[feepa]

Mandel threatens suit

Susan Ruttan, The Edmonton Journal
published: October 10, 2007 6:34 am

Edmonton city council will look for ways, including legal action, to fight for its rights if it doesn't get a good regional deal from the province, says Mayor Stephen Mandel.

"We have lots of options and we're looking at every one of them," Mandel told The Journal's editorial board Tuesday.

"Edmontonians can no longer pay the freight for the region."

He declined to specify possible steps the city might take, but he confirmed that legal action will be on the table if the provincial government doesn't sort out the regional problem.

The Stelmach government has appointed a task force to look at 24 municipalities in the Edmonton region and recommend a way they can work jointly to handle the upgrader boom now unfolding in Strathcona and Sturgeon counties. The task force has a January deadline.

Edmonton is distressed that it's burdened by many of the costs of the boom, such as providing roads and transit, but will share none of the property tax revenue the upgraders will produce.

Mandel's original optimism about the task force seems to be fading.

"My understanding is there's a growing list of things that this committee can't solve, because the region is so dysfunctional," he said. "So they're leaving this big list for the premier. The list is growing and growing."

The task force is headed by former provincial bureaucrat Doug Radke, who made a similar report on Fort McMurray.

Mandel pointed out that the provincial cabinet that will deal with the Radke report includes four powerful politicians from the area around Edmonton -- Iris Evans, a former Strathcona County mayor; Premier Ed Stelmach, former reeve of Lamont County; Doug Horner, MLA for Spruce Grove, St. Albert and Sturgeon County; and Fred Lindsay, MLA for Stony Plain.

He said provincial bureaucrats seem to understand Edmonton's predicament, but he doesn't know if the politicians do.

"I look at our influence within government and I have to question whether we're going to have enough influence to change the course," he said.

The mayor, who is seeking re-election, was shocked last month when the province announced new infrastructure grants that were awarded by a formula that favoured Calgary and rural Alberta over Edmonton.

Mandel said the top issue he's heard from voters is about Edmonton getting fair treatment from the province.

"People are tired of Edmonton not getting its fair share," he said. "I think it's rung a bell with them."

He said he thinks many citizens in the region support the city's concerns, even though their politicians don't.

"I can't tell you the number of people from Sherwood Park who have come up to me and said, 'who should I vote for?' "

Edmonton's regional problems go back half a century, to a decision of the Ernest Manning government not to approve a royal commission recommendation that the city annex Refinery Row.

sruttan@thejournal.canwest.com

© The Edmonton Journal 2007

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=214526bb-be95-4803-82ab-f661905f573d&k=83548

-30-

[feepa]

Will the real Stephen Mandel stand up and be passionate?
We need to see leadership to rouse voters to protest Stelmach's economic snub

Scott McKeen, The Edmonton Journal
Published: October 10, 2007 1:50 am

It's time for the real Stephen Mandel to stand up and lead the capital city to prominence in Alberta.

It's time for Mandel to rediscover his inner brat and light a fire under Edmonton's collective rear-end.

It's time for Mandel to rally the troops against those who would disregard Edmonton's ambitions, including Premier Ed Stelmach.

Why vote for Mandel on Oct. 15, when there's little doubt he'll be re-elected? When Don Koziak, the only semi-credible challenger, ran a campaign that was lame and lethargic? When the rest of the mayoral field is from, well, left field?

First, because Mandel's rookie term was a breath of fresh air and fresh ideas. Because he is that rarest of politicians -- one with fiscal savvy, a social conscience, as well as a love for art, architecture and efficient civic services. Because he made headway on the historic, confounding problem of regional disparity. Not with annexation threats or whining, as was the case with past councils. Mandel did it with some bold and astute moves.

First, city council pulled out of the fictitious Alberta Capital Region Alliance. Then Mandel ordered credible studies to prove Edmonton's point -- that a divided region risks billions of dollars in growth.

His moves forced the provincial Tories to address an issue they've long tried to avoid. As we speak, the province works away at a growth plan for the region. Will it address Edmonton's long-standing complaints? Don't hold your breath.

Mandel's rookie term wasn't pitch perfect. He made some gaffes, not the least of which was endorsing Jim Dinning in the provincial Tory leadership race.

Granted, Mandel feared a Ted Morton victory. And Mandel's old pal Ed Stelmach was in third place at the time. But Mandel should have stayed away from the race.

Mandel was shocked a few weeks back when Stelmach announced municipal grants that gave Edmonton far less per-capita than Calgary or Strathcona County. The mayor felt betrayed by his old friend. Yet wasn't Mandel's endorsement of Dinning the first betrayal?

Mandel also revealed a tendency to work from the inside-out on issues these past three years. Instead of rallying citizens against the province as Dave Bronconnier did in Calgary, Mandel lobbied behind closed legislature doors.

Calgary ended up with higher per-capita municipal funding than Edmonton. Coincidence? Perhaps, but there is an old adage about squeaky wheels and grease.

Mandel's first-time homebuyers program was another example of his inside-out style of politics. Mandel went quietly to the school boards, as well as to province to get the required legislative changes. Then he unveiled the program to citizens, some of whom were furious at the lack of consultation.

When he was a city councillor, Mandel aired his ideas for neighbourhood rejuvenation at hall meetings in his ward, to rally support. As a councillor, he was feisty and passionate in fighting for his ward and this city.

We saw too little of the old Mandel during the term, or in this mayoral campaign. The campaign's been a dud, partly because Mandel failed to engage and enrage voters on those two natural sore points: Stelmach's funding formula; and regional disparity.

Make no mistake. I'm endorsing Mandel again for mayor. He fulfilled most of his campaign promises from 2004 and is a smart, well-rounded and modest politician.

I'm also endorsing Mandel because he needs your vote. Mandel needs a strong mandate to stand up to the province and to arrogant county mayors who refuse to accept any responsibility for Edmonton's burden.

He can't rally people who won't rally themselves. But he should be the one telling you that, not me.

smckeen@thejournal.canwest.com

© The Edmonton Journal 2007

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/cityplus/story.html?id=bddbe3c4-e001-4211-b0fb-b71b97e62a0a&p=2

-30-

[Boris2k7]

Good on Mandel for pushing the province on this regional issue. I just wish that he didn't need to draw Calgary into this fight.

[Kevin_foster]

Good on Mandel for pushing the province on this regional issue. I just wish that he didn't need to draw Calgary into this fight.

Don't take it personally; think of him using Calgary as a tool for his arguments :)

Anyways, aside from provincial funding; what is important here is HOW the outlying communities VOTE on the 15th.

I know I'll be voting for the guy who is in most favor of cooperation with "the big city". There are some scary (scary) candidates out there who do nothing but toting the independence of their community and how clearly their intentions are to hold Edmonton hostage etc. etc.

[Boris2k7]

Don't take it personally; think of him using Calgary as a tool for his arguments :)

No, I agree. That's what I meant when I said "I wish he didn't need to." (emphasis on the need, sorry)

I know I'll be voting for the guy who is in most favor of cooperation with "the big city". There are some scary (scary) candidates out there who do nothing but toting the independence of their community and how clearly their intentions are to hold Edmonton hostage etc. etc.

There are probably people like that in the towns around Calgary too. Although I'm not totally clear on the politics out there, I'm sure that places like Cochrane or Okotoks would be a lot less willing to by absorbed into Calgary than Airdrie or Chestermere. Not that the future annexation of Cochrane is even going to be possible anymore, what with a big provincial park being slapped inbetween.

Not that we should be annexing them anyways. The attitude towards regional cooperation would presumably be the same though.

[Surrealplaces]

It's good to see Mandel pushing this. It's something that probably should have been done a long time ago.

[Coldrsx]

and right around election time, well played.

[mersar]

Yep, a smart time to try to bring this really into focus. I was reading some information on some candidates from around Edmonton the other day, some of it is quite scary as to how they want to isolate themselves from contributing to the region.

There are probably people like that in the towns around Calgary too. Although I'm not totally clear on the politics out there, I'm sure that places like Cochrane or Okotoks would be a lot less willing to by absorbed into Calgary than Airdrie or Chestermere. Not that the future annexation of Cochrane is even going to be possible anymore, what with a big provincial park being slapped inbetween.

Not that we should be annexing them anyways. The attitude towards regional cooperation would presumably be the same though.

From what I've seen a lot of the towns around Calgary are a lot more willing to work together on a regional basis, though its probably as there is enough space between that the things that are worked on won't threaten their towns too greatly.

[frinkprof]

Can't blame Mandel for taking a squeaky wheel tactic. He saw it work for Calgary and isn't about to let Ed try slipping the quick-fix funding agreement to shut municipalities (mostly Calgary) up to get his poll numbers to go up a bit.

Not to pass it off as Mandel being opportunistic without backing it up with a real issue. The issue is indeed big and it's time that the Edmonton region works together to share some of the real costs.

