Just say NO! to a Calgary VETO
Sustainability
Rocky View also creating a new water utility
It’s called “Aquaduct Utilities Corporation” and soon it will be joining the list of utilities providing water and wastewater systems to municipalities across the province.
(By the way, one of the reasons the County is doing this is because of a monstrous mall on the outskirts of Calgary that continues to be plagued by water and wastewater problems costing taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. Read the background at http://bit.ly/b9YkRM)
The City of Grande Prairie, the County of Grande Prairie and the Town of Sexsmith created the Aquatera Utilities Inc. in 2004. (www.aquatera.ca) and now the County of Rocky View is getting in on the act. They’ve already incorporated the municipally owned and controlled corporation.
The scope of the corporation is “to fulfil a role of owning and operating treated water production and distribution system assets and services, wastewater collection and treatment systems and assets, and solid waste collection and disposal assets. Initial focus will be on water systems.”
The full discussion paper can be found on the Rocky View County website at:
http://bit.ly/aviVrU (PDF download)
Accompanying the discussion paper is a draft policy (pp. 35-37), but there is no statement recognizing the limited supply of water. They talk about geographic limitations, economic realities and infrastructure limitations but it’s perhaps not surprising at all, that there is no mention of limitations on the actual supply of water!
Following in Calgary’s footsteps towards rampant urbanization
The principal goals of Aqueduct include “capital expansion, growth and infrastructure.” This utility was created using taxpayer dollars and my guess is that it will need to keep adding customers to stay profitable. This seems similar to what the City of Calgary is doing by creating its own water utility. We are not only accommodating growth, we are creating a necessity (and an incentive) for growth. It’s a treadmill that we just can’t seem to get off!
I think ratepayers in Rocky View should ask questions about the financing of this new utility, the transfer of infrastructure from County ownership to private ownership and the financial model driving it all. My take on this is that it’s the County’s answer to the accusation that they will be going to go into debt to finance the water and wastewater systems–technically, it is the private company that is going to assume the debt. But what exactly are the risks and liabilities to County residents? That is certainly downplayed in this document.
Given the make-up of the board of directors of the similar Grande Prairie corporation (Aquatera http://www.aquatera.ca) where the majority on the board are elected officials, I think we can safely assume that several members of the Rocky View council are probably looking at a some supplementary income for their new gig on the board of Aqueduct. It is customary for board members of private companies to receive compensation of some type. Can we assume that this board will be any different?
Calgary Regional Partnership and the “water supply business”
The discussion paper also offers some insight into the behind-the-scenes discussions about water. The following section outlines the position of the Calgary Regional Partnership with respect to water:
Over the last three years, the Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP) has also staked a position in the water supply business. The focus of the CRP has been on examining and planning for the potential water supply to urban style developments from a central supplier (Calgary) or from sub-regional centres such as Cochrane. Studies conducted have focused on triple bottom line analysis which has been over-shadowed by the economic considerations. Clearly, supply from a single plant through pipelines is, in most instances, less expensive than building and operating several new water treatment plants.
Conclusions reached by the CRP assume that only urban style development is economically feasible to service and sets aside any other development opportunities. That leaves many of the developments contemplated outside urban nodes searching for solutions for water services. Politics aside, the studies and conclusions of the CRP should not be lost on the County. Fewer treatment plants and longer trunk lines are still less expensive than building and operating several treatment plants.
The discussions above put the County in a position to carefully consider its needs and long term directions, thereby charting its own course for the supply of water to its constituents.
The County of Rocky View decided not to join the CRP and is looking for alternate ways of securing water. During the public consultations on the Calgary Metropolitan Plan (CMP), representatives of the Calgary Regional Partnerships were less than forthcoming about the partnership’s position on the “water supply business.” There was no mention of Calgary getting into the business of supplying water to their rural neighbours as part of the CRP.
In fact, when residents turned out to the open houses in large numbers and identified water supply as a major concern, it didn’t even rate as one of the top concerns in the final report on the public consultation. The rationale was that water issues would be covered in the consultations for the South Saskatchewan River Regional Plan. There certainly was no clear communication of the plans by the City of Calgary to create a new water utility to provide water and wastewater services to members of the CRP. As if having a veto isn’t enough, the City is also given the green light to control the water distribution to communities on the outskirts.
New corporation was quietly approved by Cabinet
The discussion paper also indicates that the new Aqueduct Corporation has already received Cabinet approval. Ironically, the author of the paper, Rocky View’s Chief Administrative Officer, Robert Coon goes on to say that prior to any action there is a need for “policy development and adoption by Council to provide direction and care and clarity to administration, system operators and developers about how water services are delivered in the County. Without those policies and their coordination with other planning documents, including the Growth Management Strategy, Rocky View is left without formal direction and unable to supply consistent answers to concerns raised by constituents.”
