HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Calgary Issues, Business, Politics & the Economy


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Sep 12, 2009, 7:14 AM
Boris2k7's Avatar
Boris2k7 Boris2k7 is offline
Majestic
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Calgary
Posts: 12,010
The MD's withdrawal from the CRP is less an indictment of the plan and more a swipe at the CRP itself. They were going to be unhappy with any plan that comes up, because any plan would require a supermajority of members representing 50% of the population (meaning the City of Calgary has an effective veto). They never had any autonomy to begin with. They are just children who are taking their ball and going home.

Next step? Well, it depends on what you think the lesser of two evils is. Either the city could force them to come to their senses by cutting off services, or we could go with annexation.
__________________
"The only thing that gets me through our winters is the knowledge that they're the only thing keeping us free of giant ass spiders." -MonkeyRonin

Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2009, 4:28 AM
para transit fellow para transit fellow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riise View Post
Another unusual solution that could potentially be seen is the one that was rumored to be threatened against the M.D. of Rocky View during their last round of annexation talks with the City; dissolution and forced annexation by the City.
i didn't hear that one but it is kinda humorous to think that the city would want to annex 4000 square kilometres of area (Calgary is about 800 sq kms) If the entire area was part of Calgary, I can't imagine the taxpayers out there tollerating a 2 tier level of municipal services.

All of these senarios presume that the newly annexed residents will demand equal access to calgary services:

Can you imagine the cost of providing an 8 minute fire response to Bottrel? that would entail at least one fully-staffed fire station who will spend their days cleaning and recleaning their gear (there are only seven houses out that way). Same problems with police -- going to need several cars outfitted with reading lamps. The cost of extending Access Calgary services (6 am to midnight / seven days a week) through the annexed region would be amusing. It takes an hour just to drive to the far corners of the County for a service that costs $55/hour to provide.

Truth is that Calgary cannot force a dissolution of another municipality. Creation and distruction of municipalities is the role of Alberta Municpal Affairs.

BTW I hear that both Rocky View and Wheatland held meetings today and both have chosen to opt out of the Calgary Municipal Pla as it is currently written.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2009, 4:37 AM
para transit fellow para transit fellow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 238
[QUOTE=Boris2k7;4452329]The MD's withdrawal from the CRP is less an indictment of the plan and more a swipe at the CRP itself. They were going to be unhappy with any plan that comes up, because any plan would require a supermajority of members representing 50% of the population (meaning the City of Calgary has an effective veto). They never had any autonomy to begin with. They are just children who are taking their ball and going home.
[QUOTE]

Actually, you are incorrect. The rural municipalities were very active in the development of the CRP. They felt that they had participation in a meaningful dialog. Then one day, the tone of the discussions changed with Calgary deciding it wanted a different voting structure.

On the CRP's website, look for the minutes of the Nov. 28, 2009 meeting:

http://www.calgaryregion.ca/crp/medi...0committee.pdf

You can find other CRP minutes at: http://www.calgaryregion.ca/crp/memb...aspx?year=2008
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2009, 1:09 PM
Riise's Avatar
Riise Riise is offline
City Maker
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary | London
Posts: 3,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by para transit fellow View Post
i didn't hear that one but it is kinda humorous to think that the city would want to annex 4000 square kilometres of area...

Truth is that Calgary cannot force a dissolution of another municipality. Creation and distruction of municipalities is the role of Alberta Municpal Affairs.
The forced annexation was a threat rumored to be made by the Provincial Government not the City of Calgary. I'm well aware that the City cannot dissolve another Municipality.



