St. Albert to pursue annexation from Sturgeon County

[RichardS]

Sent to my news feed....


------Original Message------
From: St Albert Gazette
Sender: St Albert Gazette
To: ***********
ReplyTo: newsbulletin@stalbert.greatwest.ca
Subject: St. Albert Gazette news bulletin, April 30, 2012
Sent: Apr 30, 2012 7:54 PM

St. Albert Gazette April 30, 2012

*** News Bulletin ***

Hi ,

Here's your news bulletin of the moment:
================================================== =====
St. Albert to pursue annexation from Sturgeon County ================================================== =====

Five years after a lengthy and costly annexation that soured relations between St. Albert and Sturgeon County, city council voted Monday night to start proceedings on its third annexation from the county in 11 years.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To read the full story or read other articles go to:
http://www.stalbertgazette.com/artic...turgeon-county

************************************************** ************
News bulletin brought to you by: {edit...ad removed}
************************************************** ************

[jagators63]

st albert should join into edmonton lol

[ThomasH]

It's about time Edmonton annexes St. Albert, perhaps Sturgeon County would agree.

[jagators63]

I wish it was to happen but st albert will not let Edmonton annex them.

[Chmilz]

Originally Posted by ThomasH

It's about time Edmonton annexes St. Albert, perhaps Sturgeon County would agree.

No way. They have no industrial base and super high taxes. If anything, annex Sherwood Park, their refineries, and their super low taxes.

[edmonton daily photo]

^ yep 10o% agree.

St Albert is looking at major infrastructure expenditures with not enough tax base to solve it... this is why they annexing land. They are trying to build up commercial lands.

Making Edmonton population bigger isn't the answer, we need to go after money.... Our annexation should be the airport, Nisku and the QE2 corridor that connects it.

[RichardS]

Edmonton doesn't want to annex St Albert. Since that is not in the cards, growing their commercial base is the only option - so annexation.

[Doppelganger]

Perhaps St. Albert should consider annexing Edmonton ....
I live in St. Albert. Yes, the property taxes are high, but I wouldn't consider them "super high". And for those taxes we get pretty decent quality of life - lots of leafy boulevards, biking and jogging trails, prompt snow removal from residential streets, and a remarkable lack of potholes and crumbling sidewalks. All of that has got to be worth something (cue the MasterCard commercial).

[Komrade]

Originally Posted by Doppelganger

Perhaps St. Albert should consider annexing Edmonton ....
I live in St. Albert. Yes, the property taxes are high, but I wouldn't consider them "super high". And for those taxes we get pretty decent quality of life - lots of leafy boulevards, biking and jogging trails, prompt snow removal from residential streets, and a remarkable lack of potholes and crumbling sidewalks. All of that has got to be worth something (cue the MasterCard commercial).

Ugh. The percieved 'better' quality of life and mindset that comes with it from the St Albert crowd is exactly what turns me off about that place.

[edmonton daily photo]

St Albet is nice... its nothing super special.. it's just like any other Ann Arbor or Hinsdale....

what they ( the average st Albert Joes/Susans) don't realizes is the ticking infrastructural time bomb they are sitting on. That majority of that suburb was all built at the same time and they can look forward to major roads failing, sidewalks cracking etc.. staring in the next decade or so.

[Chmilz]

Originally Posted by Doppelganger

Perhaps St. Albert should consider annexing Edmonton ....
I live in St. Albert. Yes, the property taxes are high, but I wouldn't consider them "super high". And for those taxes we get pretty decent quality of life - lots of leafy boulevards, biking and jogging trails, prompt snow removal from residential streets, and a remarkable lack of potholes and crumbling sidewalks. All of that has got to be worth something (cue the MasterCard commercial).

You realize taxes are about 50% higher in St. Albert than in Edmonton right? And as was mentioned, they won't be nearly enough to cover the infrastructure needs. A lot of St. Albert is already crumbling, with no funds to fix it.

Our taxes in Edmonton, despite being the most they've ever been, already include all that's necessary to completely replace aging infrastructure, as is being done every year, community by community.

Anecdote: my employer wanted to expand via acquisitions. A large competitor opened their books to us in an effort to sell themselves for a profit, thinking they were the cream of the crop and could laugh all the way to the bank. The books were a mess, and even though purchasing the company would have realized us advantages, economies of scale, and reduced competition, it was an accounting nightmare scenario that likely would never return any real profit.