I guess none of that direction and coordination was important to Cabinet, as they approved the corporation anyway! If this isn’t an example of irresponsible decision-making, I don’t know what would be. Basically, what he’s saying is: “Jiminy Cricket, we’ve gone ahead and made the decision, without the facts–so we’d better hurry up and get our facts together so that it looks like we knew what we were doing.” (see page 7).
Ah, it’s these little nuggets buried in a 41 page document that make reading the other 40 pages worthwhile.
P.S. In case Rocky View County decides to remove the report from their website, I’ve also posted a copy on this blog at:
Paying for “water for life”: Calgary creates utility to deliver water to neighbours for a fee
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.”
Western Wheel: Conservation plan for southern Alberta taking shape
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
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.
Okotoks citizen questions the mayor and council on water pipeline plans
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.
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
No agreement over growth plan
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/agreement+over+growth+plan/1692476/story.html
By Jason Markusoff, Calgary Herald
Calgary’s regional alliance met Friday without resolving the major problems Calgary’s biggest rural neighbours have with the region’s growth plan, an impasse that may ultimately force the Stelmach government to step in.
Fifteen of the 17 member municipalities of the Calgary Regional Partnerships voted against making no fundamental changes on water sharing and land use–but several lesser, conciliatory ones–before the vote Friday on the 70-year plan.
The holdouts are the Municipal Districts of Foothills and Rocky View, whose councillors said the disagreements are relatively minor and a resolution is still possible.
Urban leaders in the group disagree, saying the rural districts’ demands to scrap density rules, alter planned growth areas and conditions for water sharing would render meaningless the long-awaited plan to concentrate future growth without building over too much farmland.
“The very principles of sustain-ability could not be met if we make those changes,” said Airdrie Mayor Linda Bruce, the group’s chairwoman.
Foothills council must follow the wishes of residents, Deputy Reeve Terry Waddock said. Hundreds of them voiced opposition to the plan this week, particularly to a voting structure that would give Calgary an effective veto on regional decisions, as well to a growth map that proposes more urban-style growth in the rural land just south of Calgary.
Although Rocky View and Foothills occupy much of the land in the alliance, the partnership has enough supportive voters to ratify the long-range plan without them.
The blueprint, dubbed the Calgary Metropolitan Plan, is mandated under Alberta’s new land-use framework.
Municipal Affairs Minister Ray Danyluk said he’s confident Calgary’s neighbours can agree among themselves, and that he doesn’t want to run interference if he doesn’t have to.
“This government cannot afford the duplication in regional planning.”
Cochrane Mayor Truper McBride said the urban-rural split doesn’t really exist anymore, since Friday’s “yes” vote included Wheatland County, the rural district surrounding Strathmore.
But the county’s Shirley Reinhardt said Wheatland still needs time to consider whether it will ultimately sign on–whether or not it can iron out its serious concerns afterwards.
Wheatland abruptly exited the regional group last fall, but came back to the table after a meeting with Ted Morton, the Sustainable Resource Development minister.
jmarkusoff@theherald.canwest.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
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
Media Advisory: Community groups protest Calgary Metropolitan Plan
Okotoks, June 9, 2009: The chairs of grassroots rural community development groups surrounding the City of Calgary will be holding a TAILGATE PROTEST to draw attention to serious shortfalls in the Calgary Metropolitan Plan (CMP). The groups believe the CMP needs major revisions before ratification on June 19.
WHEN: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 @ 6:30 p.m.
WHERE: Foothills Centennial Centre, 4, 204 Community Way (located behind the Okotoks RCMP detachment office) Google Location Here
WHAT: Community leaders will speak briefly about concerns, prior to a formal meeting organized by the MD of Foothills. Speakers on behalf of the protesters to include:
• Vice-President of the Priddis-Millarville Residents Association, Suzanne Oel;
• Chair of the Bearspaw Sensible Development Group, Al Sacuta;
• Co-founder of Citizens for a Sustainable Okotoks, Dr. Nancy Ginzer; and
• Former Okotoks Town Councillor, Laurie Hodson.
See the attached backgrounder for more information.
Parking is expected to be limited. Additional parking is available at the Centennial hockey arena adjacent to the Foothills Centennial Centre.
Also available for comment is J.C. Anderson, founder of Anderson Exploration, who opposes the CMP. He says, “to place the destiny of the MD landowners and residents completely in the hands of Calgary City Council forever is “simply madness.” More at: https://nocalgaryveto.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/anderson-speaks-out/
For interviews and contact information for all of the above community leaders:
Jody MacPherson
Organizer of the NoCalgaryVeto petition
Cell: 403-560-9369
http://www.nocalgaryveto.com
Just say NO! to a Calgary VETO 