[Western Spaghetti]

Not to pass it off as Mandel being opportunistic without backing it up with a real issue. The issue is indeed big and it's time that the Edmonton region works together to share some of the real costs.

Agreed.

[Edmonchuck]

No, I agree. That's what I meant when I said "I wish he didn't need to." (emphasis on the need, sorry)



There are probably people like that in the towns around Calgary too. Although I'm not totally clear on the politics out there, I'm sure that places like Cochrane or Okotoks would be a lot less willing to by absorbed into Calgary than Airdrie or Chestermere. Not that the future annexation of Cochrane is even going to be possible anymore, what with a big provincial park being slapped inbetween.

Not that we should be annexing them anyways. The attitude towards regional cooperation would presumably be the same though.

I dare you to say Calgary is annexing Airdrie...dare you... ;)

Calgary has enjoyed unicity freedom for a long time, but just wait - your trun at regional crap is coming.

...and funny enough, Bronco gets it. He has admitted that the regional set-up in Edmonton is disadvantageous to Edmonton....

[rapid_business]

/\ not to mention the fact that Calgary doesn't even come close to having the same problems that Edmonton does with it's outlying municipalities.

For one, a much larger percentage of the regions population (compared to Calgary that is), lives in adjacent communities to the city. So that brings the whole taxation issue into light. And second, they don't have the problem of the all the taxes from industry set up just outside of the city limits going to other municipalities, while the cities feels the weight of it.

[Boris2k7]

/\ not to mention the fact that Calgary doesn't even come close to having the same problems that Edmonton does with it's outlying municipalities.

For one, a much larger percentage of the regions population (compared to Calgary that is), lives in adjacent communities to the city. So that brings the whole taxation issue into light. And second, they don't have the problem of the all the taxes from industry set up just outside of the city limits going to other municipalities, while the cities feels the weight of it.

That's one of the main reasons that the unicity model was started in the first place. A review of the 4 principles of the McNally report (note: I'm not suggesting that they are either right or wrong here):

1) In one metropolitan economic and social unit, tax base equity is important.

2) Where any business tax base is occurring just outside an urban municipality, the tax base generated from this development should accrue to the same municipality that provides educational and other municipal services to the workers and their families.

3) Urban municipalities are entitled to growing space, so they need to expand into rural areas.

4) Where areas adjacent to a city take on urban characteristics, these areas are best planned and governed by one municipality.

For better or worse, these principles form what the Calgary Region looks like today, taking it from a small city on the Bow to a Metropolitan Area, and it's reflected in the attitudes of the city and its politicians, as well as its urban form and infrastructure.

[jawagord]

[QUOTE=Edmonchuck;3106422]

Calgary has enjoyed unicity freedom for a long time, but just wait - your trun at regional crap is coming.
QUOTE]

Calgary will enjoy unicity freedom for the forseeable future. The towns surrounding Calgary are few and far away, Okotoks - 23km, Airdrie-20km, Cochrane-18km, Chestermere-10km, enough space for 5 or 6 Calgarys to fit into the areas in between. Calgary has established relationships where it provides sewage treatment for Cochrane and potable water and sewage treatment for Chestermere. The industrial tax base is largely in Calgary and not in the surrounding MD's. The recently completed annexation agreement with Rockyview MD provides the city with plenty of room to grow.

"The agreement satisfies mutual interests for both The City and the MD of Rocky View. The City achieves an additional 14 years worth of residential land upping its total to a 35-year supply. Similarly, The City has acquired 12 years additional industrial land in the vital southeast industrial corridor increasing its total inventory to 32 years."

[Edmonchuck]

Calgary has enjoyed unicity freedom for a long time, but just wait - your trun at regional crap is coming.
QUOTE]

Calgary will enjoy unicity freedom for the forseeable future. The towns surrounding Calgary are few and far away, Okotoks - 23km, Airdrie-20km, Cochrane-18km, Chestermere-10km, enough space for 5 or 6 Calgarys to fit into the areas in between.

...funny thing though, the fight is Edmonton vs the counties...resource revenue...upgrader alley....you bet your a$$ that if this type of income was on Calgary's doorstep...the fight would be on...

[ArtRambo]

They are building a ring road in Edmonton, a road can also be a barrier, so the city should use the opportunity to construct toll booths and make outsiders pay if they want to come within the ring road. It could also be used for social engineering, to separate the civilized from the barbaric, driving nuisances like vinyl siding, tatoo parlours and liquor stores outside the pale. One of the biggest problems with homelessness is it's visibility, if homeless people were on the outskirts of town no one would notice them.

[rapid_business]

They are building a ring road in Edmonton, a road can also be a barrier, so the city should use the opportunity to construct toll booths and make outsiders pay if they want to come within the ring road.

The only problem is that parts of the AHD wouldn't be in city boundaries. So, SH. PK. drivers cross the AHD while still in Strathacona County. In complete honesty, you can't wall off the city and charge a toll for the non-members. Think of our role as a connecting point for truck traffic from GP and further north, not to mention the oilsands. What you would do is shoot the cities economy in the foot, and give reason for people to set up shop outside the city limits.


It could also be used for social engineering, to separate the civilized from the barbaric, driving nuisances like vinyl siding, tatoo parlours and liquor stores outside the pale.

Are you forgetting that this is what AHD actually contains. What do you suppose we do with the large percentage of homes and businesses that fall under this catagory that are already within the city?

One of the biggest problems with homelessness is it's visibility, if homeless people were on the outskirts of town no one would notice them.

Now I know you're joking. This whole post has to be a farce in light of a comment like this.

[chenmau]

I'm a bit out of touch with what's happening in my old home town. Is regional consolidation into one huge municipality on the table (like Toronto was in the mid 90's)?

[feepa]

I'm a bit out of touch with what's happening in my old home town. Is regional consolidation into one huge municipality on the table (like Toronto was in the mid 90's)?
something is in the works. It better be. Not sure if it will be full fledge amalgamation. Some sort of regional government would be nice. This story has been brewing for the last 50 years. I think its about to come to a head in the next 12 months.

[Kevin_foster]

Im all for amalgamation, except St. Albert :P

Unless they promise to transform it into an Edmonton version of the French Quarter.

[rapid_business]

/\ I think your Paris trip is getting to your head.

[brento79]

I am voting for Ken Lesniak in Sherwood Park. He will be the best for both regions.

[feepa]

.

IPAC Address, 19 April, 2006 Jim Lightbody

The Constant Garden: Continuing questions about city-regional government for Edmonton

OUTLINE:
1. Canada is a nation of cities (2001 census)
2. The basic issues in metro governing
3. Pressure points in the Edmonton city-region
4. Several points I’ve been pondering

1. Canada is a nation of cities (2001 census)

FIRST, as a general introduction:
The census of 2001 establishes the backdrop, and preliminary reports indicate that trends set then have continued:
(a) Over 80 per cent of Canadians live in 139 urban spaces (of 10,000 or more people);
(b) Most population growth has accrued in the 27 CMAs (of 100,000+);
(c) 57 per cent of Canadians live in the 15 largest CMAs (over 300,000);
(d) Just 6 of these CMAs – Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa-Gatineau, Calgary, Edmonton – contained 42 per cent of all residents (and these city-regions captured two-thirds of all population growth from 1991-2001);
(e) The four largest urban regions (not CMAs) accounted for 51% of the population, up from 49% in 1996 and 41% in 1971.
What this means is that massive sustained urbanization over the last political generation has placed tremendous pressure on governments to adapt public policy and governing institutions to new circumstances.
(f) Finally, in 1996, on the eve of the city-region consolidation period in central Canada, the 10 largest CMAs accommodated 292 general purpose local governments – or, one for each 50,000 residents. Today, of these ten, only Edmonton (with some 2 dozen municipalities) remains a multi-centered and governmentally dispersed city-region.