In this case, my company represents Edmonton, and the messy competitor represents St. Albert.

[moahunter]

^I thought people in St Albert preferred paying more to keep out the riff/raff and transients. It surprises me that might be changing, perhaps St Albert has built too many sprawl neighborhoods recently and isn't only a desirable exclusive community anymore?

[Chmilz]

^They need to bring down the taxes so Wal-Mart employees can afford to live there and continue selling the worlds cheapest garbage to a group of people that think they're fancypants.

[East McCauley]

Here is a link to the City of St. Albert news release that also has a link of the lands being rezoned industrial: http://www.stalbert.ca/2012-may-01-c...opment?id=2408

This is one of those unfortunate situations where a decision that makes sense from a municipal perspective (i.e. diversifying the tax base) makes no sense from a regional perspective.

What the region ends up with is a relatively small industrial area geographically isolated from other adjacent and much larger industrial areas (e.g. Acheson in Parkland County and the Edmonton NW Industrial Area).

[edmontonenthusiast]

I don't get the obsession with annexation. Other cities manage fine, maybe we can all just learn to get along better?

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

St Albet is nice... its nothing super special.. it's just like any other Ann Arbor or Hinsdale....

what they ( the average st Albert Joes/Susans) don't realizes is the ticking infrastructural time bomb they are sitting on. That majority of that suburb was all built at the same time and they can look forward to major roads failing, sidewalks cracking etc.. staring in the next decade or so.

Ann Arbor (Michigan) is a lot more interesting than "St. Albet" (sic). It's basically Michigan's cool, urban destination like Whyte Ave or 124th St is, as Detroit itself lacks this for the most part, aside from small parts of suburban downtowns. Ann Arbor is more comparable to Madison (WI), Burlington (VT), Kingston (ON), Lawrence (KS), or Saskatoon (SK).

[TheGreatestX]

Crouse said besides Sturgeon County, there are a couple of plots of land in Edmonton the city might want to examine.

I'm guessing the land NW of the AHD/127 interchange?

[Municipal Man of Mystery]

^^Hopefully - that land only makes sense to be in St Albert since it's isolated from the rest of Edmonton on the other side of the Henday. I'm not sure why it was even annexed by Edmonton to begin with. However, it also contains the new Remand Centre, which, despite being the responsibility of the Province, I'm sure St Albert wouldn't want to have within their boundaries. Also, isn't Edmonton working on a new residential neighbourhood plan for that area?

[Edmcowboy11]

Well if Edmonton wanted to annex St.Albert and have the support of the St.Albert residents, all that Edmonton has to do is wait for St.Albert taxes to go up even more while Edmonton takes remain lower.

I do agree though that if Edmonton is to annex any place it should be either Refinery Row or Nisku.

[East McCauley]

The logic for St. Albert, the Urban Service Area of Sherwood Park (which includes Refinery Row) and Edmonton joining forces to form a single municipality is overwhelming. CFB Edmonton should also be included.

Back in the late 1970s (when annexation was last proposed) the argument could be made that these jurisdictions did not yet form a continous built up urban area. That argument is no longer valid. Most residents of St. Albert and Sherwood Park are actually closer in distance to Edmonton's city centre than residents in developing areas within Edmonton's boundaries like The Hamptons, Windermere, Heritage Valley and Ellerslie.

Joining forces in a single municipality would also avoid ridiculous planning decisions like St. Albert developing its own small, geographically isolated industrial park on the north shores of Big Lake.

[SP59]

For the logic to be overwhelming there would have to be obvious benefits to all the parties who would want this amalgamation.

[Municipal Man of Mystery]

East McCauley, I completely agree - definitely time for Edmonton to annex St Albert, Sherwood Park, Nisku, and YEG. It only makes sense since these areas already use a lot of Edmonton infrastructure and services (plus the LRT proposed to go out to the boundary with St Albert), it would create a lot more efficiencies in terms of public and automobile transportation, land use, taxation, municipal services, etc, plus it's been about 30 years since our last annexation. Halifax did it, Montreal did it, Toronto did it, Calgary does it. What's stopping us? Politics and lack of foresight, of course. Perhaps the Province should step in.

[East McCauley]

Originally Posted by SP59

For the logic to be overwhelming there would have to be obvious benefits to all the parties who would want this amalgamation.

