-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
At the urging of Rocky View County, the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties (AAMDC) decided to take an in-depth look at the Alberta government’s trend towards “forced regionalization.” Their paper, released last month, confirms the worst fears about the governance structure of the Calgary Regional Partnership.
“Municipalities have a justifiable concern when elected councils no longer have the power to govern as granted by the Municipal Government Act,” says AAMDC President Bob Barss.
The Association has defined a model of cooperative regionalization that follows 10 principles:
Rocky View County Reeve Rolly Ashdown has indicated that the County’s position on the CRP is reinforced by the AAMDC’s paper. The County, along with the MD of Foothills opted out of the CRP, while the Town of Okotoks decided to join the partnership on a trial basis.
“Rural development is different from urban development and it needs to be considered differently,” said Ashdown, in the Rocky View Weekly newspaper. “Our position has never changed, we can’t have city-sized lots in the country, and we can’t give up our autonomy.”
Sources:
http://www.aamdc.com/news-release/500-forced-regionalization
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.
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:
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.”
View original article online at: http://www.westernwheel.com/2009/news/local-news/conservation-plan-for-southern-alberta-taking-shape-1038
by Don Patterson – Staff Reporter
Increased conservation efforts for southern Alberta are a good step forward but protecting water supplies and property rights are also crucial, said area residents at an open house on the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan last week.
MD of Foothills resident Jody MacPherson said the framework and process to date have not put enough emphasis on water supply.
“I want to see some kind of recognition that you can’t develop land without having water first,” she said.
MacPherson said conservation initiatives are important and needed, however, they should be based with on solid information.
Okotoks resident Laurie Hodson said there are positive elements emerging in the plan.
However, he said he would like to see more empirical data on how much water exists in the region.
“They have not to date engaged the best scientists in terms of an objective determination of how much water we have to divert as we proceed through a very dry cycle,” he said.
MD resident Rob Lake said he is pleased to see efforts at conservation, but he doesn’t want it to be too onerous on landowners.
“We want to find out the impact it’s going to have on our ranch and our style of life,” said Lake.
The plan will cover southern Alberta south of Calgary as far east as the Saskatchewan border and will include the foothills area.
Duncan MacDonnell, Alberta Sustainable Resources Development spokesperson, said the region is expected to see its population grow by two million people by 2076 with1.6 million people predicted to settle in the Calgary area. The regional plan has not been written yet, but he said it will balance the variety of land uses in the region while ensuring a healthy economy and environment.
“Population growth and water demand versus supply are the major drivers of change in the South Saskatchewan region,” he said.
MacDonnell said protecting the watershed will remain the priority land use in the eastern slopes, along with providing appropriate recreational opportunities.
Once the plan is in place municipalities will have the same authority to make land use decisions, but they will have to be consistent with the regional plans.
“They have to honour the parameters laid out in the regional plan… look at this as setting the goalposts,” he said.
The plan will include a vision for the region as well as identifying economic, environmental and social outcomes and strategies on how to achieve them.
“The final plan is going to explore relationships between urban and rural lands, watersheds, air sheds, conservation areas and tourism and recreation in the South Saskatchewan region,” said MacDonnell.
The Province has created seven regions and has mandated a plan will be created for each area. The Province has also called for the creation of plans for the Calgary and Edmonton areas.
The goal is to complete the regional plan by late 2010 and the Province is aiming to complete all seven by the end of 2012.
MacDonnell said each regional plan can be drafted to meet the unique needs of all areas.
“Each region will be a little different in how they approach things, but as long as they serve that original mandate they’re fine,” he said.
Key elements of the framework are calls to develop strategies for conservation on public and private lands and reducing the human footprint on the landscape.
As part of the Land Use Framework, the province is developing new legislative tools to encourage conservation.
MacDonnell noted a new policy created under the Alberta Land Stewardship Act is a conservation directive, which states, for any land identified to be set aside for conservation measures, compensation will be provided to landowners for any loss of market value.