SECOND, hidden within these numbers is a general social trend (that is relevant to Edmonton’s city-region) which reveals that specific groups of Canadians have had to live in central cities and not their suburban fringes.
(a) 94 per cent of the 2.2 million new arrivals to Canada, from 1991-2001, settled in a city-region and about three-quarters chose to live in Toronto, Vancouver and Montréal. Over three in five foreign born residents of Canada live in the three largest CMAs, but only 30 per cent of Canadians born in this country live there. By chance and by design, most newcomers must live in core cities.
(b) Until 1961 almost all urban immigrants (92 per cent) came from Europe but today only about one fifth do. Vancouver, for example, has 37.5 per cent foreign-born residents, many of whom were hardly ‘marginalized’ economically having arrived under the aegis of the 1986 Investor Program. Even in Montréal during the 1990s, the immigrant population grew at more than twice the rate of the Canadian-born population.
(c) Also of demographic and policy importance is that the great majority of the 1990s cohort of migrants was from visible minority groups (68% in Montréal, 78 in Toronto, 83 in Vancouver).
(d) By 2001, 85 per cent of all immigrants lived in an urban area, but only 56 per cent of native born Canadians. What this means is that there has developed a significant demographic separation as indigenous Canadians have hightailed it to the quasi-sylvan joys of the separated suburb leaving the central city for new arrivals.
Recent immigrants are not only attracted to major cities where economic advantage is foreseen but also, as in 19th century America and early 20th century Canada, are drawn to same-ethnic enclaves within them. These enclaves (or, ghettos) can constitute a source of psychological support and physical protection, yet also spatially separate first generation new residents in an identity preserve. These cultural islands provide networks for those who speak another language at home, are not university educated, and younger. On the other hand, “Negative effects come from increased strains on urban infrastructure and increased use of health services, income support and other social programs” (McDonald, 2004: 91, 82).
Today, city-regions face policy consequences as new arrivals place new pressures on the urban policy agenda. Newcomers to Canada immediately suffer an ‘income penalty’ partly due to inadequate language skills, non-recognition of credentials earned in origin countries, and the genteel practice of discrimination. Recent studies have shown that, “immigrants, on average, contribute less in taxes and receive slightly greater public transfers than the Canadian born” (Grant, Sweetman, 2004: 20). At least for an adjustment period they will require a measure of employment support and access to city social services. Implicitly required is a community commitment to language education and the means to align professional qualifications with Canadian standards.
While some policy consequences for central cities, like demands for racial equity in employment and culturally-aware policing, are obvious and direct, others may not be. For instance, new urban immigrants use public transit: one recent survey found “that recent immigrants are much more likely than the Canadian born to use public transit to commute to work, even after controlling for age, gender, income, distance to work, and distance between place of residence and the city centre” (Heisz, Schellenberg, 2004: 187). So, the internationalizing of Canadian city-regions has increased demand for effective public transit, (even if these demands have yet to penetrate into Edmonton’s suburbs).


2. The basic issues in metro governing
The well documented middle-class flight from North American core cities pre-dated the 20th century. In 1888, James Bryce noted its American origins in these terms: “Taxes are usually so much higher in the larger cities than in the country districts or smaller municipalities, that there is a strong tendency for rich men to migrate from the city to its suburbs in order to escape the city collector” (Vol. I, 566).
Similar conditions were not unknown in Canada. In 1905 for instance, the Edmonton Journal carried an advertisement by Crawford and Weeks, realtors, for town lots in the neighbouring city of Strathcona: “Closer in than lots in Edmonton …that are close enough for a business man to live. A wonderful chance for speculation” (2 September).
Typically, Canadian city-regions have been comprised of a well-established city core ringed by both dormitory and industrial satellite suburbs. These, together with the partially rural municipal districts within the city-region’s most proximate trading and commuting hinterland, can be labeled a ¬metropolitan system. Each has been uniquely configured, but all have been subject to centripetalizing pressures due to the persistence of three problem areas for policy-makers.
The roots of these problems are simply to be found in urban development where expansion of an urban centre in conjunction with the permanence usually accorded local boundaries of municipalities presents the classic dilemma for metropolitan areas (anywhere on earth) as population growth spills across traditional community lines.
Policy problems that are either area-wide or are the concern of adjacent municipalities are no longer met with any policy-making apparatus with appropriate authority.
All major city-regions, despite the unique social, economic and political configurations of each, have had to come to grips with generally similar, or generic, standing policy issues.
Comparative experience reveals that these general issues may be grouped into three public policy arenas, any one of which may provide the cathartic spark for a reorganization initiative. Very succinctly, these areas relate to the following:
* First, the coordination of specific public policies between and among the metropolitan municipalities;
* Second, addressing questions of equity in the ability to generate revenues to pay for local services and to ensure rough equality in the levels provided all citizens of the city-region.
* Third, the matter of establishing clear lines of accountability to the public for the choices either made or not taken.

An additional set of policy pressures has emerged over the last political generation with globalization; city-regions have themselves had to become more institutionally centralized to remain competitive in the world economy and to survive well. Hence, the provincial policies of amalgamation during 1996-2001 in Ontario and Quebec were partly in response to these pressures since so-called informal “governance” activities proved too flimsy both on paper and in practice.
This is the public policy Trojan Horse for any imperial dreaming by Edmonton’s suburbs. World pressures on real city-regions will most probably be found in two areas for Edmonton:
(a) in coordination, as one voice for economic and social development (promotion and planning) is expected by potential investors; and
(b) in equity issues as newcomers to the region are forced by their needs for public policy to locate in core city (i.e. suburbs become free riders).
As with a pressure cooker, at some indeterminate stage these forces may present as sufficiently serious to provoke a formal reorganization of city-regional governing structures. But, also well recognized is the resistance of municipal councillors and their direct clienteles to any form of reorganization that might infringe upon established power bases and patronage relationships.
The generic set of metropolitan policy issues can always be more easily stipulated than resolved. Even some of the metropolitan reforms fifty years ago proved unsatisfactory: both the Winnipeg and Toronto experience in Canada suggests that these problems remained so unresolved, even under a well devised two tier format, as ultimately to require completed centripetal change (Lightbody, 1999: 178).
Again, in all of this, the basic difficulty in metropolitan governing relates to the development of problem-solving units of government that bear some rough congruence with the observed policy problems.


3. Pressure points in the Edmonton city-region
The fourth largest metropolitan region in Canada is the Edmonton – Calgary corridor which accounts for 72 per cent of Alberta’s population (7% of Canada’s). The total population in 2001 was 2,150,000 (up 12.3% from 1996), the largest growth rate of the four metro agglomerations.
I once wrote that “The sustaining argument of suburban councillors in any governmentally fragmented or polycentric metropolitan system is that there exists great divergence in the social composition of their metropolis which, when codified by the artifact of local boundary, justifies [their existence]” (1999: 176).
What, specifically, can be said for Edmonton?
In the decade 1991-2001, the population in the suburbs of the Edmonton CMA grew 21.2% while the core city increased by only 8.0%.
So, there was growth but it came with the concentration of selected groups from the overall population within the core city. To be precise, while 71.0% of this region’s population lives in the city of Edmonton, by choice and of necessity:
* 74.2% of all aboriginal persons live in the core city;
* 86.7% of all foreign-born persons live there;
* 90.0% of all rental dwellings are in the core city;
* 95.3% of all visible minorities live in Edmonton city. Or, in other words, St. Albert’s number of visible minorities is 4% less than a real, free-standing, city like Red Deer, 15% less than that of Calgary; 19% less than in Edmonton. The average family income in St. Albert was $55,000; in Edmonton it was $41,000. Home ownership is 19% higher in St. Albert than in Edmonton.
Edmonton, as a central city, has become different from its CMA (but it would not be if its boundaries coincided with the urban region – like Calgary):
(A) The census data (2001) reveal that Edmonton city’s population is 5% more visible minorities (19.4%) than the CMA average, a minimum of 17 percentage points more than any of its suburbs except St. Albert (only 15% points higher). The city has 4% more foreign-born residents than the CMA (21 vs. 17 per cent) and 12% higher than any suburb. Overall, the city’s suburbs are akin, in these two measures, to more distant, free-standing, cities like Red Deer and Lethbridge.
(B) The city has the lowest percentage of home ownership (59%); the mean is 27% points lower than its suburban fringe. All Edmonton suburbs have at least 20% higher rate of home owners than free-standing cities like Red Deer. Every suburb has higher average family incomes than Edmonton except the 3 villages and Leduc County. St. Albert and Strathcona are fully a third higher. [In my study, a control city like Red Deer had same income levels as the core city, while Lethbridge, on average income, was similar to Edmonton’s villages].
The 2001 census reveals that 9.7 per cent of recent immigrants (and 11.7 per cent of Aboriginals) lived in low-income city neighbourhoods, a rate twice again higher than Canada’s CMA average of 4.4 per cent for all residents. Low-income neighbourhoods in 1980 had recent immigrants as 9.9 per cent of their population; twenty years later the number had doubled to 19.8 per cent.
Here, as across Canada, as the policy picture is evolving, it appears that front-line service delivery municipal staffs in core cities like Edmonton, often out on the streets in response to demands from new communities and identities, will lead in adapting traditional practices to this new environment – an environment from which the city’s suburbs have insulated themselves. Resulting council initiatives in the central city will in turn test new practices and carve new possibilities for citizen-centered public policy.


