Calgary Metropolitan Plan

Wooster · #1 Posted **Jun 10, 2009, 1:38 AM**

Thought I'd start a new thread about the Calgary Metro Plan - a regional plan under the new Alberta Land Use Framework:

Came across this article on people in Okotoks not very happy about it. It's unclear exactly what they have a problem with.

Protestors to call for Calgary Metro plan changes

By Eva Ferguson Calgary Herald, Calgary HeraldJune 9, 2009 5:13 PM

Protestors, including oil patch veteran J.C. Anderson, will be in Okotoks Wednesday morning drawing attention to what they see as serious shortfalls in the Calgary Metropolitan Plan.

Rural community leaders, and chairs of grassroots rural community development groups will give speeches asking for major revisions to the CMP before it goes to ratification June 19.

“This is a serious infringement on the rights of landowners in the MD,” said Anderson, founder of Anderson Exploration who owns a ranch just south of Calgary.

“We’ll end up with just more crappy suburbs like you already have all over Calgary right now.”

Under the guise of the new Provincial Land Use Framework, the Calgary Regional Partnership has created the Calgary Metropolitan Plan, a draft vision for development as Calgary expands beyond its existing borders. It looks at 70-years of future growth, encouraging higher densities in existing communities and limiting excessive development of greenspace and agricultural land.

Also, decisions at the regional partnership will require a “supermajority” comprised of half the region’s population and 12 of 17 members. That means all votes can only pass with Calgary’s approval, but also that Calgary must get at least 11 other local councils onside to win on any issue.

Decisions under the new plan will be made by consensus or that supermajority. The partnership explains that Calgary cannot impose its will on the region, but neither can regional decisions be made without Calgary’s support.

The Citizen Groups United for Sustainable Development, representing Priddis, Millarville, Bearspaw and Springbank, argue the plan has a number of shortfalls.

They say it advocates regional population growth that exceeds water availability, it facilitates further urban sprawl outside city limits without protecting agricultural lands, and it fails to incorporate public input in a meaningful way.

The protest will take place just before a scheduled meeting of the MD of Foothills on the issue at the Okotoks Centennial Centre.

Anderson adds that the supermajority vote will “place the destiny of the MD landowners and residents completely in the hands of Calgary City Council forever.

“It’s simply madness.”

eferguson@theherald.canwest.com
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...079/story.html

Wooster · #2 Posted **Jun 10, 2009, 1:51 AM**

Links:

Presentation to Councils:

http://calgaryregion.ca/crp/media/56...ced%20file.pdf

Calgary Regional Partnership:

http://calgaryregion.ca/crp/

The proposed Plan:

http://calgaryregion.ca/crp/media/54...ay%202009).pdf

Alberta Land Use Framework:

http://www.landuse.alberta.ca/

Wentworth · #3 Posted **Jun 10, 2009, 1:06 PM**

If the Provincial government capitulates, isn't Plan-It's vision of Calgary doomed? The developers will just build their own super-communities outside of city limits and the sprawl will continue.

mersar · #4 Posted **Jun 10, 2009, 6:48 PM**

Quote:

Rocky View pushes for changes to new regional plan

By Sarah Junkin
The Eagle
The M.D. of Rocky View is urging the Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP) to make last-minute changes to its land use plan before it’s presented to 17 municipalities for approval.
The first ever such plan designed for the Calgary area is intended to manage the growth of urban sprawl while at the same time protecting the environment and allocating water over the next 60 years.
Through direction from council, Rocky View administration put together a formal response, outlining five main points it believes are serious problems with the so-called Calgary Metropolitan Plan (CMP).
The letter states that if these points remain unresolved, “We will be unable to ratify the CMP at the upcoming June 19 general assembly meeting.”
“We simply won’t be signing it unless these issues are addressed,” said Reeve Lois Habberfield at a May 26 council meeting.
One of the more contentious issues is councillors don’t believe municipalities will have the necessary access to water to accommodate future growth that’s predicted by the CMP, and they’d like to see it included in the servicing portion of the plan.
As well, the M.D. claims the CRP hasn’t provided enough time for public consultation and feedback, and has recommended that ratification of the plan be postponed.
Though the letter was sent out less than a month before the general assembly, councillors say it wasn’t written carelessly.
“This is not out of haste,” said Coun. Paul McLean. “For two years we’ve been talking about regional partnerships. The reality is we do it every day.”
Councillors also expressed concern about a possible loss of autonomy in the M.D. because under the CRP’s decision-making system, all motions require the support of Calgary as well as 12 of the 17 member municipalities.
Cochrane town council officially endorsed the CRP on May 25.

Source

Riise · #5 Posted **Jun 14, 2009, 12:01 AM**

Rural Calgary Communities Demand 'Voice' In City's Growth
Districts, County Threaten To Kill Metropolitan Plan

June 12, 2009
Calgary Herald
Jason Markusoff

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

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

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

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

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

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

"We have the land mass, but we don't have the voice," Rocky View Reeve Lois Habberfield said Thursday.

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

The same goes for Wheatland and Foothills.