How's this for starters:
*14 fewer politicians with their pay and perks (assumes St. Albert and Sherwood Park would each get one member on a combined Council, and the rest of Strathcona County divided between the Counties of Leduc and Sturgeon);
*one transit system rather than three;
*one police service rather than two;
*one fire department rather than three; and
*one civic bureaucracy (land use, transportation, recreation, economic development, utilities, etc.) rather than three.

Just because it's logical doesn't mean that - in the absence of political leadership - it's going to happen any time soon.

[edmonton daily photo]

Bigger is NOT better....

Ask the residents of TORONTO how it's working out for them.

The only annexation that makes scene is YEG and Nisku. They exist solely because of Edmonton its absurd that leduc county gets all the benefit and still gets the added benefits of nearly full provincial funding for infrastructure because they are rural.

I don't understand why you, mccauley, would call for any movement that would further reduce the clout of the inner city neighborhoods because that is what will happen if you add 12 more suburban councilors. Bigger is not better

[SP59]

^^ No thanks.

Dismantling Strathcona County would sure be a win for for the Counties of Sturgeon and Leduc. Look at the 10's of millions they would be getting in new tax revenue, without the costs associated with them.

I think I'm better off with the services that I currently have. I have great doubts about my services improving (or even staying the same) if Sherwood Park was to become part of Edmonton. The City of Edmonton can't even cut the grass and pick up the litter, why would I want that for Sherwood Park?

I think Edmonton needs to find a way to localize their decisions to a lower level. Maybe then street cleaning and general maintenance might improve. What they are doing now isn't working.

[edmonton daily photo]

SP56

I welcome your feedback but really you should stop yourself from slinging mud. The services that Edmonton must provide to the entire capital region with no support from the other capital partners is an extensive list.

So make you a deal... you help pay for your portion of the services for homeless/mentally ill/ addictions/health etc and then we can talk like we are even partners in this marriage. vI really feel that snotty posts such as "Edmonton can't even cut the grass" just feeds the belief that Edmonton should annex its neighbors because I would counter that Sherwood park cant even run a Zoo or a Regional Heritage park, LRT system, It's own police department or one of North Americas largest green belts. I agree with you that the more Edmonton pushes decision making down to local smaller groups the better it will be.

[SP59]

edp:

Why is Edmonton providing services for the homeless, mentally ill, addictions and health? Stepping into do things that other levels of government should be responsible for is not helping Edmonton (or any other municipality) in being able to do what a municipality should be doing. That is voluntarily downloading responsibilities from the provincial government.

Strathcona County does pay for a transit system, libraries, parks, policing, fire department and other services that sometimes people from Edmonton also use.

IMO having well maintained boulevards that are free of litter is a positive thing that would enhance the City of Edmonton and give a more positive impression and make people feel better about where they live. I think it should be a higher priority of the city.

[East McCauley]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

I don't understand why you, mccauley, would call for any movement that would further reduce the clout of the inner city neighborhoods because that is what will happen if you add 12 more suburban councilors. Bigger is not better

I talked about adding 2 more councillors (1 each for St. Albert and Sherwood Park), not 12. Looking at the composition of the current Council, I see no correlation between their support for inner city neighbourhoods and the ward they represent. Some of the most supportive councillors (e.g. on crime prevention, inner city revitalization) represent suburban wards.

"Bigger is better" or "bigger is not better" are just slogans. I subscribe to neither. For the reasons more fully explained in posts above, my position remains that the continuous built up Edmonton urban area should be a single municipality. Not that I expect it to happen any time soon.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by SP59

Why is Edmonton providing services for the homeless, mentally ill, addictions and health? Stepping into do things that other levels of government should be responsible for is not helping Edmonton (or any other municipality) in being able to do what a municipality should be doing. That is voluntarily downloading responsibilities from the provincial government.

I agree 100%, I have long believed this. Edmonton taxpayers pay an unfair amount compared to taxpayers in other cities, because of the "do-gooder" nature of Councilors in the City. All these Councilors are really doing, is giving the Province a free pass.

[East McCauley]

Originally Posted by SP59

^^ No thanks.

Dismantling Strathcona County would sure be a win for for the Counties of Sturgeon and Leduc. Look at the 10's of millions they would be getting in new tax revenue, without the costs associated with them.

I think I'm better off with the services that I currently have. I have great doubts about my services improving (or even staying the same) if Sherwood Park was to become part of Edmonton.