4. Out of all of this, Several points I’ve been pondering
Any assessment of the present severity of the standing issues is always a question of relative degree. So …
In 1978, I wrote that “metropolitan re-organization [in Canada] is at least as much about political power and political ideology as it is about efficiency or the preservation of community lifestyles.” To the degree that this may be demonstrably true, as is normally the case in the United States, arguments in favour of consolidating governments based on administrative efficiencies have fallen upon the deaf ears of a populace ingrained with the familiar routines of their own local communities.
Over time, the repetition of assertions of differentiated lifestyle claims builds urban myths around purported better levels and responsiveness of suburban services and cultivates notions that an authentic, autonomous, community which is distinct within the city-region, and most likely of better quality, is actually alive and kicking. Suburbs are, indeed, by their own policies, different, but not so distinct from the outer neighbourhoods of the central city just across the street which is the boundary line.
Arguments against the amalgamation of the various municipalities in city-regions have historically been entrenched in the idea that political boundaries generally encompass communities that are different from the whole in their social and economic status. The arguments are supported by concepts drawn from economic theory that municipalities exist to provide discrete services that can be confined by geography. In short, ideas of autonomy feed on a nostalgic notion that smaller is better and that a central city life-style is a rather pathological existence.
So, the question: Is there reasonable evidence that the generic city-regional governing issues currently exist as policy shortcomings for the metropolitan Edmonton region?
In order from least obvious to most serious, these appear to be, and permit me to use the practical language of an ancient document – the Manitoba provincial white paper in 1970 that preceded the unification of Winnipeg (to help define the policy issues in practical terms). Selected articles from recent pages of the Edmonton SUN and JOURNAL illustrate the issues’ currency.
a. Accountability: “Many citizens in Greater Winnipeg, faced with the complexities and confused authority of a two-tier system of local government, now find themselves unable to focus clearly on the responsible authority. The citizen often knows neither whom to blame for a given situation, to whom to turn for remedy, nor to whom to tender advice if he feels he has a worthwhile idea to offer.”
In Edmonton? [Well, for example, because of intense inter-municipal competition for new development, there is a tendency for each to cut front end fees and various service charges to enhance attractiveness. This is ultimately more costly for the city-region, as an entity, in servicing, and in the wisest use of the entire land base. This elephant always lurks. Recently, (Edmonton Journal, 5 April, 2006) during debate as to whether Edmonton city should set a levy on new homes to pay for later suburban arterial roadways, administration noted that “commercial buildings would have their rate capped … to keep Edmonton competitive with surrounding municipalities such as Strathcona County.” Of the levy itself, councillor Nickel observed “that people will choose to set up outside the jurisdiction and drive to work, thereby adding to urban sprawl.”
The essential point is that no one speaks for the region at any bargaining or policy-making table.
b. Coordination: “With control of services divided, and the power to make decisions and carry them out fragmented, the community’s human resources are dissipated, and its economic capabilities to a considerable extent squandered.”
In Edmonton? [For example, Edmonton Sun, 24 November, 2005: Edmonton’s ‘City administration is recommending a one-year study to look at ways of phasing out the business tax, a levy charged to businesses on top of their property taxes … Corinne Pohlmann, provincial spokesperson for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business … said the high tax rate is sending business out of Edmonton and into surrounding municipalities like Leduc, which don’t charge a business tax.” She added that “Edmonton spends the most per capita among cities in western Canada and has the largest number of civic employees.”]
The essential point is that the City’s budget is driven by regional municipal multiplicity; it must spend more to provide service for the region.
c. Equity: “Social ills, and hence social costs, tend to concentrate in the core area. These costs have to be borne almost entirely by taxpayers in the central area, despite the fact that many of the people requiring social services and creating social costs have migrated to the central area from outlying communities.”
In Edmonton? [For example, Edmonton Sun, 6 January, 2006: speaking for the Alberta Council of Women’s Shelters, former Edmonton Mayor Jan Reimer observed that a “Lack of emergency shelters means battered women in Edmonton’s bedroom communities – like Spruce Grove, Stony Plain, or St. Albert -- often have to go as far as Whitecourt or St. Paul to find safety.”]
The essential point? People in specific need, need to live in the City.
Last, and most importantly, are the standing policy issues sufficiently disruptive as to warrant the serious reconfiguration of long-standing local institutions?
In considering American deliberations over consolidation of city-region political institutions, Michael Keating once wrote of “the consensual and technocratic tone of the official debate” (1995: 120) which tended to skirt politically touchy issues concerning taxation equity, social mobility and greater equality in service provision. Official statements instead focused, more obliquely, on service efficiencies and, occasionally, democratic accountability. Along the public policy route, specific problems concerning roadway commuting and differential quality in recreation or social service programs – matters of immediate importance to individual citizens -- quickly vanished into the arcane argot of equalized assessments, variable tax rates and bilaterally negotiated contract service arrangements.
So, let me add this final point about that … and here’s the kicker!



[Not yet published findings] In 1998, I reported that the Edmonton CMA was $5.01 per capita more expensive for municipalities to govern than the Calgary city-region. By 2004, that expenditure had become $139.85 per capita.
Importantly, for the core cities, Edmonton reported expenditures, per capita, in 1998 that were $182.63 higher than did Calgary! Six years later, in 2004, this number was $278.90 higher per person.
Over past these 6 years, then, the Edmonton region had become $135.00 per capita more costly to govern than the Calgary city-region, and the burden on central city taxpayers had grown to be $96.00 per capita greater in Edmonton than in Calgary city.
If this constitutes a direction, then the existence of multiple municipal governments will continue to constitute a genuine impediment to the economic administration of the greater Edmonton city-region -- and an obstacle to international competitiveness.
Municipal overlay – in very real terms -- stands as a barrier to realization Edmonton’s greater recognition in the ranks of world cities.

[feepa]

:hell: :hell: :hell:



Olesen done with talk of dysfunction

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Simpson
This Week Staff

During her first speech as mayor for Strathcona County following Monday’s election, Cathy Olesen delivered a hard-line stance on critical views of Strathcona’s participation in regional partnerships.

“I am done with talk about the regional dysfunction and a lack of co-operation, or the idea repeated at length by one regional mayor,” Olesen said with conviction.

“Strathcona has been a good regional partner and understands and respects the special challenges Edmonton faces,” Olesen said.

This bold statement came days after resuming office and drew a round of applause from chamber members and county councillors who were also in attendance.

As keynote speaker for this month’s Chamber of Commerce luncheon, Olesen thanked both Brent Jewell and Ken Lesniak for their tremendous efforts serving on council.

“I would like to take this opportunity to extend my best wishes to outgoing councillors Brent Jewell and Ken Lesniak. They have given six years of council service to this community and I know they care deeply about it,” Olesen said.

Ironically, the lunch was a stone’s throw away from the spot where both Jewell and Lesniak watched their designs on the mayor’s chair go up in flames.
Olesen secured her second term as mayor as a result of what she called “a solid record of good government,” with nearly two thousand votes more than her nearest challenger, Ken Lesniak.
“I think that the results of [the] election are a vote of confidence from the community,” Olesn remarked on Monday night.

Having served as councillor for three terms before becoming mayor in 2004, Olesen will have the political advantage of forward momentum during her second term in office.

“There’s a lot of things I want to focus on in the coming weeks,” Olesen remarked on Monday night. “I’d like to continue working on diversifying affordable housing for our seniors and youths, and work on enhancing delivery of our transportation service to the disabled and people on AISH.”

On a larger scale, Olesen will have to work with neighboring municipalities on the upgrader gravy train. Such an industrial boost will not come without challenges, including playing nice with Edmonton Mayor Stephen Mandel, with whom Olesen is notorious for not being on the best of terms with.
“Mayor Mandel’s scheme was to create a regional crisis and have the province impose a regional government,” Olesen said of Edmonton’s withdrawal from the ACRA recently. “Edmonton [wanted to] have control of our planning and have access to our property taxes. Through a calm creative strategy with our regional partners, we were able to demonstrate to the province what was going on. The province has since ordered Edmonton back to the regional planning table.”
“I certainly hope we can find some common ground,” Olesen said of future dealings with Mandel. “I want to go shoulder to shoulder with Edmonton to the province and say ‘help us’ because there’s no money in property taxes. We need to go to the province together for additional

[feepa]

Olesen's tough talk fuels futility
Strathcona County mayor's short-sighted view on regional turf war simply delays any further progress on issue

Paula Simons, The Edmonton Journal
Published: October 25, 2007 2:07 am

Article link: http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/cityplus/story.html?id=bd678840-66e8-4174-bdfe-b6e3a457bc76

You know that phrase, "Them's fightin' words?" Last week, Cathy Olesen, the mayor of Strathcona County, made a remarkable speech to the Sherwood Park Chamber of Commerce. Her words weren't just fighting. They were putting on brass knuckles, ready to rumble.

"We have persisted and flourished in spite of numerous attempts by others to gain control over portions of our jurisdiction," Olesen told her audience.

"I am done with talk about regional dysfunction and lack of co-operation or the idea repeated at length by one regional mayor and The Edmonton Journal.

"Mayor Mandel's scheme was to create a regional crisis and have the province impose a regional government," she continued.

"Edmonton would have control of our planning and have access to our property taxes."

Luckily, she suggested, her calm, creative strategy foiled that plot.

Next, Olesen praised the provincial government for its recent program of grants to municipalities. Those too, were brawling words, if more subtle. You may remember that the province's funding formula, based in part on a municipality's existing tax base, favoured wealthy communities, such as Calgary and Strathcona, and penalized cities with smaller property tax bases, such as Edmonton.

