest payments, more than the $8M that went to pay down the debt, which now stands at $35M. In addition to this financial fiasco, the by-law assumes that 16,000 acres of agricultural land will need to be developed.
This is the state of democracy in Alberta. Look to the west and see what is happening in Rockyview and be afraid, be very afraid.
J.C. Anderson, founder and former CEO of Calgary-based Anderson Exploration has written a letter to the Reeve of the MD of Foothills with his concerns about the Calgary Metropolitan Plan. Sustainable Resource Development Minister, Ted Morton and Okotoks Mayor Bill McAlpine were cc’ed on the letter.
Mr. Anderson attended the MD of Foothills Open House on April 7 at the Millarville Race Track and spoke up at that time about his concerns. He currently owns almost 3,000 acres just south of Calgary and has lived in the MD for about 33 years. He runs a ranching operation with about 600 head of cattle and 500 acres of cultivated land. He was inducted into the Petroleum Hall of Fame in 2001 and received awards for his strong leadership, including a Pinnacle Award in 1996.
He says: “The CRP Plan has a major effect on me and, for that matter, all other landowners in the MD. As well, residents of the towns in the MD could, and most probably will be, adversely affected, but I don’t believe they realize that.”
Here is an excerpt from Mr. Anderson’s letter, dated May 15, 2009 and shared with the NoCalgaryVeto campaign with his permission:
To summarize, the following are my major concerns with the Plan, as presently proposed:
1. The Plan is clearly an INFRINGEMENT ON PROPERTY RIGHTS.
2. The Plan effectively permits EXPROPRIATION WITHOUT COMPENSATION of some MD lands.
3. The Plan DESTROYS LAND VALUES in parts of the MD.
4. The Plan gives the City of Calgary VETO POWER over future land-based activities in the MD.
5. The Plan is administered by an unelected board, not accountable to MD residents.
The voting procedure. The voting procedure as presently constituted effectively gives the City of Calgary veto power over any land use or development proposed in the MD or the towns therein.
Regional Landscape Policies. The CRP Plan, as I understand it, is ambiguous in its wording in the City could freeze the lands of MD landowners and residents by imposing excessive water setbacks and by creating huge wildlife corridors, neither of which are necessary.
Urban Growth Areas Known as the “Blue Blobs.” The Blue Blob concept only permits development at typical city densities of 8-10 units per acres. Basically, no development can take place until the city wants it done and this could tie up Blue Blob lands for up to 60 years before being developed by the City. THIS IS TANTAMOUNT TO EXPROPRIATION WITHOUT COMPENSATION.
The 3 Changes Wanted by the MD Council. I support the changes to the CRP Plan proposed by the MD Council as follows:
1. The MD must remain responsible for land use decisions in its own jurisdiction.
2. Before 60 year urban growth areas in the MD are finalized, landowners and residents must be fully advised so they understand the impact and are able to provide input. I would add that agreement by affected landowners must be obtained before urban growth areas can be finalized.
3. Any amendment must have a unanimous vote if the CRP wishes to take over any land use authority from a municipality.
Blue Blob Problem. As well, I must insist that the Blue Blobs be removed from the map and the Plan. To tie up these lands now for future City development makes no sense. When the City wants and needs these lands, they can go through the available annexation procedures.
Components of the CRP plan will certainly REDUCE LAND VALUES OF THE MD LANDOWNERS and, as written, the CRP Plan is clearly an INFRINGEMENT OF PROPERTY RIGHTS, which are a very important cornerstone of our society. If this is allowed, particularly in the Blue Blob areas, MD owners outside the Blue Blob areas (I am also one of these) should also be concerned and ask themselves WHAT NEXT? There are other places in the world where property rights have been destroyed, particularly in the countries behind the Iron Curtain where the 75 year socialist experiment failed miserably.
I appreciate the City of Calgary’s desire to plan for and control its growth and the City should have a significant degree of control over the major services (water, sewer, etc.) they might provide in the future to the towns within the MD. However to place the destiny of the MD landowners and residents completely in the hands of Calgary City Council forever is simply madness.
Yours very truly,
JC Anderson
Received this email today from Ian and Vicky Holmes who live in the MD of Foothills:
“Calgary says it has the water, well we have the land. Can Calgary prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they have the water to sustain the anticipated growth for the entire area? Is it necessary for Calgary and area to grow so fast?
The 17 CRP members should be working together in the interest of all residents of the Cities, Towns, MD’s, and Calgary should not be trying to place their wishes ahead of all the other communities. Sixteen of the 17 CRP members can agree to something but Calgary can be the only one to say no and they win. This is wrong.
