Results 1 to 43 of 43

Thread: Edmonton vetos development at Villeneuve

  1. #1
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    11,450

    Default Edmonton vetos development at Villeneuve

    Edmonton vetoes Villenueve development:

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...634/story.html
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  2. #2

    Default

    Submit a plan that adheres to the land use plan of the region and maybe they will support it!

    It's pretty simple! The town of Villanueve thinks they are above the rules of the region and I applaud st Albert an Edmonton for their strong stands!
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  3. #3
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,006

    Default

    ^Villeneuve is not a town, but rather an unincorporated hamlet in Sturgeon County.

    Congratulations to the City of Edmonton (with St. Albert's support) for using its veto (finally!) to block unplanned sprawl in a surrounding rural county.

  4. #4

    Default

    ^now if they would only use power veto to block sprawl in Edmonton and St albert, but for another thread I guess.

  5. #5

    Default

    .. here are the red flags for me...

    “We truly did our homework (on this project),” she added, describing it as several years of committee work and negotiations with the county and developer as they fought to define a style of growth current hamlet residents would accept.

    the plan for mostly single-family homes doesn’t fit the board’s growth policy, which demands a mix of housing with apartments and higher density to reduce sprawl.

    “It’s OK for Edmonton to have 28-foot lots, but at a minimum they want a 42-foot lot?” Gibbons said. “It’s OK for Edmonton to have all the affordable housing? …
    and the quote that really hits home...

    “If you have a plan, do you follow it? Or do you change the plan every time there’s an exception?” said board chair and St. Albert Mayor Nolan Crouse, noting this is the first plan the board has turned down in several years.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^now if they would only use power veto to block sprawl in Edmonton and St albert, but for another thread I guess.
    Our sprawl meets the planning guidelines... however. Our suburbs are MUCH denser than some exburb where the smallest lot is almost 200% bigger than our standard one.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  7. #7

    Default

    It's time to introduce some new terminology that we done use on C2E but is well used by many others..

    exburb or exurb as it started out in 1955

    The expression exurb (for "extra-urban") was coined by Auguste Comte Spectorsky in his 1955 book The Exurbanites to describe the ring of prosperous communities beyond the suburbs that are commuter towns for an urban area.[1] Most exurbs serve as commuter towns, but most commuter towns are not exurban.

    or

    A commuter town is an urban community that is primarily residential, from which most of the workforce commutes out to earn their livelihood. Many commuter towns act as suburbs of a nearby metropolis that workers travel to daily.

    or as i put it... a suburb of a suburb.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 04-09-2012 at 11:08 AM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Our sprawl meets the planning guidelines... however. Our suburbs are MUCH denser than some exburb where the smallest lot is almost 200% bigger than our standard one.
    Yeah its beautiful:



    http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=h...%3Disch&itbs=1

  9. #9

    Default

    Counties have finally figured out they can't just do whatever they want regarding growth. All these exurbs impact our services negatively and cost Edmonton taxpayers more money.
    www.decl.org

  10. #10
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,901

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Our sprawl meets the planning guidelines... however. Our suburbs are MUCH denser than some exburb where the smallest lot is almost 200% bigger than our standard one.
    Yeah its beautiful:



    http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=h...%3Disch&itbs=1
    well it's prettier than this (courtesy of wiki):



    sprawl is not only a matter of what it is but also where it is. what's interesting is that the neighborhood you're putting forward as an example of urban sprawl not only isn't, it's denser than the "inner city" neighborhood you live in.

    unfortunately the real loss in this decision isn't a few country residential city sized lots but the fact that it's taking down the much needed villeneuve airport improvements with it and we will all be the poorer for that part of the decision. all because something that never should have been linked (imho) was linked and with disastrous results for the entire region in regard to what should be going forward.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  11. #11
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,006

    Default

    How is turning Villeneuve into a mega-hamlet of 5,400 linked to making improvements to the Villeneuve airport? Why can't the latter proceed without the former?

  12. #12
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,901

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    How is turning Villeneuve into a mega-hamlet of 5,400 linked to making improvements to the Villeneuve airport? Why can't the latter proceed without the former?
    i didn't make the link and i don't particularly agree with the link being drawn. personally i see no reason why the airport improvements couldn't have proceeded without linking them to anything else other than a lack of willingness and support to do just that.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  13. #13
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    11,450

    Default

    The only trouble with the development on in Villeneuve is that:

    (1) Roads like Highway 44 and SH 633 would have significantly more traffic, ultimately spilling onto Highways 2 and 16. Roads like Ray Gibbon Drive might have to be extended to Highway 2.