“The land would stay in place and you’ll be compensated for it. It’s not like we’re taking the land away for you,” MacDonnell said. “The compensation is paid for any loss of market value.”
A second tool is transfer of development credits, which he said would allow landowners in areas identified for conservation to be able to sell the right to develop to other landowners.
The Province is holding open houses across the region to gather input from the public.
All information gathered will be given to regional advisory councils for review and consideration.
The councils will provide advice in a number of areas including future development, how provincial policies can work together, balancing competing land uses, impacts on aboriginal communities and location of major transportation and utility corridors.
Once the draft plan is completed, the councils will go back to the public for more input.
The provincial cabinet will review the final plan before it is ultimately approved.
For more information on the Land Use Framework see www.landuse.alberta.ca
dpatterson@okotoks.greatwest.ca
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.
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.”
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.
Hello everyone,
The number of people who have signed the Just Say No to a Calgary Veto petition is now hovering around 1000. I’m hoping that we can break through the 1000 mark so spread the word to your neighbours. They can sign the petition by emailing me at nocalgaryveto@me.com. A protest was held on June 12 and we received some media coverage (see some of the coverage summarized here).
The vote on the Calgary Metropolitan Plan (CMP) was held on June 19. The only members to ask for changes to the Calgary Metropolitan Plan were the MD of Foothills, the MD of Rocky View and the County of Wheatland. These three rural municipalities represent the largest land base in the area surrounding Calgary, so their unwillingness to sign puts a wrench in the provincial government’s plans–at least for now.
All three asked for major revisions to the CMP, including the Calgary veto. Their suggested revisions are not new–the changes have been put forward repeatedly and voted down by the Calgary Regional Partnership (for a recap on the requested changes, visit the nocalgaryveto blog).
Okotoks votes for the plan as is
The Town of Okotoks appears quite comfortable with the Calgary veto and voted in favour of it. Council continues to insist that it can maintain its population cap and refuse a Calgary water pipeline, while still signing on to the CMP. Folks, this is a downright refusal to face the facts as they are written into the CMP. It may even be said that the Mayor and Town Councillors have failed to do their due diligence. They have done nothing to ensure the verbal promises they have made to their citizens are in writing for the Calgary Regional Partnership and the provincial government to honour. And yet, they are willing to take out a two-page ad in the Western Wheel claiming the population cap is assured and that “sub-regional” water solutions will be sought, implying that a water pipeline from the Bow River is not in the cards.
Let’s review the facts (with thanks to Laurie Hodson for research):
-According to the Calgary Regional Partnership’s own presentation on June 12, 2009, a number of water infrastructure scenarios are looked at and the most cost effective option for Okotoks is identified as a regional supply from Calgary (based on growth to 58,000 people). Action would need to be taken by 2017. The option of a population cap and sub-regional water solution is not even considered anywhere in the presentation. (View the presentation, slides 21-22)
-The Town of Okotoks’ resolution voted on and adopted on June 15 promises ONLY to “explore” sub-regional water solutions-that’s it. There is no commitment beyond the vague idea of “exploration.” (View the resolution)
-The CMP commits local municipalities to pursuing common strategic directions at the “metropolitan” level.” (Definition of metropolitan: of or pertaining to a large city, its surrounding suburbs, and other neighboring communities.) (Read the CMP, see page 7)
-The CMP states, “member municipalities will amend and/or otherwise align all relevant local Municipal Development Plans (MDPs) and Intermunicipal Development Plans (IDPs) with the CMP within three years of the final approval of the CMP by the CRP and the Province of Alberta.” (see CMP, p. 7)
-“The CMP would be able to require that a water or transit line be placed through a municipal jurisdiction that may not be in favour of (or not in favour of some aspect of such a regional service). This would maintain the integrity of critical regional water, wastewater or transit services and be subject to a regional decision.” (see the CMP, p. 18)
-In other words, if it is judged to be in the best interests of the REGION to have Okotoks get its water via pipeline from the Bow, the CMP most certainly gives the CRP the right to force this on the Town of Okotoks, whether the local residents want it or not! If they can force a water pipeline THROUGH a community, why could they not force a water pipeline ON a community? This is particularly true if it was deemed to be in the best interests of the City of Calgary, which stands to gain financially by building and operating the water pipeline and billing Okotoks taxpayers for this service!