Much of refinery row was already built before Sherwood Park became the mega-hamlet it is today. So I'm not sure how current residents of Sherwood Park/Strathcona County could be said to have a greater claim to the industrial tax revenue Refinery Row generates than residents of Leduc or Sturgeon Counties, or residents of Edmonton for that matter.

I'm trying to not look at the possibility of amalgamation from the point of view of my self-interest, but rather what is best and most logical for the region as a whole. That's why I don't agree with EDP's position that Edmonton should annex Nisku Industrial Park and YEG, but not Sherwood Park or St. Albert. EDP's proposal would be based on the City's self-interest, and not based on what is best for the region. Plus it would create a pretty illogical City Boundary while cutting most of Leduc County in half.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by East McCauley

I'm trying to not look at the possibility of amalgamation from the point of view of my self-interest, but rather what is best and most logical for the region as a whole.

I don't think amalgamation is a good idea for Edmonton. Many of the neighborhing cities, like St Albert, actually have much higher tax rates than in Edmonton. Taking them into Edmonton, will just be a burden on Edmonton residents, and make it even harder to get approval for downtown initiatives (given there will be even more suburbanites "opposed" to the idea).

Let these communities stew in their own self inflicted sprawl problems, its time for Edmonton to start seriously righting its own ship.

[Medwards]

oh great, the sherwood park elitests have shown up to this thread...

"Why should we help the homeless, poor, addicted and less desirables!!! We live in our own bubble in Sherwood Park away from you hideous Edmonton people with your crumbling infrastructure. We don't have the problem because we have a large industrial tax base that we like to hog all to ourselves, and no, we don't want to help pay for the problems a large city faces thank you very much"

What is with this attitude from most SPers?

[SP59]

Why the quotation marks?

[Medwards]

why not? Are you offended by the quotation marks?

[SP59]

If you are saying something you don't need quotation marks. Nobody else said what you wrote so they are pretty much just an attempt at suggesting that someone else said what you want others to read.

moahunter clearly understood what I was saying, yourself clearly not.

[TheGreatestX]

I think Beaver County should get a chunk of Strathcona too

[East McCauley]

Originally Posted by moahunter

I don't think amalgamation is a good idea for Edmonton. Many of the neighborhing cities, like St Albert, actually have much higher tax rates than in Edmonton. Taking them into Edmonton, will just be a burden on Edmonton residents, and make it even harder to get approval for downtown initiatives (given there will be even more suburbanites "opposed" to the idea).

Yes, but taxes are somewhat lower in Sherwood Park. With refinery row as part of the amalgamation, it's probably a saw off for Edmonton tax-wise.

Amalgamating St. Albert, Sherwood Park, and CFB Edmonton will increase Edmonton's population by 16% to over 940,000 (2011 figures). Some of the loudest support for the DT Arena is coming from suburbanites who don't currently have to help pay for it. Amalgamation means a 16% larger assessment base to pay for a Downtown Arena. An arena that seems to have morphed into City Council's #1 infrastructure priority.

[RichardS]

dusts this off again

...since the same arguments are returning...

[Medwards]

you may want to correct your link, its missing a :

but yes... those arguments are coming up again... meanwhile, the Capital Region Board continues to chug ahead... silently...

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by East McCauley

I talked about adding 2 more councillors (1 each for St. Albert and Sherwood Park), not 12. Looking at the composition of the current Council, I see no correlation between their support for inner city neighbourhoods and the ward they represent. Some of the most supportive councillors (e.g. on crime prevention, inner city revitalization) represent suburban wards.

"Bigger is better" or "bigger is not better" are just slogans. I subscribe to neither. For the reasons more fully explained in posts above, my position remains that the continuous built up Edmonton urban area should be a single municipality. Not that I expect it to happen any time soon.

fair enough but if you think that Sherwood park and ST Albert are quietly going to go from a city council to 1 representative i think you are sorely mistaken. Likely they would end up with two each or wards would be redrawn so that parts of Edmonton would now become Edmonton/St Albert wards.

Regardless of it being 2 or for or 12... it still reduces the voice of the inner city on council.

Bigger is not better is not just a saying... You tell me how well Toronto's super city council is working? Suburban factions fighting with what was Toronto Proper. A suburban mayor who is trying to push car centric suburban ideas on a city that wants sustainability and transportation options other than the car.

The capital region is FAR better off working cooperatively under a framework of strategic partnerships with recognition that Edmonton is the dominate player than it ever will under annexation. Annexation of population centers has proven time and time again to be a disaster... I would venture to say you think your policy is what is best for Edmonton but in application it is far from.