    (2) How long before a community of 5,000 becomes one of 10,000. It's very possible in a suburban community. With Villeneuve unincorporated, how long until it becomes a town, especially if it falls under the jurisdiction of Sturgeon County?

    (3) While it's great to have the goal of expanding the Villeneuve airport for various aviation uses, I think it might be better to coordinate a strategy with Edmonton Airports.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  14. #14
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    32,332

    Default

    Ray Gibbon Drive is going to be extended to Hwy 2, it's the plan. But that's a problem because...?
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  15. #15
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,201
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    (...) other than a lack of willingness and support to do just that.

    I know we're not supposed to just say bingo...so does my preamble count...oh "quality of post overlords"?
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  16. #16
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    Counties have finally figured out they can't just do whatever they want regarding growth. All these exurbs impact our services negatively and cost Edmonton taxpayers more money.

    For a group so happy to give a sweetheart lease to the owner of the local NHL club and cost Edmonton taxpayers so much more money than this development*.....

    I am sure the irony is lost on most here...

    Unfortunate really...

    *I am not implying that the proposed Villeneuve development is a good idea

  17. #17
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    11,450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Ray Gibbon Drive is going to be extended to Hwy 2, it's the plan. But that's a problem because...?
    The province may not make this as high a priority as other projects in the near future.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Our sprawl meets the planning guidelines... however. Our suburbs are MUCH denser than some exburb where the smallest lot is almost 200% bigger than our standard one.
    Yeah its beautiful:



    http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=h...%3Disch&itbs=1
    well it's prettier than this (courtesy of wiki):



    sprawl is not only a matter of what it is but also where it is. what's interesting is that the neighborhood you're putting forward as an example of urban sprawl not only isn't, it's denser than the "inner city" neighborhood you live in.

    unfortunately the real loss in this decision isn't a few country residential city sized lots but the fact that it's taking down the much needed villeneuve airport improvements with it and we will all be the poorer for that part of the decision. all because something that never should have been linked (imho) was linked and with disastrous results for the entire region in regard to what should be going forward.
    They just need to come back to the table with a better plan!
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    How is turning Villeneuve into a mega-hamlet of 5,400 linked to making improvements to the Villeneuve airport? Why can't the latter proceed without the former?
    i didn't make the link and i don't particularly agree with the link being drawn. personally i see no reason why the airport improvements couldn't have proceeded without linking them to anything else other than a lack of willingness and support to do just that.
    I would draw it! It's pretty clear that the airports improvements were part of a package.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Our sprawl meets the planning guidelines... however. Our suburbs are MUCH denser than some exburb where the smallest lot is almost 200% bigger than our standard one.
    Yeah its beautiful:



    http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=h...%3Disch&itbs=1
    Our cma is not going to double in 50 years without some growth Moa...It's unrealistic
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Our cma is not going to double in 50 years without some growth Moa...It's unrealistic
    Since when does growth have to be lateral? GTA recently (hence high rise condo boom) and London UK (long ago, Edmonton's density is nowhere near, even taking out the river valley and other parklands), have continued to grow at a rapid pace, its very realitstic (mature neighborhood infill and subdivision, filling empty lands downtown, filling muni lands and south campus lands, etc.). There is more than enough single family home stock in Edmonton, its just, we need policies to start recylcing it rather than letting many neighborhoods decline / fall appart / lose schools as they age. That wouldn't happen if the new home sprawl stopped and was replaced with quality density for the boomers to move into, especially in the donut hole.
    Last edited by moahunter; 05-09-2012 at 09:27 AM.

  22. #22
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,901

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    How is turning Villeneuve into a mega-hamlet of 5,400 linked to making improvements to the Villeneuve airport? Why can't the latter proceed without the former?
    i didn't make the link and i don't particularly agree with the link being drawn. personally i see no reason why the airport improvements couldn't have proceeded without linking them to anything else other than a lack of willingness and support to do just that.
    I would draw it! It's pretty clear that the airports improvements were part of a package.
    damn internet discussions and clarity anyway... i didn't mean that the link wasn't drawn or doesn't exist in the application that was rejected - it clearly was. what i meant was that i had nothing to do with it being drawn and disagreed with it having been drawn.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  23. #23
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,901

