-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
By Don Patterson
Staff Reporter
Okotoks town council stood up in opposition to the Mike Holmes-led Wind Walk development on Monday evening.
Councillors spoke out against the proposal at a special meeting held to discuss concerns over the impacts it could have on the town’s water supply, its roads and parks.
“My main concern all along has been that large a growth there of approximately 1,100 people right next to the border just creates all kinds of issues,” said Mayor Bill McAlpine.
The plan for the area includes residential housing, a commercial development and park spaces. More than 400 housing units and 80,000 square feet of retail space are proposed for the area.
The MD will be holding a public hearing for the proposal Thursday at 1:30 p.m. in High River at the Highwood Memorial Centre.
The Town of Okotoks contends the development should not be permitted under the intermunicipal development plan (IDP) between the Town and the MD. The IDP calls for low-density country residential development in rural areas around Okotoks.
At the top of McAlpine’s list of concerns is water. He said if the wells on the site do not provide enough water, the Town would end up having to supply the development.
McAlpine also said it will place significant pressures on roads and other amenities in the community, such as schools and recreation facilities.
The Town is also concerned about runoff from the community ending up in the town’s sewer system.
If push comes to shove, McAlpine said the matter could end up in front of the municipal governance board, but he would rather see the Town and MD go to mediation first.
Coun. Stephen Clark said the plans don’t take into account the cumulative effects it will have on water and traffic in Okotoks.
He is also concerned about safety for pedestrians crossing Highway 7 from the development in to town.
Clark said it would be difficult to build a pedestrian overpass over the highway in the area.
“Look at the grade there. You’re looking at the roof of Walmart from that highway. To do a pedestrian crossing would have to be quite high,” he said.
Clark said he wouldn’t be opposed to the MD approving a low-density development in the area.
“There needs to be a transition from urban to rural. We can give that to the MD, but it’s low density. It’s not 1,100 people going to our library, it’s not 1,100 people going to our recreation centre,” he said.
As for the development’s celebrity backer, Clark said Holmes doesn’t fully grasp the unique challenges facing the development or the position it would put the Town in.
“Certainly Mike Holmes is using his celebrity and certainly Okotoks has an international reputation as being a sustainable community. What Mike Holmes is in essence asking us to do is throw out the very thing that made us successful,” he said.
Okotoks Town Council continues to insist they are honouring a commitment made to Okotoks residents that they would would not rely upon a City of Calgary pipeline for water and respect the wishes of those who filled out the community survey to retain the population cap. The evidence appears to contradict the claims of the Mayor and Town Council.
Concerned citizen, Laurie Hodson attended the Okotoks Town Council meeting today and posed the following question of Mayor Bill McAlpine and Town Council:
“Background:
In a CH2MHill slide presentation dated 2009 June 12 (extracts attached), the CRP Regional Water/Wastewater Servicing Committee shows The Town of Okotoks scheduled for a pipeline to The City of Calgary identified for action in 2017, based on a full-CMP projected growth population.
Okotoks Council on 2009 June 15 unanimously moved that Okotoks reaffirm with the Calgary Regional Partnership, the current growth model of the Town of Okotoks, which includes:
• growth to but not beyond the urban growth boundaries as shown in the Okotoks/Foothills IDP (population of 30,000);
• exploration of sub-regional water supply solutions enabling Okotoks to continue to live within the natural carrying capacity of the Sheep River watershed, rather than a regional water pipeline;
• working with the MD of Foothills during the CMP transition period to determine appropriate growth and development patterns in and around Okotoks into the future and consultation with the public if a growth model beyond the 1998 MDP is to be considered.
The June 12th slide presentation is presumed to be an integral component of the Calgary Metropolitan Plan, formally adopted at the 2009 June 19 CRP General Assembly.
Question:
I respectfully ask that Council please:
• confirm that the June 19 CMP can be amended only with support of a CRP double majority
• confirm the June 12 CMP provision for a water pipeline from The City of Calgary, for action in 2017
• confirm CRP governance procedures applicable to The Town of Okotoks for CMP issues remaining unresolved i) beyond the 90-day “cooling-off” period following the June 19 CRP General Assembly and (ii) beyond the two-year CMP transitional period.
Thank you kindly,”
In other words, Hodson is asking the Town of Okotoks to confirm that despite what they have said, plans are already outlined for a water pipeline from the City of Calgary to be an action item by 2017. Further, once the Town of Okotoks signs on to the CRP, they will be subject to the Calgary veto on any unresolved issues (beyond the 90-day cooling off period and the 2-year transition period).
Not surprisingly, the Mayor responded to Hodson’s question by promising to “get back to him.” We will keep you posted as to the response.
For background and to view the CH2MHill slide presentation uncovered by Hodson.
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
Just say NO! to a Calgary VETO 