[RichardS]

Originally Posted by Medwards

you may want to correct your link(...)

fixed...thanks!

[RichardS]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

(...)

fair enough but if you think that Sherwood park and ST Albert are quietly going to go from a city council to 1 representative i think you are sorely mistaken. (...)

The capital region is FAR better off working cooperatively under a framework of strategic partnerships with recognition that Edmonton is the dominate player than it ever will under annexation. Annexation of population centers has proven time and time again to be a disaster... I would venture to say you think your policy is what is best for Edmonton but in application it is far from.

..with the bold statement, I wholeheartedly agree. There is no way in *ahem* they are going to do that...

I will challenge the disaster part though...Mega City failed because even after it was created, the factions still acted somwhat autonomously...its failure was directly related to the implementation and the lack of sustainment.

We could, if the framework could remain enforcable, do what you say. However, I know that the other partners have no desire to bow to Edmonton as the "dominant partner", and actually have rather grand plans of their own. Now, it would take a long time for any single regional partner to get to Edmonton's status...but...gang up and we have a different issue.

In short, under the current MGA, unless Mommy and Daddy province want to make sure that all play nice, and that no kids decide that sibling rivalry should ever rule the day again, we will always be back here. Mom and Dad have repeatedly shown that there is good politics in watching the kids throw buns at each other around the dinner table...

[edmonton daily photo]

^ I won't limit my argument just to Toronto.. even if you look at Edmonton's past annexations. Beverly, JP, Strathcona just to name a few..... Edmonton has a long history of horrible annexations.

[Medwards]

whats so horrible about those annexations?

[East McCauley]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

^ I won't limit my argument just to Toronto.. even if you look at Edmonton's past annexations. Beverly, JP, Strathcona just to name a few..... Edmonton has a long history of horrible annexations.

So you're saying that Edmonton would be better off if these past annexations had never happened and Strathcona, Beverly, JP and Calder were all separate cities?

[Blueline]

what benefits could St Ab. + sherwood realize if there ever was annexation ?

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by East McCauley

So you're saying that Edmonton would be better off if these past annexations had never happened and Strathcona, Beverly, JP and Calder were all separate cities?

I'm saying what happened to those communities as a result of annexation was not the desired outcome and to turn around the negative side effects has cost the city a lot.... not just in money but also socially.

I can't say if the city would have been better off with or without them.... I will say that the city of Vancouver has done pretty well by staying small..

[Sonic Death Monkey]

Everyone keeps beating this annexation dead horse, so I'll pull out my standard reply:

It is completely pointless to annex bedroom communities because others will simply replace them. Annex St. Albert, and Morinville becomes the new St. Albert. Annex Sherwood Park and Ardrossan takes its place.

[edmonton daily photo]

^ yep ... where does it stop.

[Medwards]

Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey

Everyone keeps beating this annexation dead horse, so I'll pull out my standard reply:

It is completely pointless to annex bedroom communities because others will simply replace them. Annex St. Albert, and Morinville becomes the new St. Albert. Annex Sherwood Park and Ardrossan takes its place.

This is where the province steps in with a greenbelt... so no, annexing St Albert doesn't make Morinville the next bedroom community, if done correct.

Refer to the link Richards posted and read it.

the MGA needs to be fixed to stop enabling senseless sprawl. Whether the sprawl happens on the Edmonton side, or the other side, it doesn't matter. We still all pay for bad land use policies. We are all under the same Alberta roof.

[Medwards]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

^ yep ... where does it stop.

Where does the sprawl stop? It stops when the province puts a stop to it by fixing the MGA.

[Medwards]

Having a single city with a distinct vision is one of the many reasons why Calgary is so far ahead of Edmonton region and its 25 different mayors all competing against each other for limited resources.

[urbantown]

When I look at our region's new subdivisions I see new townhouses, small single family lots and multi-family sites. We do not have a problem with sprawl..Any of our past issues with urban sprawl have been remedied by higher density targets and the cost of construction. Take a drive through Phoenix if you want to see sprawl!

Edmonton needs to annex land and needs to do it soon. Edmonton has built out to all of its municipal boundaries. There is presently a severe shortage of serviced commercial land in Edmonton and Beaumont.