Olesen then sharply criticized Stephen Mandel and Calgary Mayor Dave Bronconnier for suggesting big cities need more taxing powers, such as the power to charge hotel taxes or entertainment taxes. Alberta municipalities, she argued, had enough money and enough taxing power, to get the job done. "Success as a municipality seems to be getting the right balance of taxes and the right balance of services to attract people to live in your municipality."

Which is pretty easy to say, when you're the mayor of Strathcona County, with its incredible industrial tax base, not to mention its lavish estate homes. The county may not have any serious financial troubles. But other municipalities in this province, dealing with huge infrastructure deficits and complex social problems sparked by the boom, can't make the same claims.

So what was Olesen thinking, when she not merely threw down the gauntlet but hurled it in our collective faces?

"I can't get my story out," she told me Wednesday. "I'm so frustrated I can't get our story out. I understand Edmonton's position. We want to stand shoulder to shoulder with them so they can go to the province and get more money. But this will never show up in The Edmonton Journal, not ever."

Olesen says her county is more than prepared to pay its share for projects that benefit the metro region, like a new humane society building, or improvements to the youth emergency shelter, or participate in regional planning and marketing efforts. But regional governance? That, she says, is out of the question.

"Cost-sharing? We've said we'll be there. Regional projects? We've said we'll be there. But regional governance, handing over our money to another municipality to spend, with no accountability? Our residents will never agree to that."

As Olesen sees it, talk by Edmonton's mayor about new mechanisms for regional planning and cost sharing is a thinly veiled attempt to raid Strathcona County revenues.

Instead of trying to take money from her county, she says, the city should concentrate its efforts on lobbying the province and Ottawa.

If things were that simple, I'd agree with Olesen.

It's absurd for Alberta's municipalities, especially those in the Edmonton metro region, to fight among themselves when they should be working together to press the province and the feds for more support to manage this boom. We need to plan together to promote economic growth, while protecting our air, water and quality of life.

But speeches like the one Olesen gave last week only add to the problem.

It's pretty churlish to mock Calgary and Edmonton for fighting for more taxing powers, when Alberta's two largest cities face daunting infrastructure debts.

Mandel hasn't schemed to create some imaginary crisis -- the funding and planning problems this city faces are real and grave. Arguably, Edmonton can't solve its problems by raiding the tax bases of surrounding counties. But neither can this region function well while its mayors are engaged in personal slanging matches.

Regional government need not, and should not, mean robbing Peter to pay Paul. But neither does it make sense to operate a city of one million people with 25 mayors.

We've got to find a mechanism that allows us to plan for and manage our growth, which allows our urban core and our suburbs to prosper simultaneously.

If that means the province needs to impose a management framework to end the incessant squabbling and assure rational, orderly urban and industrial development, then that's what needs to happen.

Olesen's right about this. It is unfortunate that this debate keeps getting cast as an Edmonton vs. Sherwood Park grudge match. Such short-sighted parochialism helps no one. But then, neither does a little mayoral piling on.

psimons@thejournal.canwest.com

FOR THE RECORD

Read the full text of Strathcona County Mayor Cathy Olesen's Oct. 17 speech.

Go to Online Extras at edmontonjournal.com

© The Edmonton Journal 2007

- 30 -

[jeffwhit]

Calgary has enjoyed unicity freedom for a long time, but just wait - your trun at regional crap is coming.



Yes, this is true, and I bet what will spark it is when the new Crowfoot Park and Ride is completely full of cars registered in Cochrane.

As for Mayor Olsen, I'm sure she thinks running a municipality with current taxation powers is easy since her residents get to suckle on Edmonton's teet on Edmonton's dime.

[feepa]

Sorry guys - I meant to keep this more up to date - but have failed.

Here's the latest...

[feepa]

Here is the link from Doug Radke's presentation on the Nov 22 it is on the Strathcona County Website.

http://www.strathcona.ab.ca/NR/rdonlyres/ediiardswikaxocyw4kg3lnesehodig6b47nfmm7s6cjenb5s2s7sgvtuqe7vnqv7rsy4mjfijxvftdxffn73v3z4he/att-Council-Radke-presentation+november-22.pdf

And here is Cathy's News Release

Concern about regional 'super board'

Published November 30, 2007

One matter vital to the future of our municipality is occupying much of Council's time and attention: the growth plan being developed for the Capital Region under the leadership of the Province.

Strathcona County welcomes this. We know that regional cooperation works well. Proof of this is all around us in the quality of life our residents enjoy, and the $50 billion in additional investment planned for the area.

Last week, however, we received a draft of the Plan (PDF) 620 KB proposed for the region, and it raises some serious concerns and questions.

The proposal would create a new 'super board' with authority over local municipalities including taxing powers.

Land use plans would be made by a regional board rather than at a local level.

A range of other services are listed for possible regional delivery. Among these are inter-municipal transit, information services and housing; and potentially policing, fire and ambulance, recreation, economic development, solid waste management, wastewater and potable water.

Strathcona County is in favour of cooperation. We are committed to paying our fair share of costs related to necessary regional projects. We already deliver many services in partnership with our neighbours, and we are open to new arrangements wherever they make sense. But we believe these choices are best made by local municipalities, who understand local needs and are accountable to their taxpayers.

A troubling aspect of the proposed regional plan is that we are being asked to agree without full knowledge of some of the most critical details.

For example, we do not know what voting structure the regional board would use, or how our share of the costs would be determined.

In June, when Premier Stelmach announced the process to develop a regional plan, he said the plan was aimed at efficient delivery of public services. He also said community identities would be supported.

Last week, after seeing the proposed plan, 66 municipalities from throughout Alberta--including Strathcona County--resoundingly supported resolutions encouraging the Province to return to the principles that have proven successful--cooperation and collaboration, local autonomy and accountability.

As your elected representatives, that is the direction we will continue to put forward.

We also welcome your comments or questions.

More information: Regional cooperation.

In the spirit of community,
Cathy Olesen, Mayor

Mayor Cathy Olesen can be reached at 464-8000 or olesen@strathcona.ab.ca.

-30-

Comments?

[newfangled]

Here is the link from Doug Radke's presentation on the Nov 22 it is on the Strathcona County Website.

http://www.strathcona.ab.ca/NR/rdonlyres/ediiardswikaxocyw4kg3lnesehodig6b47nfmm7s6cjenb5s2s7sgvtuqe7vnqv7rsy4mjfijxvftdxffn73v3z4he/att-Council-Radke-presentation+november-22.pdf

And here is Cathy's News Release



Comments?

Meh. More of the same talking points. I don't ever expect anything new to come out of Strathcona.

And I can't get the link to Radke's report to work.

[mick]

I don't think the province is happy with her jumping the gun.

[rapid_business]

EDIT: this comment was meant for a different thread...

[Edmonchuck]

Im all for amalgamation, except St. Albert :P

Unless they promise to transform it into an Edmonton version of the French Quarter.


I, Lord Edmonchuck, god of all that is 'chucky, hereby proclaim that as of this instant, St. Albert ceases to exist. It is now the district of Albert's,and shall ensure that it serves French Toast, with a French Omlette, and some version of French Fries that look like Hashbrowns. Its mascot will still be the fat chef, but he will be leaning on a leased Lexus to compensate for his overpriced home with no furniture.

I also hereby declare that St Albert Centre will now be Fat Albert Centre, and the world's largest housing complex be built overhead and specialze in Creeps and Bums. We'll make Bum Louie the landlord. Servus Center's funding shortfall will be made up for by turning it into an above ground landfill - making it smell like Paris.

Taxes will remain the same...that is to say 100% ABOVE anyone else in the 'chucky, and we'll tell you you're getting better vlaue for that dollar because we're special, and you'll believe it. We'll even say it in French, and give you a quarter.

END OF LINE.

[Edmonchuck]

I don't think the province is happy with her jumping the gun.

Would you beleive she has had that response queued for a long time? ;)

[newfangled]

Would you beleive she has had that response queued for a long time? ;)

I'd believe that she could be a Sun columnist. That was a crtl-c/ctrl-v if I ever saw one.

[mick]

I'd believe it, but she's releasing details there that were not yet announced by the province. By doing it this way, she gets the spotlight on her position in advance of any announcement.

[brento79]

She will fight, she thinks that is her job. Most people in the park don't like her they believe rants are uneducated.

Hopefully the province takes care of this issue and mutes her.

[rapid_business]

Reminds me of Hazel McCallion out here in Mississauga. Oh... I long for the day when this is over and done with. Roll up your sleeves boys, this is an issue worth 'going to the mattresses' over.

[Edmonchuck]

I'd believe it, but she's releasing details there that were not yet announced by the province. By doing it this way, she gets the spotlight on her position in advance of any announcement.


Yup, take gun, aim at foot, pull trigger...

If there is any one thing that completely demonstrates how stupid this debate has become, it is her ranting prior to anything even coming out...

