We are not against development

Here is yet another letter from the Central Springbank Task Force:

The Province predicts that the population of our region will double in the next 60 years. To accommodate this growth, the Calgary Regional Partnership was established. Their mandate is a good one: long-term planning to determine where this growth will occur.

Calgary has 5% the density of Manhattan and suffers some of the worst urban sprawl in North America. As the diameter of the city increases the area consumed and needed to be serviced increases by the square, public transport becomes unpractical, congestion increases and commute times ballon. The City of Calgary recognizes this as unsustainable; the city can no longer afford to build out and now plans to build up. If the population within the city limits doubles, it will still be just 10% of Manhattan.

The Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP) plans to increase the population of Calgary. But it also wants to increase the density of surrounding areas. The CRP has drawn a blue blob representing an “urban node” north of Springbank Airport. This will be a new mini-city with 8-10 dwellings / acre. It is our understanding that Springbank Residents were not involved in this process; if we are wrong we are certainly happy to be corrected.

Urban nodes will add to traffic congestion in and around Calgary, not reduce it. The only way to reduce traffic congestion is for cities to grow up and not out.  Nonetheless, in principle they could stop urban sprawl (their said purpose).  By restricting development to certain areas they have the potential to preserve countryside. However, the current proposals are critically flawed: they provide legislation that supports growth in certain areas but does not restrict growth outside these areas.

If high density nodes are  encouraged outside the city limits, what will prevent them getting bigger and eventually fusing together to create yet more urban sprawl? Its obvious what is needed is legislation to restrict growth and protect land, not encourage colonization. Unless you are a developer, the CRP in its current form, is arse backwards.

At the recent CRP open house in Cochrane, The planners were asked the question as to what would restrict growth of the urban nodes and prevent sprawl in what remains of the countryside. We were told that they had not thought of that and would look into it. There appeared to be no officials taking notes of the questions posed or the comments raised. The same question was posed at the Springbank open house. There was still no one taking notes. The answer was that growth outside the nodes would remain the responsibility of the MD.

The CRP allows growth, but does not restrict it. The CRP will not prevent urban sprawl, it will encourage it by legislating growth outside the city limits even if communities are opposed to it.

While there was no one taking notes at the Springbank CRP open house, there was the addition of two peace officers. If our elected officials and MD were in touch with the community they supposedly represent, they would know that Springbank is one of the safest and most peace-loving communities on Earth.  I can only hope they were not there to quell our voice but were invited to protect our community: no one else seems prepared to.

Richard Wilson.

Chair, Central Springbank Task Force for Sensible Development.

Below is another letter sent by a Springbank resident. Thanks Dave!

Dave Sikorski, Springbank resident comments regarding CMP.

Please accept these comments as my best attempt with limited time to respond to the CMP. Maybe to some extent the comments are a bit too specific relative to the CMP intent but I think they are still relevant.

Mention is made that the CMP would provide a guideline for local municipalities but that they will ultimately determine the nature of the development. However what authority, oversight body, appeal committee, process agreeable to the existing residents etc is provided to ensure that these guidelines are followed and to ensure the true interpretation of the CMP is met as the proposals for develop occur. Evidence within Springbank (since as a resident this is the area we best understand) already indicates that some of the very principles outlined in the CMP are not being met ‘now’ for some proposed major developments. If the current governing bodies do not have a leash then nothing inherently changes. What I would personally like to see is a process that communicates with the residents as the process unfolds so that cooperative consideration of the residents are heard and acted upon. In my short experience since the last City of Calgary annexation once the process reaches the higher levels eg. the MGB where a developer(s) get basically a fully day to present their case versus a concerned local community group (20 minutes) is effectively destined to limit and minimize true public input and concerns..seems the decision is already taken. So as not to get too long and drawn out I have put together some bullet points and/or questions below to target some specific concerns (in no particular order).

• If the fundamentals of water, waste water, transit, utilities servicing cannot be determined on a sound economic basis and respecting the tax implications to local residents then development proposals should not be justified. If the CMP says these are the criteria then interpretation is on subjective or left to interpretation later and must be proven to the public since it would seem that these are measurable and quantifiable elements.

• Local organizations that represent the collective community interests should have a significant seat at the table and the ability to appeal local governmental decisions directly for development that do not meet the CMP guidelines. The current process by which public input is gathered essentially does not get to the real interests of enough residents to truly call the process representative. In my opinion it has effectively minimized creative as well as dissenting opinions in order to satisfy the development directions currently under consideration. Some communities have some substantially knowledgeable internal organizations that could seriously contribute to the process as opposed to having to fighting the system. This is a waste of resources on both sides of the table and will lead to serious grassroots unrest within the community.

• I noticed reference made to compact urban nodes. At least in a rural sense (since these are being looked at outside of city boundaries), the location, the size, shape and content of these appears to be very much left up to the interpretation of developers at present. Additionally the spill over impact of large nodes (several hundred to several thousand homes) ie. water use, water run off, waste water management, traffic must extend beyond the boundaries of any proposed development. Nodes as describe in the CMP seem to imply more reasonable size projects than have been proposed now in our area. Just because it sounds like a duck doesn’t mean it is from what we have seen so far.

• There are very good examples of cluster type developments in Europe that do fit the nature of at least the rural nature of the Springbank community and mountain landscape. If we let development run up to the mountain sides as you might see in a city like Denver then we have truly lost something that very uniquely defines how people see Calgary.

• Problem at the moment seems to be that when any rural type development is proposed how is the infill between the cluster/nodes etc protected so that the sprawl and efficient, economic use of land and servicing attained. Focused and detailed planning must be applied but not on the scale that developers think and conceive of development that we have witnessed over the past several decades.

In general there are some constructive points and some good intentions expressed within the CMP … the devil will be in the details as they say.

Yours truly,

Please note the planners have renamed the draft Calgary Regional Partnership document the Calgary Metropolitan Plan.

Please see the welcome page to read Erique Massot report on recent developments and add your comments

 

The basic premise of the Calgary Metropolitan Plan is a good one - build up not out.  It seems however that though the city of Calgary will benefit from expanding up - Municipalities around the city are encouraged to grow out. This will lead to unsustainable sprawl, costing the MD TAX payers dearly and cause an environmental disaster. There are no provisions in the plan to stop sprawl.

Joint statements from a coalition of grass-root community planning groups that are opposed to the plan:

Under the guise of the new Provincial Land Use Framework, the Calgary Regional Partnership has created the Calgary Metropolitan Plan that is neither inline with the Land Use Framework or with overwhelming grass-roots 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.

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 www.priddis-millarville.ca

Bearspaw Sensible Development Group www.canadianguerilla.com

Central Springbank Task Force for Sustainable Development www.ourspringbank.ca

Highway 8 Sensible Development Group

Citizens for a Sustainable Okotoks
Just Say No to a Calgary Veto Petitioners www.nocalgaryveto.com

Springbank Community Planning Association

 

In our letters that we submit, we have to give our reasons as to why this entire concept of urbanizing the MD- from the Calgary Municipal Plan to the Growth Management Strategy - should be rethought. 

Below is a copy of another joint letters sent by our group as well as others that surround Calgary in response to the draft Calgary Regional Partnership document that was circulated at open houses - it may give some ideas as to how to proceed with a letter of your own.