The reality is that Beaumont or Edmonton have the services and the resources to plan and bring serviced land to the market. The rural municipalities do not have the resources to bring the land into production. Inter municipal plans do not work. Annexation need not be a controversial or horrible event. Edmonton has not annexed land for land for 31 years yet Airdrie has had 3 friendly annexations in the past 10 years. There are lots of examples of friendly and successful annexations.

Politicians in the surrounding areas of Edmonton need to understand that they must accommodate urban growth. Landowners next to urban areas recognize that their land is needed but the politicians in the rural areas are more interested in blocking any
annexation efforts. Ironically, the majority of the landowners next to the urban areas
support annexation but their elected politicians feel compelled to block their wishes.

Our urban mayors have been complacent. It is time for Mandel and Berube to make an aggressive move to grow. Hats off to Nolan Crouse and the City of St.Albert who are about embark on their 3rd annexation in 10 years. PS You will remember that New York City was close to bankruptcy in the late 1970's. Time fixed New York and I suspect time and a change in policy will save St.Albert.

[jagators63]

Edmonton needs to fill up the empty lands such as city centre airport and the land where smokestack still stood today at yellowhead trail and fort road first then annex any future land.

[East McCauley]

urbantown, I agree with you on a couple of points. First, the new subdivisions built in the 2000s are somewhat denser than those built in the 1960s to 1990s, and more typical of those built before 1960. Second, the proliferation of the half acre to one acre fully serviced "estate" lots in the rural counties surrounding Edmonton consumes an awful lot of land while housing relatively few people.

Further to your point about inter-municipal plans not working, the Capital Region Board seems to be resulting in even worse decisions. It's like "you support my pet development project, and I'll support yours." How else to explain the City of Edmonton's support at the CRB for a low density residential project in Leduc County called East Villas?

Where I strongly disagree is that Edmonton is facing a shortage of land. For proof, take a lot at Tables 1, 2 and 3 in the draft Growth Coordination Strategy. Add up the numbers. Edmonton has enough land at its outer edges to house an additional 652,000 residents (compared to 2009). That's a decades long supply of undeveloped land, and doesn't even include trying to shift more of the population growth downtown and to mature neighbourhoods.

[Thomas Hinderks]

For proof, take a lot at Tables 1, 2 and 3 in the draft Growth Coordination Strategy. Add up the numbers. Edmonton has enough land at its outer edges to house an additional 652,000 residents (compared to 2009). That's a decades long supply of undeveloped land, and doesn't even include trying to shift more of the population growth downtown and to mature neighbourhoods

Which more than covers the growth projections presented to a group I am sitting on a short time ago.

IIRC...Current projections...as presented we are at 1.2 mil, projections are for Edmonton to reach a pop of 1.6 to 1.9 mil by 2050...so based on the info from the above quote we already have enough without any infill development!

We really do not require any additional lands in the foreseeable future and their is no need to be putting agri lands under the asphalt through annexation.

My opinion

[SP59]

^^The one half to one acre lots in some cases are better than the alternative 3 acre lots. In some of the developments where the 1/2 to 1 acre lots are being created there is for more environmental reserve which preserves natural areas better that the alternative sized acreages. Acreage subdivisions can wipe out more farmland and natural ares faster than any of the new urban subdivisions could.

[urbantown]

Originally Posted by East McCauley

Further to your point about inter-municipal plans not working, the Capital Region Board seems to be resulting in even worse decisions. It's like "you support my pet development project, and I'll support yours." How else to explain the City of Edmonton's support at the CRB for a low density residential project in Leduc County called East Villas?

I agree with your comments about East Vistas...it really was a dumb decision. Allowing municipalities to create inter-municipal plans as a substitute for annexation will result in no development. Show me 1 inter-municipal plan where something was actually built and I will give you several examples of where they resulted in nothing being built.

[urbantown]

Originally Posted by East McCauley

Where I strongly disagree is that Edmonton is facing a shortage of land. For proof, take a lot at Tables 1, 2 and 3 in the draft Growth Coordination Strategy. Add up the numbers. Edmonton has enough land at its outer edges to house an additional 652,000 residents (compared to 2009). That's a decades long supply of undeveloped land, and doesn't even include trying to shift more of the population growth downtown and to mature neighbourhoods.

There is a definate shortage of serviced and zoned commercial land. I am not familiar with the report you speak of but as someone involved in the land industry I can tell you that there is severe shortage of land ready for development in south Edmonton and Beaumont. ie. Beaumont's largest contiguous land parcel ready for commercial development is about 6-7 acres.