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Our cma is not going to double in 50 years without some growth Moa...It's unrealistic
    Since when does growth have to be lateral? GTA recently (hence high rise condo boom) and London UK (long ago, Edmonton's density is nowhere near, even taking out the river valley and other parklands), have continued to grow at a rapid pace, its very realitstic (mature neighborhood infill and subdivision, filling empty lands downtown, filling muni lands and south campus lands, etc.). There is more than enough single family home stock in Edmonton, its just, we need policies to start recylcing it rather than letting many neighborhoods decline / fall appart / lose schools as they age. That wouldn't happen if the new home sprawl stopped and was replaced with quality density for the boomers to move into, especially in the donut hole.
    [emphasis added]

    which donut hole is that moa? although before commenting i should credit your unusual restraint in waiting until your third post in this thread to use the term "donut hole" wrongly once again.

    as for facts and not mere inaccurate rhetoric, edmonton's population reached 817,000 this april - an increase of more than 12,000 per year since 2009 (a period of relatively slow growth for edmonton when compared with the previous decade or projections for the next).

    roughly 50% of our population lives in single family housing and 23% live in 1-4 storey apartments, 9% live in buildings with 5 or more floors, 9% live in row or town homes, 7% live in duplexes or fourplexes, 1% live in institutional or other collective housing and 1% live in mobile homes.

    in 1992 - a mere 20 years ago - the city of edmonton's population was 617,000, 200,000 less than today. similar growth over the next 20 years is probably a cautious projection as it's 20% less that what we are presently experiencing but lets use it anyway... the airport lands when complete will house maybe 30,000. the south campus lands will house no-one. all of oliver houses less than 18,000 so even if downtown and the north edge and the quarters each matched that in the next 20 years, we have now housed another 84,000 and are still short housing for 116,000 people even if you could attract "the first" 84,000 to other than single family homes without seeing them move to locations outside the city (which has been happening over the last 20 years that saw the city grow by 200,000 and will still occur while the city grows by another 200,000 in the next 20 years).

    where do you expect those 116,000 people to sleep? because if there is more than enough single family home stock in edmonton waiting for those people to move into, all of those empty homes and/or lots must be one of edmonton's best kept secrets because i sure don't know where in the heck they are...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kjh View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    Counties have finally figured out they can't just do whatever they want regarding growth. All these exurbs impact our services negatively and cost Edmonton taxpayers more money.

    For a group so happy to give a sweetheart lease to the owner of the local NHL club and cost Edmonton taxpayers so much more money than this development*.....

    I am sure the irony is lost on most here...

    Unfortunate really...

    *I am not implying that the proposed Villeneuve development is a good idea
    I do not draw that link. The arena deal is not something I supported other than support for the CRL. As I've explained in other threads, there is no other funding opportunities for downtown Council is willing to support. But of course the arena and CRL go hand in hand.

    In any case, the arena paid in part by taxpayers of Edmonton. I don't see how that has anything to do with Villenuve and these new exurbs being a drain on our services (since they won't have any)?
    www.decl.org

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    where do you expect those 116,000 people to sleep? because if there is more than enough single family home stock in edmonton waiting for those people to move into, all of those empty homes and/or lots must be one of edmonton's best kept secrets because i sure don't know where in the heck they are...
    I realize that many of the boomer generation in North America struggles with the concept of condos and urban living, versus continuing to subsidize sprawl forever (with new freeways, fire stations, utilitty / snow removal infrastructure pressure, etc.) but its not rocket science. By not building more homes on farmland, the price of single family home land will rise in the city. This will also by default rise the price of condo's, as they will become the starter for more people, and also the ender. This will drive a condo boom (just like in Toronto), which will provide more stock and make this a more desirable option for more people, especially in the centre of the city. Single family homes in mature neighborhoods will free up as boomers move from their single family homes into townhomes, condos, retirement villages and similar. Additionally, by liberalizing subdivision, you can litterally double the number of single family homes (skinny homes, around 1600 to 1800sq foot) in many existing edmonton neighborhoods (including places like Glenora, but also less wealthy neighborhoods), especially older ones that aren't currently being invested in. Developers can focus inward (many already only specialise on that). There is plenty of room in Edmonton for that 116k without more lateral growth, but if by some fluke the city does fill up completely, then sure, we could look at expanding the residential footprint again then, that would be a great situation, one Edmonton hasn't had for a very long time.