Quote:
Originally Posted by para transit fellow View Post
Actually, you are incorrect. The rural municipalities were very active in the development of the CRP. They felt that they had participation in a meaningful dialog. Then one day, the tone of the discussions changed with Calgary deciding it wanted a different voting structure.
Did the tone actually change or was it that specifications were finally brought up?
__________________
“Such suburban models are being rationalized as ‘what people want,’ when in fact they are simply what is most expedient to produce. The truth is that what people want is a decent place to live, not just a suburban version of a decent place to live.”
- Roberta Brandes Gratz
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2009, 5:49 PM
para transit fellow para transit fellow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riise View Post
Did the tone actually change or was it that specifications were finally brought up?

A bit of both. The Calgary regional partnership was supposed to be a consensus-based organization. Everyone was at the table voluntarily. they were working through various governance proposals.

In another mesage I posted a link to the minutes of that Nov 28 meeting.

As I understand the minutes. Calgary presented a particular voting system and insisted that this new system was non-negotiable for Calgary. So much for consensus-based work. Rural Councilors I have spoken with tell me that is the meeting when the CRp tone shifted. Some months later, the Chair of the CRP was later quoted as saying something along the lines of " water is the teeth that will keep everyone in line."

At issue
If the rurals must bend to the will of Calgary, an interesting situation arises. Calgary Municipal Council will have control even though the affected county residents have no vote on who comprises Calgary's Council.

One farmer pointed out how "our neighbors to the south once fought a war over taxation without representation." he felt that the CM plan gave development control to a Council he isn't able to cast a ballot for.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2009, 8:53 PM
Riise's Avatar
Riise Riise is offline
City Maker
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary | London
Posts: 3,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by para transit fellow View Post
As I understand the minutes. Calgary presented a particular voting system and insisted that this new system was non-negotiable for Calgary. So much for consensus-based work.
Not really. People will always have certain issues where they will neither bend nor give an inch. Just because one particular issues is not made by a consensus does not mean the entire process is not reached by consensus, that's just rubbish and whinning on some of the Councilor's behalf's.


Quote:
Originally Posted by para transit fellow View Post
At issue
If the rurals must bend to the will of Calgary, an interesting situation arises. Calgary Municipal Council will have control even though the affected county residents have no vote on who comprises Calgary's Council.

One farmer pointed out how "our neighbors to the south once fought a war over taxation without representation." he felt that the CM plan gave development control to a Council he isn't able to cast a ballot for.
The issue is democracy and how defeat can be a difficult pill to swallow. Some of the M.D. representatives are saying the voting system is unfair but this is untrue, it is proportional representation. Yeah, it will put smaller places at a disadvantage and that is a hard pill to swallow but that's the result of how things are, Calgary has a lot more people who need to be represented and therefore need more representatives and consequently get more sway. When I got defeated during the Student Council elections in Junior High it may have sucked but that was democracy taking place.
__________________
“Such suburban models are being rationalized as ‘what people want,’ when in fact they are simply what is most expedient to produce. The truth is that what people want is a decent place to live, not just a suburban version of a decent place to live.”
- Roberta Brandes Gratz
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2009, 10:03 PM
para transit fellow para transit fellow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riise View Post
Calgary has a lot more people who need to be represented and therefore need more representatives and consequently get more sway. When I got defeated during the Student Council elections in Junior High it may have sucked but that was democracy taking place.
I guess the central issue is the original concept that all municpailities are supposed to be equal. if Calgary has more people... is that supposed to make it more equal than the other municipalities?

For the people living outside calgary it seems like the neighbour with the biggest family on the block gets to dictate to the rest of the block -- how you develop your yard, which yard he gets to park his boat in and which house(s) on the block can't be sold to a stranger because he wants to keep it available for when his mother-in-law and sister move to town.

The regional Partnership was not supposed to create an extra layer of government. Otherwise the whole regional partnership is just a re-creation of the old regional planning board.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2009, 11:43 AM
Riise's Avatar
Riise Riise is offline
City Maker
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary | London
Posts: 3,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by para transit fellow View Post
I guess the central issue is the original concept that all municpailities are supposed to be equal. if Calgary has more people... is that supposed to make it more equal than the other municipalities?
The Citizens of all the Municipalities are equals and it just so happens that we have more of the people that have the exact same amount of power. It is ludicrous to think that a tiny minority in a region will effectively get the same voting power as the huge majority. Honestly, how democratic and fair is that?