You speak about an abundance of residential land within our boundaries and you are partially correct. First you speak about raw land but do not talk about the difficulty and expense of servicing areas in the south east or the deep west end. It is likely that there are more efficient and less costly areas to develop in. Second, the majority of the residential land supply is in the north-east which has historically had a very low absorption rate. With 70 to 80 percent of the demand for new residential predicted to be in the south one could assume that these lands, subject to the above servicing constants, would be built out long before north east Edmonton.

Edmonton needs to be pro-active and provide a supply of land where it is demanded (next to the airport, Nisku and Edmonton's industrial area) not in the north east. The proof is in the pudding when you consider that Edmonton has already built to Edmonton's south boundary and that the number 1 and 2 fastest growing municipalities in the region are Beaumont ( #7 fastest growing community in Canada) and Leduc.

In fairness to you I have not read the report you speak of and I certainly may be wrong. It seems to me the last thing we want to do is build out our southern edge and force the market to build in the north. Remember when people do not have a choice they always have the option of doing nothing. Let's not put ourselves in this position. It's time for Edmonton and Beaumont to annex some land!

[urbantown]

[QUOTE=East McCauley;44151

Where I strongly disagree is that Edmonton is facing a shortage of land. For proof, take a lot at Tables 1, 2 and 3 in the draft Growth Coordination Strategy.[/QUOTE]

Can you direct me to where I might find a copy of this report? Thanks

[East McCauley]

[QUOTE=urbantown;441597]

Originally Posted by East McCauley;44151

Where I strongly disagree is that Edmonton is facing a shortage of land. For proof, take a lot at Tables 1, 2 and 3 in the draft Growth Coordination Strategy.[/QUOTE

Can you direct me to where I might find a copy of this report? Thanks

Here on the City website: http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...-strategy.aspx

The Growth Coordination Strategy draft can be downloaded from the top of the right column (Related Documents). Tables 1-3 are on pages 35 and 36.

[East McCauley]

Originally Posted by SP59

^^The one half to one acre lots in some cases are better than the alternative 3 acre lots. In some of the developments where the 1/2 to 1 acre lots are being created there is for more environmental reserve which preserves natural areas better that the alternative sized acreages. Acreage subdivisions can wipe out more farmland and natural ares faster than any of the new urban subdivisions could.

That would be true if the fully serviced "estate" lots really were an alternative to the 3 acre lots. What deterred a lot of City folk from buying an acreage is not affordability, but rather the inconvenience of having to put in their own utilities (water, power, gas), and manage their own waste (septic tanks, garbage removal), as well as snow removal in the winter-time or grading their driveways the rest of the year.

The fully serviced estate lots are marketed as making "country living" possible for folks who may not be handy, or don't want to spend their time doing all the things the old style acreage owner had to contend with.

[Edmcowboy11]

Well I think the only land that the city should look at annexing is all of refinery row, nisku and YEG.

[moahunter]

^from an economic perspective, I agree 100%. From a political perspective, I suspect its unlikely the Province would support.

[RichardS]

...in 2003...at a certain airport session at the museum...a representative from CofL #25's council made the bold statement that they didn't care about YEG...wouldn't care if it was annexed as it only made them some $300K a year...until someone said OK...then the "gubbah gubbah" turkey sounds came out as the backtracking began...

CofL will NEVER let Nisku go...and in reality, Edmonton cannot pick and choose what it annexes after others have put the effort into developing the area. Also, I gather the CofL and the City of Leduc are aggressively moving to make more happen in the area...so unless Edmonton makes a bid for it all...it will receive none.

Yes...it is all or none....

...hence the birth of the "bourough" concept with the C2E focus group...addressed most of the issues, kept some autonomy, and had a framework for equitable representation within the metro...and also had a framework to prevent our neighbours from sprawling outward to further donut hole Edmonton.

Other than that, do not expect Edmonton to annex anyone...even YEG. Remember...like refinery row...we wanted these out of our city limits...

St Albert on the other hand is desperate to diversify its tax base...and has mainly rural land around it...Edmonton is surrounded except the NE corner and small portions of the SW...

[Titanium48]

Originally Posted by SP59

^^The one half to one acre lots in some cases are better than the alternative 3 acre lots.

Yes, but they're both a terrible waste of space.

Originally Posted by SP59

In some of the developments where the 1/2 to 1 acre lots are being created there is for more environmental reserve which preserves natural areas better that the alternative sized acreages.