    I do agree the Villeneuve airport non-development is disapointing.
    Last edited by moahunter; 05-09-2012 at 10:49 AM.

  26. #26
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,939

    Default

    So the way to get more people to move into the 'donut hole' is to make prices go through the roof? Who in their right mind is going to subdivide their property (aka demolish their house and build 2 in its place) and foot the bill for the increased assessment and everything else that comes with building a house (only double)?

    Unless you're talking about developers buying entire neighborhoods (likely at astronomical prices), demolishing, subdividing, and rebuilding with more density, I just don't see how this is a reasonable approach to take.

    Sure some people will subdivide and try to capitalize, but I doubt they would be in the majority in their neighborhoods.

    Maybe I'm just not getting it.

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ander View Post
    So the way to get more people to move into the 'donut hole' is to make prices go through the roof? Who in their right mind is going to subdivide their property (aka demolish their house and build 2 in its place) and foot the bill for the increased assessment and everything else that comes with building a house (only double)?.
    I certainly would. If the price of the land doubles, you could literally pay for a brand new skinny home, by building two on existing land and selling one. It is more economic if the land goes up in value and the market price of a new home in the neighborhood goes up in value. Builders could even approach land owners and say "I'll build you a brand new skinny home for you, if you give me half the land, on which I will build another skinny home and sell it". Greenbelts are working all over the world, and are credited with the Toronto condo boom, as more people accept condos and town homes as an appropriate living options. There should be no boomer generation "right" to a 2500 sq foot home on City and Province infrastructure subsidized former farmland, Edmonton is a winter city, time to move to a more sustainable and appropriate form by fixing inner city and existing neighborhoods first (including suburbs), with new development.
    Last edited by moahunter; 05-09-2012 at 11:00 AM.

  28. #28
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,939

    Default

    I just see it being a very slow process, during which we will likely still need new neighbourhoods built outside the Henday. Maybe one day though...

  29. #29
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,901

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    where do you expect those 116,000 people to sleep? because if there is more than enough single family home stock in edmonton waiting for those people to move into, all of those empty homes and/or lots must be one of edmonton's best kept secrets because i sure don't know where in the heck they are...
    I realize that many of the boomer generation in North America struggles with the concept of condos and urban living, versus continuing to subsidize sprawl forever (with new freeways, fire stations, utilitty / snow removal infrastructure pressure, etc.) but its not rocket science. By not building more homes on farmland, the price of single family home land will rise in the city. This will also by default rise the price of condo's, as they will become the starter for more people, and also the ender. This will drive a condo boom (just like in Toronto), which will provide more stock and make this a more desirable option for more people, especially in the centre of the city. Single family homes in mature neighborhoods will free up as boomers move from their single family homes into townhomes, condos, retirement villages and similar. Additionally, by liberalizing subdivision, you can litterally double the number of single family homes (skinny homes, around 1600 to 1800sq foot) in many existing edmonton neighborhoods (including places like Glenora, but also less wealthy neighborhoods), especially older ones that aren't currently being invested in. Developers can focus inward (many already only specialise on that). There is plenty of room in Edmonton for that 116k without more lateral growth, but if by some fluke the city does fill up completely, then sure, we could look at expanding the residential footprint again then, that would be a great situation, one Edmonton hasn't had for a very long time.

    I do agree the Villeneuve airport non-development is disapointing.
    that condo boom you envy in toronto presently has inventory levels moving higher than 25% - that portion of their market is not likely to maintain it's recent pace (one that was fueled by presales and low rates). at the same time, year to date numbers to the end of may alone in the toronto cma have seen more than 4,000 new single family home starts in subdivisions like these - please note the sold out banner on both - (photos courtesy of heathwood):





    don't get me wrong - i'm in favour of denser, more urban development in edmonton including infill in all its forms. but growth in edmonton - regardless of your calls to plan it that way - will never completely eliminate the need for additional single family housing as long as our population base continues to grow. and the toronto cma not only demonstrates/confirms that, it does so in a manner that is often less efficient than what we are building here. we're not "perfect" yet but your using toronto as an example for us to follow would indicate you don't really know that market any more than you know this one.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  30. #30

    Default

    ^At a minimun then, instead of failing miserably with just incentives (which has been tried for decades now), Edmonton should implement the plans it has of 25% within existing communities (even that would be a huge improvement versus current), by restricting new permit issuance on the basis of its goals as was discussed here:

    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...nt+growth+plan

    There are mixed views on the condo boom in Toronto, many banks are saying it is not an issue due to the projected population growth, and the limitations on other housing options for them. Edmonton could do with a such a boom, even a mini-sized one.
    Last edited by moahunter; 05-09-2012 at 11:31 AM.