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

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

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

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

Riise · #6 Posted **Jun 14, 2009, 12:04 AM**

No Agreement Over Growth Plan
Regional Alliance Sparring Over Density Rules

June 13, 2009
Calgary Herald
Jason Markusoff

Calgary's regional alliance met Friday without resolving the major problems Calgary's biggest rural neighbours have with the region's growth plan, an impasse that may ultimately force the Stelmach government to step in.

Fifteen of the 17 member municipalities of the Calgary Regional Partnerships voted against making no fundamental changes on water sharing and land use--but several lesser, conciliatory ones--before the vote Friday on the 70-year plan.

The holdouts are the Municipal Districts of Foothills and Rocky View, whose councillors said the disagreements are relatively minor and a resolution is still possible.

Urban leaders in the group disagree, saying the rural districts' demands to scrap density rules, alter planned growth areas and conditions for water sharing would render meaningless the long-awaited plan to concentrate future growth without building over too much farmland.

"The very principles of sustain-ability could not be met if we make those changes," said Airdrie Mayor Linda Bruce, the group's chairwoman.

Foothills council must follow the wishes of residents, Deputy Reeve Terry Waddock said. Hundreds of them voiced opposition to the plan this week, particularly to a voting structure that would give Calgary an effective veto on regional decisions, as well to a growth map that proposes more urban-style growth in the rural land just south of Calgary.

Although Rocky View and Foothills occupy much of the land in the alliance, the partnership has enough supportive voters to ratify the long-range plan without them.

The blueprint, dubbed the Calgary Metropolitan Plan, is mandated under Alberta's new land-use framework.

Municipal Affairs Minister Ray Danyluk said he's confident Calgary's neighbours can agree among themselves, and that he doesn't want to run interference if he doesn't have to.

"This government cannot afford the duplication in regional planning."

Cochrane Mayor Truper McBride said the urban-rural split doesn't really exist anymore, since Friday's "yes" vote included Wheatland County, the rural district surrounding Strathmore.

But the county's Shirley Reinhardt said Wheatland still needs time to consider whether it will ultimately sign on--whether or not it can iron out its serious concerns afterwards.

Wheatland abruptly exited the regional group last fall, but came back to the table after a meeting with Ted Morton, the Sustainable Resource Development minister.

Riise · #7 Posted **Jun 14, 2009, 12:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riise

"We have the land mass, but we don't have the voice," Rocky View Reeve Lois Habberfield said Thursday.

When I go back to visit my old workmates I should explain the concept of democracy to Reeve Habberfield. Democracy stems from the Greek word Demokratia which means rule of (kratos) the people (demos). It does not mean rule of the land owners, that might be an aristocracy or plutocracy.

O-tacular · #8 Posted **Jun 14, 2009, 12:19 AM**

I watched this documentary the other day called Who killed the electric car. The situation the city is facing with its growth plan now makes me think of California's emissions regulation that was the impetus to start making electric cars again back in the 80's / 90's. What happened according to this documentary was that California ended up watering down their plan and as a result the car companies had no more reason to pursue the more efficient albeit less profitable electric volt cars. GM basically cannibalized their own cars after repossessing their leased vehicles. Anyway, I'm concerned if the city waters down this roadmap for our future, the end result will be a city that continues to sprawl and homebuilders that continue to hold too much clout.

End of rambling speech.

Vascilli · #9 Posted **Jun 14, 2009, 12:51 AM**

Electric vehicles are still illegal to drive on roads, right?

MalcolmTucker · #10 Posted **Jun 14, 2009, 1:14 AM**

No. As long as electric vehicles meet federal safety standards they can be driven on any roads. That none of the current crop that Zenn and others produce meet that standard is not the government's fault. Tesla's are fine and there are many conversion companies, if your willing to spend the big bucks.

Vascilli · #11 Posted **Jun 14, 2009, 1:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

No. As long as electric vehicles meet federal safety standards they can be driven on any roads. That none of the current crop that Zenn and others produce meet that standard is not the government's fault. Tesla's are fine and there are many conversion companies, if your willing to spend the big bucks.

Excellent.

Kind of makes me wonder why I've yet to see any electric cars.

frinkprof · #12 Posted **Jun 14, 2009, 1:47 AM**

Nm

Riise · #13 Posted **Sep 10, 2009, 5:42 PM**

M.D. Foothills Withdraws From Calgary Regional Partnership

September 9, 2009
Calgary Herald
Jason Markusoff

CALGARY- The rural municipality south of Calgary has withdrawn from the Calgary Regional Partnership, delivering a solid blow to the alliance’s hopes to ratify a sustainable growth blueprint without the provincial government having to interfere.

The Municipal District of Foothills was one of three Calgary-area rural councils that voted again the long-range Calgary Metropolitan Plan in June.

The plan to concentrate population growth in certain lands and highway corridors was endorsed by Calgary and all nearby towns or cities, while Foothills and other groups were given 90 days to pull out or conform to the plan.

The rural district’s councillors decided Tuesday to exit the six-year-old partnership, expressing fear its growth plan would "erode and... take away the rightful municipal autonomy of Foothills, its land-use authority and the rights of its residents," Coun. Barbara Castell said.