If you want to preserve natural areas then don't develop them at all. Build the houses on city sized lots and make the rest a park.

Originally Posted by SP59

Acreage subdivisions can wipe out more farmland and natural ares faster than any of the new urban subdivisions could.

Agreed. 10x as fast is almost as bad as 30x as fast.

[Titanium48]

Originally Posted by SP59

edp:

Why is Edmonton providing services for the homeless, mentally ill, addictions and health? Stepping into do things that other levels of government should be responsible for is not helping Edmonton (or any other municipality) in being able to do what a municipality should be doing. That is voluntarily downloading responsibilities from the provincial government.

Strathcona County does pay for a transit system, libraries, parks, policing, fire department and other services that sometimes people from Edmonton also use.

IMO having well maintained boulevards that are free of litter is a positive thing that would enhance the City of Edmonton and give a more positive impression and make people feel better about where they live. I think it should be a higher priority of the city.

Why shouldn't cities be providing these services? I'd suggest that the problem isn't that the city is doing the province's job, but that the province isn't paying for it by giving cities a share of tax and resource royalty revenue.

If you like the sherwood park / Strathcona County model of a single government for a combined urban and rural area, perhaps it should be applied to the entire region - amalgamate Strathcona, Sturgeon, Leduc and Parkland counties (and all of the cities and towns within) into a single municipality.

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by Titanium48

Why shouldn't cities be providing these services? I'd suggest that the problem isn't that the city is doing the province's job, but that the province isn't paying for it by giving cities a share of tax and resource royalty revenue.

It is not the cities expertise though. We have a Province that is elected to provide health care and welfare. They have whole bureacracies built up to support these services. It doesn't make sense for COE to recreate that. It does make sense for COE to demand that the Province step up, rather than wasting money to bail the province out of its responsibilities.

[RichardS]

Originally Posted by Titanium48

(...) amalgamate Strathcona, Sturgeon, Leduc and Parkland counties (and all of the cities and towns within) into a single municipality.

See burough concept...

We were told that the set-up was ahead of its time when this was presented...and then questions on "duplication of administration jobs and how we would handle it" came up...um....BINGO! The main reason why amalgamations fail became apparent, again...

[OilTastic/BigCityDude]

Originally Posted by Doppelganger

Perhaps St. Albert should consider annexing Edmonton ....
I live in St. Albert. Yes, the property taxes are high, but I wouldn't consider them "super high". And for those taxes we get pretty decent quality of life - lots of leafy boulevards, biking and jogging trails, prompt snow removal from residential streets, and a remarkable lack of potholes and crumbling sidewalks. All of that has got to be worth something (cue the MasterCard commercial).

right on bro....and i personally moved out here because i DIDN'T want to be in Edmonton itself and i have no desire to become part of it again!

[Kevlar]

Originally Posted by RichardS

...hence the birth of the "bourough" concept with the C2E focus group...addressed most of the issues, kept some autonomy, and had a framework for equitable representation within the metro...and also had a framework to prevent our neighbours from sprawling outward to further donut hole Edmonton.

Please elaborate. Is this like a London (UK) or Montreal borough that has a seperate local council? I've often thought we should have those. I'm very interested in this proposal.

[ctzn-Ed]

Originally Posted by OilTastic/BigCityDude

right on bro....and i personally moved out here because i DIDN'T want to be in Edmonton itself and i have no desire to become part of it again!

If you enter Edmonton in any way you are part of Edmonton. Sorry to dissappoint you, St.Albert pretty much is part of Edmonton now, and the same goes for all surrounding communities. If there was an hour drive that separates Edmonton from the communities, then i could see your point.

[bulliver]

Originally Posted by OilTastic/BigCityDude

right on bro....and i personally moved out here because i DIDN'T want to be in Edmonton itself and i have no desire to become part of it again!

Yes, you have the right to live wherever you choose, and whatever suits you best, but when you and the gentleman you quoted spout such nonsense it just shows you to be the parasites you are. If you really believe what you wrote then feel free to stop using Edmonton's roads, park facilities, entertainment/sports venues, educational institutions, health care facilities and hundreds of other cultural facilities you benefit from but do not pay for.

[ctzn-Ed]

X 2 bulliver.

As mentioned all surrounding communities is literally connected to Edmonton, so in essence, they are already Edmontonians. Bring a foreigner in here, and tell me if they can differentiate the two...not!