We support our council in their fight to keep control of the MD of Foothills. They are elected members who are looking after the best interested of the MD residents. The CRP is neither elected by or accountable to MD residents.
The CRP have an unrestricted mandate to later amend the draft plan. It could be amended in ways which may significantly and adversely affect MD residents against their wishes and those of Council. This is wrong.
Each municipality must remain responsible for the ecological land use decisions such as water setbacks, wildlife corridors, etc. in its own jurisdiction, in accord with provincial legislation and being responsive to MD residents. What do Calgary city dwellers understand about rural life? We moved to the MD to get away from the city and the city ideas.
Before the Calgary 60 year growth areas in the MD Foothills are finalized, affected MD residents must have the opportunity to be fully advised, to understand the impact and to provide their input. What exactly are the areas in the Blue Blobs? Would MD residents be advised of the intend to freeze their land and exactly what that would mean? Would they have any say in this?
Amendments must have a unanimous vote if the CRP wishes to take over any land use authority from a municipality.
We are supportive of much of the CRP Draft Plan and its policies. However, we have 3 serious concerns with the Draft Plan as stated above.”
Joe Obad of Water Matters (www.water-matters.org) recently sent out the following message via the Alberta Environmental Network:
The Calgary Regional Partnership’s regional plan needs to set targets for maintaining open spaces, clean water, and wildlife. They need to hear from you to make this happen.
Why the CRP matters
The CRP is a regional partnership of eighteen municipalities and one First Nation in the Calgary area. After years of inter-jurisdictional challenges these municipalities decided to undertake land use planning through a regional partnership. The province has recognized the importance of this partnership formally by stating its plan will be adopted as part of the provincial Land-use Framework (LUF). When adopted, it will be considered binding on issues as diverse as development, conservation, services, waste water and supply, and transportation. The degree to which ecological goods and services are protected is uncertain given the current language of the plan.
Information about the draft plan can be found at – http://www.calgaryregion.ca/crp/projects/projects/regionalgrowth.aspx
The province’s Land-use Framework (LUF) makes it clear that sub-regional plans such as these will:
* Define regional outcomes (economic, environmental and social) and a broad plan for land and natural resource use for public and private lands;
* Determine specific trade-offs and appropriate land and natural resource management for specific landscapes within a region;
and
* Define the cumulative effects management approach for the region and identify targets and thresholds.
The CRP can meet these important goals, but they need your support and feedback to improve their draft plan.
You can help by encouraging the CRP to:
Clearly state targets in order to manage the cumulative effects of human footprint
The CRP’s draft policy mentions cumulative effects management but does not “define the cumulative effects management approach for the region and identify targets and thresholds” the LUF asks for. To do this, the CRP plan must define management targets such as “80% of current riparian habitat will remain intact.” CRP’s statements of intent like, “Member municipalities will work to protect ecological function of riparian lands” do not establish clear, measurable targets. Finally, the plan should explain how targets for cumulative effects management would shape future decisions by local or provincial governments.
Explicitly state development targets in policy commitments
The CRP’s models offer a vision of developing an additional 45,000 hectares of land over the next 60 to 70 years instead of the ‘business as usual’ model that would mean an addition 125,000ha footprint. The CRP’s plan policy does not state this as an explicit goal. In order to achieve a footprint of 45,000ha or less the CRP must formally commit to this regional goal as a binding commitment.
Make binding commitments with clear implementation mechanisms
The CRP’s draft policies include very progressive language for maintaining what it calls ecological infrastructure: wetlands, riparian buffers; regional corridors; large patches of natural vegetation; and; ridges and escarpments. What’s missing however is clear policy direction on how these values will be maintained. The CRP’s conceptual models offer an impressive vision of concentrating growth within existing areas away from headwaters, agricultural lands, wetlands etc. However, the plan’s policies offer little guidance or commitment to ensure development heads in this direction. The plan polices need to demonstrate to clearly how ecological infrastructure will be maintained through binding commitments.
You can help the CRP give the Calgary Region the plan it needs by:
* Attending Open houses – The CRP is conducting Open Houses through March (Link to CRP Open house listings.- extra Calgary open house not yet posted at time of this email). You can attend an open house and make your views known directly to CRP staff charged with recording feedback to revise the draft plan
* Email or fax – You can submit written comments to the CPR asking to improve the plan via email at info@calgaryregion.ca or fax at 403-932-2935
* Using the feedback form – at http://ws4.voxco.com/IntWeb.dll/online/NRG/3201451
With your help the Calgary region can get the plan it needs to safeguard our landscapes, water, wildlife, and quality of life!”
Just say NO! to a Calgary VETO 