To be honest, the M.D. of Foothills and Rocky View are being rather selfish. I mean, the City is more than ten times larger than any of the other Municipalities in the region and it isn't even asking for ten times the amount of seats but rather just a veto vote. The City is not asking for the ability to push things through by themselves but simply to stop things they vehemently oppose.


Quote:
Originally Posted by para transit fellow View Post
For the people living outside calgary it seems like the neighbour with the biggest family on the block gets to dictate to the rest of the block -- how you develop your yard, which yard he gets to park his boat in and which house(s) on the block can't be sold to a stranger because he wants to keep it available for when his mother-in-law and sister move to town.
It's not the biggest family but rather the largest group of families. The alternative that the M.D. of Foothills and Rock View want is the families with the largest plots get to dictate block policies.
__________________
“Such suburban models are being rationalized as ‘what people want,’ when in fact they are simply what is most expedient to produce. The truth is that what people want is a decent place to live, not just a suburban version of a decent place to live.”
- Roberta Brandes Gratz
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Sep 17, 2009, 4:37 PM
Riise's Avatar
Riise Riise is offline
City Maker
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary | London
Posts: 3,195
Rocky View Snubs Calgary Regional Partnership

September 16, 2009

Calgary Herald
Jason Markusoff

CALGARY - Rocky View County council formally decided Tuesday to withdraw from the Calgary Regional Partnership, following the move Foothills district made last week in protest of the regional growth plan.

Municipal Affairs Ray Danyluk will wade into the impasse between the alliance's urban members and its now-former rural ones Friday when he offers his views on the controversial growth blueprint.

All the group's town, village or city members--including Calgary, Strathmore, Black Diamond and Airdrie--have endorsed the 60-year plan to preserve green spaces and concentrate growth in certain land pockets and highway corridors.

It also sets density targets as conditions if rural developments get much-needed access to regional water or sewer services, one of the deal-breaking conditions for Foothills, Rocky View and Wheatland County.

They also disparage the plan for giving Calgary an effective veto over major partnership decisions, even though the province has approved similar powers for Edmonton in the capital region's growth plan.

"We don't support the plan, and therefore we have to withdraw or the plan gets imposed," said Rocky View Reeve Lois Habberfield.

Airdrie Mayor Linda Bruce, the group's chair, has said the rural members' demands for changes to the plan would undermine the entire purpose of the plan.

The partnership has asked Danyluk for ideas on how to improve the plan, after the alliance's "gargantuan" effort to strike a sustainable development plan that conforms to the wishes of the province's land-use framework, said Rick Butler, the partnership's executive director.


__________________
“Such suburban models are being rationalized as ‘what people want,’ when in fact they are simply what is most expedient to produce. The truth is that what people want is a decent place to live, not just a suburban version of a decent place to live.”
- Roberta Brandes Gratz
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2009, 12:02 AM
Bassic Lab Bassic Lab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by para transit fellow View Post
i didn't hear that one but it is kinda humorous to think that the city would want to annex 4000 square kilometres of area (Calgary is about 800 sq kms) If the entire area was part of Calgary, I can't imagine the taxpayers out there tollerating a 2 tier level of municipal services.

All of these senarios presume that the newly annexed residents will demand equal access to calgary services:

Can you imagine the cost of providing an 8 minute fire response to Bottrel? that would entail at least one fully-staffed fire station who will spend their days cleaning and recleaning their gear (there are only seven houses out that way). Same problems with police -- going to need several cars outfitted with reading lamps. The cost of extending Access Calgary services (6 am to midnight / seven days a week) through the annexed region would be amusing. It takes an hour just to drive to the far corners of the County for a service that costs $55/hour to provide.