Despite what is written in various places in the Calgary Metropolitan Plan, Okotoks Council continues to vehemently insist they can not be forced to do anything against their will. It is astounding how little attention they have paid to what is written. They are quite frankly either practicing the worst kind of deception or totally asleep at the wheel.
Albertans for Responsible Land Use
Meanwhile, the coalition of community groups opposed to the Calgary Metropolitan Plan have now banded together to form an umbrella group to lobby for changes in the way government (at all levels) treats its citizens when it comes to land use planning. With more changes coming to various pieces of legislation that will give the provincial government increasing authority and decreased accountability, the group is determined to elevate their efforts to a higher level. The NoCalgaryVeto petitioners are being represented at the table as part of this new group. See the group’s website at www.ab-land-use.ca.
What next?
It remains to be seen what will happen with the three rural municipalities opting out of the CMP. The MD of Rocky View continues to furiously develop at a pace that has left residents reeling. Recently, the MD approved a new housing development called “Watermark” despite the fact that residents opposed it two-to-one. Even the City of Calgary’s claim that the effluent from the development’s sewage plant was unreliable and would put the City’s raw water supply at risk, was completely ignored. (Read more.)
The MD of Foothills is no doubt engaged in negotiations with the provincial government and publicly, the MD councillors have stated they would welcome provincial government intervention.
The City of Calgary gave first reading of its municipal plan, known as Plan It Calgary and community activists lobbied loudly for the plan (kudos for their efforts). Unfortunately, they seem willing to overlook the fact that rampant urban sprawl may not be planned within the city limits but it is most certainly in the cards for just outside the city’s boundaries. They can look forward to dense suburban housing developments spreading out into the countryside. The Stelmach government says there is no money for MRI’s or hospital emergency heli-pad repairs, but promises to pay for a series of rail lines snaking out in all directions to service the urban nodes or “blue blobs.” With the province out borrowing money and begging for an increase in federal transfer payments, what are the chances of those rail lines being funded? Will that stop housing developments in the blue blobs? I think not–developers can build the houses now and worry about the rail lines later, much later. In the meantime, those new residents will become car commuters into the City and put further strain on Calgary’s infrastructure.
If what you are reading here makes you angry, please get involved. There are a number of ways to help. You can make a donation to Albertans for Responsible Land Use. You can write letters to your local newspaper and/or your local MLA or municipal elected official. You can email or phone them as well. Speak up and let the government know that we won’t stand by silently while our democratic rights are eroded.
One last note, there is a by-election coming up in Calgary-Glenmore soon. It may be an opportunity to send a message to the provincial government. You don’t have to live in the Calgary riding to help campaign against the Tories. The Wildrose party, the Liberals and the NDP will all be running candidates opposing the Conservatives. You may also be interested in a strategic voting plan called, “the Democratic Renewal Project” at www.drpcalgary.com. These are all ways to send a message to the Stelmach government about the way it conducts itself.
Thanks.
Jody
CHQR Newsroom
6/11/2009
Hundreds of protestors packed an Okotoks hall Wednesday evening to voice their concerns on the Calgary Metropolitan Plan. The group says under the guise of the new Provincial Landuse Framework, the Calgary Regional Partnership project would be unfair to the areas surrounding the city. Group Spokesman Al Sacuta says it pretty much guarantees urban sprawl and would damage the area’s sensitive environment. Sacuta says the plan would far exceed the region’s water availability and could even damage agricultural lands. The group also complains the plan fails to incorporate public input meaningfully, and would allow the City of Calgary an ultimate veto over rural rights.
Just say NO! to a Calgary VETO 