  31. #31

    Default

    Could we get back on topic please?

  32. #32

    Default

    BTW, this decision is a month old. Postmedia fail.
    www.decl.org

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    (...) other than a lack of willingness and support to do just that.

    I know we're not supposed to just say bingo...so does my preamble count...oh "quality of post overlords"?
    So Villeneuve needs to increase tax base to support the upgrades to the water and sewer to make the airport viable.

    Villeneuve steps up to do it on their own initiative and get shot down by the Captial Board Vetos and berated here.......hmmmm

    So far...
    - EIA hasn't made the improvements
    - COE hasn't offered to help with Vill
    - The Province has not yet committed

    and we have an airport closing.

    The road improvements will be required for safe medivac anyway.

    Interesting problem and the clock is ticking.

    Does anyone else see the quandary of affordable housing with no bus service or transit being unworkable?

    You know, lower income workers not being able to afford to commute.

    Anyone else figure out that the market for what they are offering is such that it will just more to the Capital Region's edge on really good farm land, instead of beside an airport.

    Just expressing an opinion but.......
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 05-09-2012 at 09:57 PM. Reason: word change

  34. #34
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,201
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Could we get back on topic please?

    Thank you ...

    ...for while this conversation on suburban vs urbanista is full of new information since the last 32 rounds of this discussion...oops...it introduced exburb...yippee...


    ...this sprawl conversation is a red herring...St Albert doesn't have an anti-sprawl agenda...the thread this broke off of was called St Albert annexation...they are just against more lots on their border that are twice the size...with half the cost to buy...and 2/3 less taxation...

    ...even more of a red herring is the Edmonton position as presented by Con. Gibbons

    http://www.630ched.com/news/edmonton...spx?ID=1767520


    ...right...becasue there is not an example in Alberta of a city that would send aviation services...say scheduled ones...or charter...or medivac...

    ...to another airport....

    ...not within its boundaries...

    ...and not receive tax benefit for it...

    ...but still financially, physically, and in every promotional way support it anyway...

    ...and do this willingly because this is the right and good decision...good for the region per se...


    no...none at all...
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  35. #35
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,006

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    So Villeneuve needs to increase tax base to support the upgrades to the water and sewer to make the airport viable.

    Villeneuve steps up to do it on their own initiative and get shot down by the Captial Board Vetos and berated here.......hmmmm

    So far...
    - EIA hasn't made the improvements
    - COE hasn't offered to help with Vill
    - The Province has not yet committed

    and we have an airport closing.

    The road improvements will be required for safe medivac anyway.

    Interesting problem and the clock is ticking.

    Does anyone else see the quandary of affordable housing with no bus service or transit being unworkable?

    You know, lower income workers not being able to afford to commute.

    Anyone else figure out that the market for what they are offering is such that it will just more to the Capital Region's edge on really good farm land, instead of beside an airport.

    Just expressing an opinion but.......
    First I've heard that Villeneuve is being considered for medivac. What is the source for this information? I'd been under the impression that medivac was moving to the International.

    Until I am informed otherwise, connecting the Villeneuve mega-hamlet ASP to airport improvements seems like a clever ruse by Sturgeon County to apply pressure to the City to not veto the proposal. Improvements to Villeneuve airport are the responsibility of Edmonton Airports, not Sturgeon County or the City of Edmonton.

  36. #36

    Default

    First I've heard that Villeneuve is being considered for medivac. What is the source for this information?
    Well you can start with RichardS's link above and search the media reports...it has been an option for months.

    Improvements to Villeneuve airport are the responsibility of Edmonton Airports, not Sturgeon County or the City of Edmonton.
    Sewer and water are not part of the airport but are an essential part of making it work. A cistern can only carry you so far.

    More over, what major improvements have happened in the last (2) decades at Vill?

    Water and sewer are still an issue as an example.
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 06-09-2012 at 08:36 PM. Reason: wording

  37. #37
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,201
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post

    First I've heard that Villeneuve is being considered for medivac. What is the source for this information? I'd been under the impression that medivac was moving to the International.

