rural

Rocky View Weekly: Partnership hoping to entice rural municipalities back to CRP

Truper McBride, the chair of the Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP), says the organization is hoping to entice estranged rural municipalities to rejoin the alliance.

He said the organization is seeking dialogue and cooperation with several municipalities, including Rocky View County.

“The task is to re-engage with the rural communities with a dialogue,” said McBride. “There are some things that we would like to talk about. We hope we can bring the family back together.”

The statement came after a Jan. 20-21 CRP retreat, during which representatives of the 15 member municipalities discussed the Province’s recent response to the organization’s planning document, the Calgary Metropolitan Plan (CMP).

McBride reiterated that residential developments densities of between eight and 10 units per acre are non-negotiable.

“We are committed to the densities,” said McBride. “We can have conversation on how we phase-in over time, we don’t expect everyone to get to eight to 10 overnight.”

Rocky View County Reeve Rolly Ashdown said the County is willing to sit down and talk, as it does see advantages to regional planning. However, he said the CRP’s targets for residential densities are not compatible with development in the county, nor is the current voting structure, which gives Calgary a veto.

“We wouldn’t be able to join,” said Ashdown. “Rocky View wants to maintain its autonomy.”

According to Ashdown, the County will continue to work with neighbouring municipalities.

“We would still look forward to cooperating on a friendly basis,” he said.

In its response to the CMP, the Province directed the CRP to reach out to neighbouring non-member municipalities. McBride said he didn’t sense that the Province was looking to force the non-member rural municipalities into the Partnership, but it could happen.

Crossfield Mayor Nathan Anderson, who represents his community within the CRP, said he wouldn’t support the partnership if it became mandatory, such as happened in northern Alberta’s Capital Region.

“I don’t think (membership) should be forced on anybody,” said Anderson. “I think we should work together as opposed to having the Provincial government try to tell us what to do. If the CRP starts going in a direction, as far as morphing into another layer of government, I won’t be supporting it.”

However, Anderson said his original pessimism about his community being part of the CRP was unwarranted after attending the retreat.

“I am optimistic that the counties will rejoin the CRP,” he said. “Everyone is so close to seeing more or less eye-to-eye. I was very impressed with the way Mayor Truper McBride led the conversation, it was about building bridges with the rurals as opposed to any kind of strategy to get them back in.”

View original article here:

http://www.rockyviewweekly.com/article/20110131/RVW0801/301319965/-1/RVW/partnership-hoping-to-entice-rural-municipalities-back-to-crp

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

Look west to see what can happen when a council is out of control

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.

Western Wheel: Councillors oppose Holmes development

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.

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.”

Email Update July 9, 2009: A protest, a vote and next steps

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

http://www.nocalgaryveto.com

Rural Calgary communities demand ‘voice’ in city’s growth

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/calgary/Rural+communities+demand+voice/1688832/story.html

By Jason Markusoff, Calgary Herald

CALGARY – The rural communities that occupy the vast majority of the 12,000 square kilometres in the Calgary area are demanding make-or-break changes to a proposed plan that would chart population growth and water servicing across the region.

Politicians from cities, towns, villages and rural districts around Calgary will meet today in Cochrane to address or at least ease concerns before a pivotal final vote next Friday on the legally binding Calgary Metropolitan Plan.

Calgary council and others from Strathmore to Canmore and Nanton to Crossfield have come out in favour of the plan as is or with small tweaks.

But the Municipal Districts of Foothills and Rocky View, along with Wheatland County, have sharp oppositions, including to the plan’s decision to hinge regional waterline access to the construction of urbanized, high-density neighbourhoods.

But the more emotion-provoking issue is a regional decision-making system that requires the City of Calgary’s approval for all votes to succeed.

The vote requires approval of members who host at least half the population of the Calgary area, but also 12 of 17 municipal members –which also means the region’s towns and cities can make decisions without the OK of any of the three rural governments.

“We have the land mass, but we don’t have the voice,” Rocky View Reeve Lois Habberfield said Thursday.

She said the voting structure is one of the council’s “hills to die on” –if the Calgary Regional Partnership doesn’t agree to changes, Rocky View won’t sign on.

The same goes for Wheatland and Foothills.

Hundreds of residents attended a meeting about Foothills reaction to the plan Wednesday in Okotoks.

“Every single person that stood at the mike was opposed,” said resident Jody McPherson, who organized a “No Calgary Veto!” tailgate protest before the meeting.

She and others have suggested the plan’s call for urban-style growth in the next 60 years south on Calgary’s south boundary amounts to endorsing more urban sprawl.

The plan’s advocates, including Airdrie mayor and alliance chairwoman Linda Bruce, say it’s designed to concentrate future growth in certain areas and corridors that will let the region co-operate on straightforward regional mass-transit lines, sewage and water systems.

jmarkusoff@theherald.canwest.com

CHQR AM 770: Protestors show up to fight Calgary Metropolitan Plan

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.

Read the story online.

Protest Backgrounder

Okotoks, June 9, 2009: Under the guise of the new Provincial Land Use Framework, the Calgary Regional Partnership has created the Calgary Metropolitan Plan (CMP). We believe the CMP is not aligned with the Land Use Framework or with overwhelming grassroots support for a sustainable future for Southern Alberta.  The plan was formed without adequate public input and is opposed by the majority of the rural community.

The shortfalls of the plan are:

•    it advocates regional population growth that exceeds water availability;
•    it facilitates further urban sprawl outside Calgary’s city limits;
•    there is no protection for agricultural and undeveloped land;
•    it fails to incorporate public input in any meaningful way; and
•    it includes a governance model that will allow an urban veto over rural rights.

These shortfalls will all but guarantee further urban sprawl, leading to unprecedented environmental damage to Southern Alberta and fiscal crisis for municipalities.

These concerns have been brought forward to the Calgary Regional Partnership during the public consultation open houses. However, there have not been any significant changes to the draft CMP as a result of public input.

The citizens of our communities will hold all elected officials accountable. We will consider both provincial and municipal politicians who either ratify this plan or do nothing to actively oppose it, directly responsible.

Citizen Groups United for Sustainable Development in Southern Alberta
Who we are:

Priddis-Millarville Residents Association http://www.priddis-millarville.ca
Bearspaw Sensible Development Group http://www.canadianguerilla.com
Central Springbank Task Force for Sustainable Development http://www.ourspringbank.ca
Highway 8 Sensible Development Group
Citizens for a Sustainable Okotoks
Just Say No to a Calgary Veto Petitioners http://www.nocalgaryveto.com
Springbank Community Planning Association