[feepa]

From Edmonton Journal:

Board may make all pay for regional projects
Gordon Kent, The Edmonton Journal
Published: 1:38 am

EDMONTON - A new "super board" could use money requisitioned from local municipalities to help pay for projects that benefit the capital area, say draft proposals for dealing with regional growth.

The powers of the board, made up of representatives from the 25 civic governments in the area, would include creating a regional land-use plan, providing transit service between municipalities and setting targets for the creation of social housing, the draft suggests.

The ideas come from a presentation made by provincial consultant Doug Radke to regional political leaders Nov. 22 and posted on the Strathcona County website.


"They were a little naughty in doing that. The agreement was the participants wouldn't be making anything public," said Paul Stanway, Premier Ed Stelmach's communications director.

"I don't know why they did that."

Radke, hired to help come up with a plan for managing the Edmonton region's explosive growth, is working with civic administrators on a final report, which should be publicly released next week, Stanway said.

Stelmach will meet with local mayors and reeves Dec. 14 to hear feedback. The province's response is due by January.

Radke's presentation suggested the board could do strategic planning for numerous services, including police, ambulance, recreation, waste management and sewers.

The proposed voting options would see motions passed when supported by 15 or 17 municipalities with 75 per cent of the regional population, or when they're supported by any 21 municipalities.

One source of revenue for operations and specific projects that benefit the region could be provincial requisitions from municipalities, possibly done on the basis of population or property assessment.

Strathcona County Mayor Cathy Olesen said the presentation has been discussed for the past two weeks and she was never told it was confidential.

"Being transparent and open with our community is something we treat very seriously. It's coming to the end of the process and we felt obligated to let our public know about it," Olesen said.

The final report will go to civic officials Friday, she said.

The draft raises serious questions, including the potential for "taxation without representation," she said.

"If you have a centralized board that's not elected and they can requisition taxes, we equate that to taxation.

"We have always supported cost-sharing for regional projects. How you allocated costs to your member municipalities, I don't have the answer, and I guess they don't either."

Olesen said she needs more information before knowing whether to support the plan, although a proposal to give the "super board" binding power to make decisions over land use is one of her biggest concerns.

"We already deliver many services in partnership with our neighbours, and we are open to new arrangements wherever they make sense," she wrote in a post on the county's website.

"But we believe these choices are best made by local municipalities, who understand local needs and are accountable to their taxpayers."

Stanway denied the regional road map foresees intrusion on local taxing powers.

"The idea that part of the goal here is to create some super-regional board with taxing authority is completely off-base. It's not in the cards," he said.

"But if they identify a project that benefits the region as a whole, they have to be able to come up with a way to fund it."

Mayor Stephen Mandel called it "unfair" to put out Radke's presentation and said he won't comment on the proposals until he sees the final report.

"I sometimes marvel at why everyone is overly concerned about their autonomy under this plan," he said.

"It's rural versus urban, or rurban. The cities, predominantly, in the region agree there needs to be change.

"We represent 75 to 80 per cent of the population. This needs to be done. It's 50 years in the making."

Edmonton Chamber of Commerce chairman Greg Christenson said he likes the emphasis on housing and public transit in the documents he has seen.

gkent@thejournal.canwest.com

[feepa]

Mandel prefers to be gracious in victory

Now that issue of a regional voice is settled, mayor wants to harmonize with his colleagues

Scott McKeen, The Edmonton Journal
Published: Wednesday, January 16


What? No black eyes? No scratch or claw marks? No breaks, sprains or contusions?

Politics is supposed to be a bloodsport, no? If so, why is Mayor Stephen Mandel still ambulatory and abrasion-free?

After all, Mandel has been in numerous bouts this past week, meeting with mayors from places in the region where the very mention of Edmonton causes people to spit in the dirt.


Poor Edmonton.

It's long been cast as the villain in the historic, regional dust-up over boundaries and resources. Its relations with the burbs really went awry in 2006, when Mandel pulled the city out of the Alberta Capital Region Alliance, the supposed unifying body.

Left to its own devices, Edmonton then invested considerable time, money and effort in hiring consultants to prove a point -- that the region would kill the golden goose if it didn't integrate into a more cohesive political unit.

Not that regional politicians were buying it. The mayors of Strathcona and Sturgeon counties, in particular, see annexation, amalgamation or annihilation as Edmonton's secret agenda.

Imagine their unhappiness, then, when Premier Ed Stelmach decided last month to endorse the idea of regional unification. Sources say Stelmach was under intense pressure from regional mayors and MLAs to stay the course -- and spit in Edmonton's general direction. To Stelmach's credit, he did the un-expectorated.

Mandel decided to be a gracious winner and launch a series of diplomatic meetings with regional mayors. He says he assured them that unification is not a tax grab, nor a coup.

"Distrust? No I wouldn't use the word distrust," Mandel said about the reaction he's seen in other mayors. "I'd call it discomfort.

"My message? That any acrimony we had in the past, we need to put behind us and try to move forward. That we're stronger as a unit and that if we work together, we can be far more effective."

Regional municipalities fear a loss of autonomy under a regional superboard. But if you think about it, Edmonton, too, will lose some of its independence.

For example, there has long been talk around City Hall of Edmonton expanding its borders into neighbouring counties to accommodate rapid population growth.

But if geese and ganders are treated equally, Edmonton will have to convince the regional board that its urban sprawl makes sense.

"There are some challenges we have to deal with, too," says Mandel. "But we're going to have to bring those issues forward as part of the entire growth management plan."

Mandel drove out to Sherwood Park Monday to meet with arch-rival Cathy Olesen, the mayor of Strathcona County, who has thrown a few handfuls of rhetorical sand in Mandel's face these past three years.

"It was cordial," Mandel said. "Not friendly, but cordial. I was quite clear. I said we hadn't got along in past over issues, but that we need to move forward."

Mandel will keep repeating to Olesen and her ilk that Edmonton is not out to steal revenue from regional partners. As he says, there's not enough municipal tax revenue in the region to build all the infrastructure an industrial boom will demand.

Instead, the province must be convinced to share its resources, to build the Edmonton region into a powerhouse. Mandel makes the point that 25 regional councils speaking as one voice will carry much more weight with the provincial government.

But what if it doesn't? What if it all breaks down and the turf wars and bickering renew?

"The province will take the necessary steps to get this region to function effectively, because there's too much to lose," says Mandel.

"Everyone has to realize that the province has gone this far to get us to work together. If we don't work together, my guess is they'll take further steps. What they would be, I don't know."

Oh, I do. It's called amalgamation. And it's real bloody.

smckeen@thejournal.canwest.com

[feepa]

Storm ahead – Olesen
Strathcona County Mayor hints higher taxes unavoidable with new regional board

Michael Simpson
News Staff
Friday January 18, 2008

Sherwood Park and District Chamber of Commerce members perhaps were looking forward to a light, cheerful speech from the morning’s guest speaker, Strathcona County Mayor Cathy Olesen.

“Unfortunately, what I have to tell you today is not good news,” Olesen began before getting down to business. “The Radke report puts forward a new cost sharing model for the $19.6 billion of core infrastructure needs. If requisitioned by the provincial government based on population we would pay eight per cent of (these) costs and if based on non-residential assessment, this community would pay 20 per cent of the regional municipalities portion, (which) is $7.4 billion.”

“Whether our share is eight per cent or 20 per cent, Strathcona County could be asked to pay between $594 million and $1.48 billion respectively,” Olesen said to the crowd. “No matter how these funds are requisitioned, we do not have the revenues currently that will come anywhere close to these figures.”

Olesen made it clear what the county would be forced to do in order to pony up cash for the regional board. “We will have no choice but to raise taxes while the other orders of government, who will receive 95 per cent of the revenue and are reporting record surpluses, would have a reduced overall responsibility.”

Olesen went on to express concern over the voting structure of the board, which she felt is tipped too heavily in Edmonton’s favour. “Strathcona will have potentially eight to 20 per cent of the responsibility for funding the new infrastructure with about four per cent of the voting power on the new board,” she said. “Our planning will be subject to the (decisions) of the board and our ability to respond to the needs of our own community will be diminished while our taxes will be increased.”


Olesen also said that the municipal development plan will not be grand-fathered, an issue Premier Ed Stelmach had avoided discussing in front of the press when the regional board was announced only weeks earlier.

Sherwood Park and District Chamber of Commerce executive director Todd Banks made it clear that the looming uncertainty the new regional board is creating is bad for business.

“There was a lot of planning prior to this with the Alberta Capital Region Alliance (ACRA) and a lot of co-operation at that time. Everyone agrees that there should be co-operation with municipalities that are joined at the hip, but one of the things that concerns me is the lack of co-operation in designing this new system. A process that was supposed to make things easier hasn’t done so,” Banks said.

Among other things, Banks pointed out that 55 per cent of county tax revenue is from non-residential sources. The board’s creation will have strong taxation impacts for local business, Banks said.