Truth is that Calgary cannot force a dissolution of another municipality. Creation and distruction of municipalities is the role of Alberta Municpal Affairs.

BTW I hear that both Rocky View and Wheatland held meetings today and both have chosen to opt out of the Calgary Municipal Pla as it is currently written.
I can't see the entire county being handed over to Calgary either. On the other hand if the province simply cut it up into some more manageable chunks and handed them over to the closest town or city it could work pretty well. Calgary wouldn't worry about Bottrel, Cochrqane or Cremona would.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2009, 3:50 PM
Riise's Avatar
Riise Riise is offline
City Maker
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary | London
Posts: 3,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassic Lab View Post
I can't see the entire county being handed over to Calgary either.
When you get as angry as the Provincial government apparently did you usually just try to get rid of your problem as soon as possible. You know, the "Here! Just take it!" approach.
__________________
“Such suburban models are being rationalized as ‘what people want,’ when in fact they are simply what is most expedient to produce. The truth is that what people want is a decent place to live, not just a suburban version of a decent place to live.”
- Roberta Brandes Gratz
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2009, 12:01 PM
Riise's Avatar
Riise Riise is offline
City Maker
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary | London
Posts: 3,195
Regional Alliance Carries On Without Rural Holdouts

September 19, 2009

Calgary Herald
Jason Markusoff

The alliance of Calgary-area towns, cities and villages will forge ahead with its growth blueprint without the region's rural municipalities.

As the provincial government launched a review Friday into the plan and rural-urban impasse, Municipal Affairs Minister Ray Danyluk said he was disappointed that Rocky View County, Foothills and Wheatland County have quit the group.

But he signalled reluctance to force them back onside.

"It's like playing in the spectator seat. I mean, I would rather see them on the field," Danyluk told reporters after meeting with the Calgary Regional Partnership.

"I could be the umpire, but right now as far as the (regional) board is concerned, they have elected not to be on the playing field."

Calgary, Okotoks, Cochrane and other area municipalities say they had already compromised their initial ambitions for a long-term, sustainable development strategy to win agreement with the rural councils.

But the rural districts pulled out of the plan--and therefore the partnership -- over protests about an effective Calgary veto for regional decisions and the density targets included as a condition for cities to share scarce water licences and sewage services with rural projects.

Ald. Linda Fox-Mellway said the regional group will keep talking with the rural holdouts.

Terry Waddock, deputy reeve of the Municipal District of Foothills, said he holds out hope the government's review will help broker a plan his council can live with.

__________________
“Such suburban models are being rationalized as ‘what people want,’ when in fact they are simply what is most expedient to produce. The truth is that what people want is a decent place to live, not just a suburban version of a decent place to live.”
- Roberta Brandes Gratz
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2009, 9:03 PM
para transit fellow para transit fellow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 238
this press release came out but i never saw it in the herald:

September 18, 2009
Government to undertake a cross-ministry review of the Calgary Metropolitan Plan

Alberta Municipal Affairs Minister Ray Danyluk released the following statement after meeting with the Calgary Regional Partnership on Friday, September 18.

“I want to acknowledge all members of the Partnership for their tremendous efforts over the last four years to bring this plan forward. The members saw that a strategic plan would help guide the region through growth and they took action.

I have informed the Partnership that the province will undertake a cross-ministry review of the plan, which will involve all relevant ministries. This will ensure the plan aligns with provincial policy. Having Alberta’s municipalities work together is essential to the success of our province, and I believe this is a better plan because of the involvement of both rural and urban municipalities.

Once the review is complete, I will advise the Partnership of the findings and any further direction with respect to the plan and its content.”


-30-
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2009, 8:43 PM
Riise's Avatar
Riise Riise is offline
City Maker
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary | London
Posts: 3,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by para transit fellow View Post
I have informed the Partnership that the province will undertake a cross-ministry review of the plan, which will involve all relevant ministries.
That sounds like a lengthy review...