Officials with the partnership strongly disagree, noting that the plan explicitly acknowledges it doesn’t dictate local land-use decisions can’t be changed.

The alliance may suffer another setback next week, when Rocky View County and Wheatland County both hold a special meeting to decide their future within the regional group.

Those rural councils, along with Foothills, denounced the metropolitan plan’s method of voting on major issues. Calgary, with its massive population, effectively veto on such matters, but the city must find at least 11 of the 17-member group’s other municipalities to vote alongside it for any motion to pass.

Wheatland quit the partnership last fall, only to return months later after meeting with Ted Morton, the cabinet minister responsible for the land-use framework that requires urban regions to pass sustainable growth blueprints.

Provincial ministers have hinted they will force the Calgary regional players to cooperate, just as they did with the formerly squabbling councils around Edmonton.

But the Stelmach government has repeatedly expressed hopes the partnership would be able to resolve its own disagreements.

"I’m pleading with them to do that. We don’t want to make decisions on behalf of people living in this area from the capital," Premier Ed Stelmach said in June, according to the Okotoks Western Wheel.

Riise · #14 Posted **Sep 10, 2009, 5:45 PM**

Rural Partners To Pull Out Of Calgary Regional Plan
Foothills Council Votes To Abandon Municipal Alliance

September 10, 2009
Calgary Herald
Jason Markusoff

CALGARY - The rural municipality south of Calgary has withdrawn from the Calgary Regional Partnership, delivering a solid blow to the alliance's hopes to ratify a sustainable growth blueprint without the provincial government having to intervene.

The Municipal District of Foothills' decision this week will likely be matched next week by Rocky View County and possibly Wheatland County, nearly three months after the rural districts all rejected the partnership's Calgary Metropolitan Plan.

A regional alliance without three of the area's vastest municipalities appears unworkable, and provincial ministers have suggested they may have to step in. Already, Rocky View Reeve Lois Habberfield is calling for the province to assign a mediator to break the impasse.

The plan to concentrate population growth in certain lands and highway corridors -- and provide them with water and sewer services --was endorsed by Calgary and all nearby towns or cities in June, while the counties were given 90 days to pull out or conform to the plan.

"I think we'd all like to stay, but we can't stay with a plan that undermines our autonomy and doesn't give our residents any effective voice in the partnership," Habberfield said.

Her language echoes the motion passed Tuesday by Foothills councillors, which will abandon a six-year-old alliance whose plan they say would "erode and. . . take away the rightful municipal autonomy of Foothills, its land-use authority and the rights of its residents," Coun. Barbara Castell said.

"We have been pounding away at this for two years, and no one's listening."

Partnership officials have disagreed with the allegations, noting the plan explicitly acknowledges it doesn't dictate local land-use decisions.

The counties also denounce the metropolitan plan's voting system, which effectively gives Calgary a veto. However, the city must get at least 11 of the other 17 members to vote with it to approve any vote.

Calgary, which holds most of the water-scarce region's water allocation licences, says it is willing to share water and extend sewer lines if its neighbours minimize the footprint of development and allow corridors for possible future city growth or annexations.

But Rocky View said the growth plan makes regional servicing conditional on urban densities that even most Calgary suburbs don't have, while Foothills derides the plan's map suggesting growth along its boundary with Calgary as "blue blobs" of unwanted development.

The partnership's chairman and executive director could not be reached for comment Wednesday. Calgary Mayor Dave Bronconnier declined comment, since he had not yet received a letter about Foothills' withdrawal.

Wheatland County will also decide its fate next week. It quit the partnership last fall, only to re-enter after meeting with Ted Morton, the minister responsible for the land-use framework that requires Calgary to complete a sustainable growth plan.

Municipal Affairs Minister Ray Danyluk said he'll soon release his comments on the metropolitan plan that Calgary, Airdrie, Okotoks and other "urban" partnership members endorsed in June. In an interview Wednesday, he said the urban and rural sides need to co-operate, but wouldn't say whether he'll force it, as the government did with Edmonton and its squabbling neighbours.

"When you have a regional plan, I feel it's in the best interests of the region of the whole, for all participating municipalities to have a voice," the minister said.

Riise · #15 Posted **Sep 10, 2009, 5:51 PM**

Frustrated? Yes.
Surprised? Hell no!

Wooster · #16 Posted **Sep 10, 2009, 5:52 PM**

This is where the province needs to use a bit of heavy hand and ensure an effective solution that's to the greater benefit of the region, not individula municipalities.

para transit fellow · #17 Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 2:59 AM**

I don't think the province can institute a heavy-handed solution that will be effective. I understand the Capital region board still has some in-fighting.

shogged · #18 Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 10:09 AM**

i vote annex

para transit fellow · #19 Posted **Sep 11, 2009, 9:42 PM**

Quote:

Annex?

Are you suggesting that the MD of Foothills or Rocky View County should annex Calgary?

I admit that it would be an unusual solution to the problem.

Riise · #20 Posted **Sep 12, 2009, 5:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

Are you suggesting that the MD of Foothills or Rocky View County should annex Calgary?

I admit that it would be an unusual solution to the problem.

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.