“The biggest issue to date is how it’s been unclear how much this will cost businesses,” Banks said. “Also, if businesses will be paying, shouldn’t there be some representation from business on this new board? There’s currently none.”

Banks’ sentiments come after a press release from chamber president Terri-Lynn Bougie in December which stated that while the chamber was encouraged by the government’s desire to increase inter-municipal co-operation, it also wanted further clarification on how funds would be collected and distributed.

“The cost allocation for regional infrastructure must be fair and appropriate,” Bougie stated. “We need to know what business’ share will be, and businesses need to have representation in this process.”

Bougie’s statement reflected local concerns about increasing operating costs and tighter margins.

“Giving one member veto undermines the confidence in the board before it is even formed,” Bougie stated, adding that the chamber would continue to press the province to address their members’ concerns.

michaels@sherwoodparknews.com

link... (http://www.sherwoodparknews.com/News/369423.html)

[feepa]

Olsen's "Storm Ahead"speech was front page story in the Sherwood Park Newspaper on Friday. On page 3 of this same paper, there was an article quoting the Strathcona County Manager of Economic Development and Tourism (Gerry Cabinet)about the massive economic activities planned for Strathcona county in the coming years. All of the projects are upgrader related. "If all projects go ahead as planned Strathcona County will see about $63 Billion by the year 2023" He goes on to say that right now Strathcona county is "Doing very well" with approx $13 Billion in ongoing projects. He adds that the City of Edmonton doesn't have one billion dollar project at the present time.

Talk about hypocracy. Strathcona county has all of these massive projects - but it is up to Edmonton or someone else to pay for the infrastructure required to support these projects.

Don't you just love politicians.

[rapid_business]

Letter writing time? Someone?

[feepa]

Letter writing time? Someone?
yes please.

[feepa]

Regional planning idea ignites county opposition
But Mandel doubts Stelmach will be punished by rural voters

Susan Ruttan
The Edmonton Journal

Friday, February 08, 2008

EDMONTON - By reintroducing regional planning to the Edmonton area, Premier Ed Stelmach appears to have put out one political ire and started another.

The premier made Edmonton Mayor Stephen Mandel a happy man when he announced in late December that he would create a new regional planning board for the region.

However, the decision is not sitting well in counties surrounding the city. Alan Dunn, an outspoken member of Strathcona County council, compares the new regional board to the infamous NEP, the Trudeau government's national energy program that caused an uproar in Alberta in 1980.

"This is a kind of mini-NEP that is being imposed on the surrounding areas for the benefit of Edmonton," said Dunn.

"It's riding roughshod over people's rights."

He said although his fellow county councillors sometimes question his fiery way of expressing himself, they're unanimous in their opposition to the Stelmach government's new plan.

And he said he's getting encouraging feedback from county residents who have read his views in a newsletter column he writes.

"From my personal experience and feedback I'm getting from some of the things I've written, it is becoming an election issue."

Sturgeon County Mayor Don Rigney is equally blunt, calling the regional plan the equivalent of giving Ontario a veto over Alberta.

"I feel it's been done for election purposes," Rigney said in a recent interview.

"I think the government is making a fundamental error, trying to buy their enemies and selling out their friends."

At issue is how the region will manage the growth being created by the construction of bitumen upgraders in Strathcona and Sturgeon counties, just outside Edmonton. The proposed regional planning board will make some decisions now done individually by municipalities.

Edmonton, because of its large population, will have a veto on board decisions.

Also at issue is who will pay for roads, transit systems and other services. The counties fear the new board will siphon off tax revenue they're going to get from the upgraders for regional purposes, or to help out Edmonton.

The region had a planning commission until 1995, when it was scrapped by the Klein government.

The Sherwood Park constituency, and Athabasca-Redwater, which covers much of Sturgeon County, have been in Conservative hands for years.

The Liberal candidate in Sherwood Park, Louise Rogers, narrowed the gap between herself and Conservative Iris Evans in 2004. Rogers is running again this year.

In Athabasca-Redwater, neither the Liberals nor the New Democrats named a candidate until just days before the election call.

The new Conservative candidate in that constituency, businessman Jeff Johnson, says he's not hearing much from voters about the regional planning board. He said he knows Rigney is passionately against Stelmach's decision.

Mandel doesn't think Stelmach will be punished by county voters.

"This is not about the sky falling in, Edmonton coming up and taking over the counties," he said.

"This is about orderly development of what could be the largest industrial complex in North America."

sruttan@thejournal.canwest.com

[feepa]

Let's all point and laugh at the above article. I can find so many things wrong with what these counties keep preaching. Dunn, sit on my finger and rotate buddy. Your county has been stealing services from Edmonton for so bloody long, you almost thing its your god given right to get your money for nothing and your chips for free while someone else pays for it.

I offer you my middle finger salute, and no, that's not the mini-friday finger either

[Edmonchuck]

hey, county liars, dare ya to vote Liberal....dare ya.

[Xelebes]

Show your disappointment! Vote out Iris Evans!

[jeffwhit]

Calgary has enjoyed unicity freedom for a long time, but just wait - your trun at regional crap is coming.


Calgary will enjoy unicity freedom for the forseeable future. The towns surrounding Calgary are few and far away, Okotoks - 23km, Airdrie-20km, Cochrane-18km, Chestermere-10km, enough space for 5 or 6 Calgarys to fit into the areas in between. Calgary has established relationships where it provides sewage treatment for Cochrane and potable water and sewage treatment for Chestermere. The industrial tax base is largely in Calgary and not in the surrounding MD's. The recently completed annexation agreement with Rockyview MD provides the city with plenty of room to grow.

Your numbers are way off, it's considerably less than 10km from the built edge of Calgary to the built edge of both Airdrie and Cochrane, 13 to Okotokes and under 5km to Chestermere. Measure in Google Earth if you don't believe me.

As 'chuck points out, despite the unicity model Calgary's battle is coming (most likely with Rockyview MD) and based on the kind of thorns Edmonton has in its side, I'm not looking forward to it.

[Edmonchuck]

Yup...the Rockyview MD fight is just the first. Just wait until Ardrie starts with their "we're special and independant" stuff. No really, it's coming.

One word - Cochrane. Hold onto your hats folks!

[feepa]

Regional planning biggest checkmark on mayor's list
Much of Mandel's ambitious 90-day plan awaits provincial funding help

Susan Ruttan
The Edmonton Journal

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Mayor Stephen Mandel's 90 days are up.

On Oct. 31, shortly after winning re-election, Mandel outlined a 90-day plan in a speech to the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce.

Those 90 days expired at the end of January. So, how is he doing on his plan?

- "Is it fair," Mandel asked in his speech, "for the province to pay to upgrade and maintain Deerfoot Trail -- in addition to the Calgary ring road -- when similar consideration is not given in Edmonton?"

So far, no provincial action on this issue. The province is building Edmonton's ring road, Anthony Henday Drive, but has not offered money for the costly traffic interchange on 23rd Avenue, which some in City Hall hoped they would.

- "We need to be better at how we manage projects. Pay-as-you-go will not pay for $10 billion in projects."

Council in December approved building the new southwest recreation centre as a private-public partnership. Negotiations with a private partner are on-going.

Council has also begun discussing the idea of doing more borrowing to pay for roads, bridges and transit lines.

- "A major area for us to improve is how we consult our citizens."

No change yet.

- "LRT needs to be fast-tracked."

Fast-tracking is happening. The first step toward building LRT from downtown to the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology campus has been approved by council, as have routes for extending the south LRT line and the northeast line. A proposed west-end LRT route is to be drafted by spring.

However, no funding for the new lines has been secured.

- "A strategy ... for managing homelessness and social issues in our downtown east."

On Jan. 31, 91 days after his 90-day speech, the mayor announced a 29-person committee which will draft a 10-year plan to end homelessness in Edmonton. The plan is to be ready by October.

- "There are three major reports coming forward over the next 90 days."

The first report, on building a new arena to replace Rexall Place, has been delayed until March, the week after the provincial election. One delaying factor may be Premier Ed Stelmach's flat refusal to pay for such an arena.

The second report, on developing Edmonton's northeast panhandle, came out in mid-November. Mandel is pressing hard to get this project going, so the city can reap some industrial spinoff from the giant bitumen upgraders being built in Sturgeon and Strathcona counties.

The third report was on a new downtown bridge. That report came out 10 days ago and, while it seems to have a lot of support on council, has run into tough criticism from the Old Strathcona Business Association.

The plan proposes replacing the Walterdale Bridge and expanding Gateway Boulevard, which feeds traffic to the bridge, as it passes through Old Strathcona. The plan would also sink the boulevard in a trench so it can pass underneath Saskatchewan Drive on its way down the riverbank.

- "We remain hopeful that a new regional plan will finally put us on a path toward ... better co-operation."