Thanks for posting this as I probably wouldn't have found it otherwise.
__________________
“Such suburban models are being rationalized as ‘what people want,’ when in fact they are simply what is most expedient to produce. The truth is that what people want is a decent place to live, not just a suburban version of a decent place to live.”
- Roberta Brandes Gratz
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2009, 7:28 AM
Boris2k7's Avatar
Boris2k7 Boris2k7 is offline
Majestic
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Calgary
Posts: 12,010
Para Transit Fellow: It's been a while since I last posted, forgive me on that point. However, you have essentially proven me correct. I am well aware that that the rural municipalities had been a big part of getting the CRP started. I also am well aware that they desired a consensus-based decision making board where each MD would get equal say, so that they couldn't be "bullied" by the city.

That was the point wasn't it? To avoid things like regional plans which would require municipalities to do things that they might not agree with. It was all a giant farce from the start.

Regardless, as can be seen from those meetings, the voting structure was passed 10 to 1. And the 1 left and took their ball home.
__________________
"The only thing that gets me through our winters is the knowledge that they're the only thing keeping us free of giant ass spiders." -MonkeyRonin

Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2009, 7:34 AM
Boris2k7's Avatar
Boris2k7 Boris2k7 is offline
Majestic
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Calgary
Posts: 12,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riise View Post
Airdrie Mayor Linda Bruce, the group's chair, has said the rural members' demands for changes to the plan would undermine the entire purpose of the plan.
On a side note: It's nice to see Linda Bruce standing tall through all of this. She's one of the few who's been acting in good faith through the whole process, while the rural members show their undersides. I had a chance to ask her some questions a little while back in a sort of Q&A, and you can tell from talking to her that she's one of the few politicians you find who "get it."
__________________
"The only thing that gets me through our winters is the knowledge that they're the only thing keeping us free of giant ass spiders." -MonkeyRonin

Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2009, 3:02 PM
para transit fellow para transit fellow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 238
Slightly different point of view from the rurl muni that previously tried to leave the regional partnership effort:

And now they step in
Strathmore Standard - Strathmore,Alberta,Canada

The lack of concern for the rural members, Wheatland County, Rocky View
County and the Municipal District of Foothills, seems to have stopped now
that all ...

http://www.strathmorestandard.com/Ar...aspx?e=1766299
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2010, 3:22 PM
frinkprof's Avatar
frinkprof frinkprof is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Gary
Posts: 4,869
This thread is probably the best fit for this article, since it deals with one of the members of the Calgary Regional Partnerhip, and the Metropolitan Plan is likely one of the factors.

Quote:
Springbank residents ponder separation from Rocky View

Disgruntled residents looking at 'alternatives'

By Jamie Komarnicki, Calgary Herald

March 29, 2010 7:03 AM

CALGARY - In the sprawling acreages and tony homes of west Rocky View, a curious new question is making the rounds: Is life better in Bighorn?

A group of about 200 residents of Springbank's estate country have gone toe-to-toe with Rocky View council for months over a raft of development projects under consideration for the rural county.

Now, they're taking a hard look at their electoral map, and the municipality next door -- Bighorn -- seems easy on the eyes.

[...]
Link
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2010, 8:08 PM
Calgarian's Avatar
Calgarian Calgarian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 24,072
Will Springbank ever become part of Calgary?
__________________
Git'er done!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2010, 10:25 PM
para transit fellow para transit fellow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 238
Quite the active comments section for that news piece-- over a 114 comments already. I don't think the Springbankers are getting the widespread support they expected.

If i recall, Springbank hill was annexed to Calgary in 1994. There was a lot of expensive work to make subdivision possible there. I'm guessing that more of Springbank won't be considered for annexation for 15 years or so ( warning, it's a wild-assed guess).
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Calgary Issues, Business, Politics & the Economy
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:32 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.