This is probably the mayor's biggest success on his 90-day list. In December, Stelmach sided with Edmonton and against neighbouring counties by agreeing to create a regional planning board for the Edmonton region. By doing do, the premier rewarded more than a year of effort by Mandel. The new board was to be up and running by the end of January. The provincial election seems to have stalled its creation.

© The Edmonton Journal 2008

Copyright © 2008 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

[Boris2k7]

Communities fight annexation (http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=9d388a59-4a23-4130-846f-16bdde9daa55)
Valerie Fortney, Calgary Herald
Published: Monday, February 18, 2008

For the next three weeks, the Calgary Herald, Edmonton Journal and Global TV are travelling across Alberta on a Greyhound bus to get to the election stories that affect ordinary Albertans.

On Sunday, we brought you Edmonton, and today, we reach Sherwood Park and St. Albert.

- - -

"We just love our little town, and wish to hell Edmonton would stay out of our face."

Terry Hovell says the above words with a smile, but you know he means business. After all, he's a Sherwood Parkian -- as many of the residents of this bedroom community a stone's throw east of the provincial capital call themselves.

Like the other 55,000 or so citizens of what the local chamber of commerce bills "North America's largest hamlet," Hovell, a realtor, is fiercely proud and protective of this place that's been his home the past dozen years.

To the casual observer, it's difficult to wrap your head around the allure of Sherwood Park. It's a self-described centre with no real town centre, mostly a collection of shopping malls and an endless labyrinth of residential subdivisions. At just over three kilometres from Edmonton, it's closer than Calgary's McKenzie Towne neighbourhood is to our city centre. It could be easily mistaken for just another suburb; a place where if the term bedroom community hadn't already been invented, it would have served as the inspiration.

But it's those apparent defects that are seen as positives by its residents.

"There's no downtown, no collection place for kids to get into trouble," says Hovell, who adds a home selling for $120,000 five years ago here has increased to about $420,000.

"And because people here work all over, from the oil refineries to Edmonton, we don't have the traffic problems of other places."

For Edmonton, therein lies the rub. The population of one million boasted by the city is actually derived by combining Edmonton proper and 23 surrounding municipalities, called the Alberta Capital Region.

Many of the residents of places like Sherwood Park come to Edmonton every day, to work, to shop and other activities. But they don't pay Edmonton taxes.

Over the years, Edmonton has tried to annex some of these independent entities, namely Sherwood Park and St. Albert, with no success. So the city and the province are going with another tactic, this one called "regional co-operation," whereby the city and its environs will share responsibilities, and privileges, for such things as infrastructure projects.

Many, especially those in Strathcona County, where Sherwood Park sits, compare the plan to no less than the dreaded National Energy Program of the 1980s. Hovell says even the term regional co-operation is an oxymoron.

"We don't get along," he says of his hamlet that had a grand total of 30 families residing here in 1956, and Edmonton. "The mayor (Edmonton's Stephen Mandel) is trying to take some of our industrial tax base away, and he's appealing all kinds of projects."

It's a different place from Edmonton's Liberal and New Democrat territory. Sherwood Park is in fact PC country, like many of its fellow municipalities encircling Edmonton. Signs supporting beloved PC incumbent Iris Evans are everywhere.

But no two Edmonton-area municipalities are completely alike. In a pre-election tour this past weekend of three of the best known -- Sherwood Park, St. Albert and Leduc-- this writer found some definite differences.

While two have PC incumbents favoured to win, St. Albert, an affluent city of more than 50,000 just northwest of the city, has a Liberal looking to reclaim his seat.

And not everybody hates the idea of regional co-operation.

"We believe in the capital region," Leduc mayor Greg Krischke tells me while he watches a women's hockey match Sunday at the Black Gold Centre arena. His working-class, more than a century-old city and county of 20,000 south of Edmonton won the bid to host this year's Alberta Winter Games.

"We're all in the sandbox together, but some of us are fighting. And that is making it hard for all of us to get along and get ahead."

Krischke says that while the municipalities may be close geographically, they have very distinct personalities. But one thing they have in common is an almost boosterish love of the places they call home.

"We're citizens of St. Albert, not Edmonton," says Jeff Prodahl, while taking a post-swim break with his three-year-old daughter Kennedy at the new Servus Place, the biggest recreation centre this writer has ever seen, and with a cost to match: according to St. Albert mayor Nolan Crouse, the centre showed an operating deficit of more than $2 million in December.

"This is near a big city, but St. Albert itself doesn't have a big city feel," he says of the community northwest of Edmonton that goes back as far as the late 1800s. "But we're clearly a bedroom community."

And it's this love of their communities, combined with the oftentimes tension-fraught relationships with the province's second-largest urban centre, that will no doubt be forefront in the minds of these Albertans when they head to the polls March 3.

vfortney@theherald.canwest.com

[feepa]

I dont get how anything changes in their 'town' feel if Edmonton annex or amalagamates them. Will the sky still be blue? Yes. Will the roads still have all there little cutesy names? Yes. Will all the community kids suddenly turn to crime and drugs? Too late. Will Sherwood parkians and St Albertians have to start paying there share of the social problems? Yes! Theres that change they fear. They like their hiding spot. Away from the problems of the big city, but not the benefits.

This regional stuff really gets to me. "We cheer for Edmonton sports teams, we shop in Edmonton, some of work in Edmonton, we use Edmontons services, we like being close to big hospitals, and all the things that the big city brings us, but HOW DARE you expect us to pay for this stuff. How dare you expect us to live under the same government as you 'commoners' . Its fucking elitest attitude, and 'we're better then you, so we will take advantage of you.'

Someone please tell me how St Albert is different the SkyView, Sherwood Park different then Tewillegar, Spruce Grove different then Jasper Place...

Its not. And I'm pissed off about it.

[S_B_Russell]

I grew up in Sherwood Park, and thinking about it, my parents and every one of my friend's parents worked in Edmonton. It's time Sherwood Park pay its fair share.

[feepa]

I also grew up in Sherwood Park, well, the better part of my childhood/teenaged life. My parents still live in the park, though they plan to move this spring/summer to a condo in Edmonton proper.
I can attest to the false illusion that people think they're kids will stay out of trouble if they live in Sherwood Park rather then Edmonton. For one, you can get downtown quicker via a sherwood Park bus then just about anywhere else in the city. Secondly, there's fuck all to do out their for youths, so if your not driving/bussing into the city, you're getting into trouble in the park.

[noodlenoodle]

Heck I grew up in the Park, and there was no way my parents were letting me go to high school in the Park. Idle hands are the devil's playthings. I still remember the gong shows that'd happen in Woodbridge on a summer night with tons of underage drinking and the associated revelry.

[Edmonchuck]

Doesn't Sherwood Park have a recently introduced curfew?

[rapid_business]

/\
Yes, but "there's no downtown, no collection place for kids to get into trouble." :tup:

[Doug]

Calgary has leverage over all of the surrounding communities except for Okotoks, namely water and sewer. It provides sewage treatment for all (except Okotoks) and has the only under-utilized water license in the entire South Saskatchewan basin. Okotoks only has enough water to about double its existing population. Rockyview was able to secure water from the WID, but the potential for similar deals with the irrigation districts is small. Eventually, these towns will be annexed or run out of water and sewage capacity to grow. I also wouldn't be surprised if Alberta Environment eventually cracks down on septic field systems in Rockyview as it did around Bragg Creek.

[rapid_business]

Speaking of which, does Edmonton do the same for any of our surrounding communities?

[feepa]

Speaking of which, does Edmonton do the same for any of our surrounding communities?

Edmonchuck will be a good person to ask this to. I know Edmonton has some water rights and power, but not to sure on the skinny of the details....

edmonchuck?

[noodlenoodle]

I can't speak to the drainage side of things, but EPCOR does provide water to most of the surrounding areas.

Link to map of Edmonton's Regional Water System (http://www.epcor.ca/NR/rdonlyres/6583A798-106E-41B9-AF80-9758969DD72E/0/regionalMap07.pdf)

[newfangled]

The Alberta Capital Region WWTP is located out in strathcona. It provides sewage treatment for St. Albert, Sherwood Park, and a bunch of the smaller municipalities.

http://www.acrwc.ab.ca/Brochure.pdf

Biosolids - mmmmmmm.

[rapid_business]

I can't speak to the drainage side of things, but EPCOR does provide water to most of the surrounding areas.

Link to map of Edmonton's Regional Water System (http://www.epcor.ca/NR/rdonlyres/6583A798-106E-41B9-AF80-9758969DD72E/0/regionalMap07.pdf)

But with Epcor running it, (not the city) there is no pull. Epcor wouldn't have any interest in threatening to cut water off to these communities. They just want to make $.

[Edmonchuck]

EPCOR is still city owned...however, they more than likely would not "pull" services.

The deregualtion of electricity as well as other factors make the power game moot.

The CofE does sanitation, that one may have some pull.

There is an aresnal planned should Radke deal die..but I doubt that will happen. Some sabre ratling during the election, but really the deal is done. If they push this too hard, they know what's next...