    Until I am informed otherwise, connecting the Villeneuve mega-hamlet ASP to airport improvements seems like a clever ruse by Sturgeon County to apply pressure to the City to not veto the proposal. Improvements to Villeneuve airport are the responsibility of Edmonton Airports, not Sturgeon County or the City of Edmonton.

    ...first you've heard...sorry then...ZVL has ALWAYS been talked about as the alternate landing site for medivac...in fact...many promises were made during the conversation in 2009 that actually had improvements to ZVL on the table to support medivac, larger private aircraft that you do not want in the circuit at YEG, and yet another opportunity to expand the aviation industry in the region...the circular conversation has always been who pays for it...

    ...it even has the ability to handle more than YXD could...and I am not suggesting scheduled service...

    ...clever ruse...or an attempt to pay for a development and extend the necessary infrastructure...tomato, tomatoe...

    I will not pretend for one second that I am impressed that the development being tethered to ZVL's improvements...but I am even less impressed that after 20+ years ZVL is still being treated like the red headed stepchild of the aviation assets...

    ...and be careful on the "who pays" bit...while EIA does become the funding engine and asset operator...and they go through rigorous board approvals and investor meetings just like any organization...they get grants from all levels of government to make some necessary accomodations...and with proper documentation and capital IRR presentations...even get backstopped...they are first and foremost a transportation engine and logistics hub for this region..which puts the interest of the Province and Feds intrinsicly involved in the success..the C of E as well as others pitch in with various assitance and funding...it doesn't have to be direct cash in hand...


    ...the game has to end...there is a solution...but it isn't free...
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  38. #38

    Default

    Thank you Tom Hinderks.

    Villeneuve had a solution to pay for the water and sewer improvements that are needed at Villeneuve Airport for when YXD is shut down. That is, grow the community of Villeneuve to pay for it.

    The City of Edmonton vetoed it. I guess this means Councillor Gibbons will be voting in favour of the City of Edmonton and Edmonton Airports to lay pipe to Villeneuve before YXD is closed. Correct?

    BTW, anyword on the new ILS and the extension of Rwy 16/34? Villeneuve, not Calgary, not Red Deer, will be the back up sight for the medivacs. Anyone who has been buy YEG lately may have seen a big hanger with STARS on the side, when are they moving out ot YEG?

  39. #39

    Default

    BTW, anyword on the new ILS and the extension of Rwy 16/34?
    Haven't heard word one...

    That said after Mr. Gibbon's after this veto and Mr. Gibbon's comments I would guess the push will be back on Namao.

    My opinion

  40. #40
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,901

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    BTW, anyword on the new ILS and the extension of Rwy 16/34?
    Haven't heard word one...

    That said after Mr. Gibbon's after this veto and Mr. Gibbon's comments I would guess the push will be back on Namao.

    My opinion
    i have not "heard word one" either but have heard rumors about ils and a runway extension to 6,500' along with a commented "only 8 minutes to the hospital". like you this is all "my opinion only" but my opinion only is that it's too bad this got sidetracked with a rural subdivision application/discussion because it's been out off far too long already. we have a successful model to emulate already in springbank and the longer we take the more difficult we make it. how "edmontonian".
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  41. #41

    Default

    Thank you Ken
    we have a successful model to emulate already in springbank
    So successful it''s repeating all the traditional mistakes.

    http://www.liveinharmony.ca/overall-plan.html

    Wonder how soon after development the noise complaints will start?

    Mind you the infrastructure it brings to Springbank Airport is a major advantage to it's future growth....like the Villeneuve proposal.

    BTW
    Why is it that the public has this need to build adjacent to the airport and then complain there's an airport?

  42. #42
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,901

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Thank you Ken
    we have a successful model to emulate already in springbank
    So successful it''s repeating all the traditional mistakes.

    http://www.liveinharmony.ca/overall-plan.html

    Wonder how soon after development the noise complaints will start?

    Mind you the infrastructure it brings to Springbank Airport is a major advantage to it's future growth....like the Villeneuve proposal.

    BTW
    Why is it that the public has this need to build adjacent to the airport and then complain there's an airport?
    i was referring to springbank as an airport, not an overall development model but even so - as with the recent villeneuve decision - there is a lot of opposition to harmony, to the point where i wonder if they had been bundled at the beginning they may well have hit the same brick wall early and gone nowhere.

    as for your last question, assuming it's not a rhetorical one, i'm not sure it's a public need as individuals (which i would question) or a combination of not enough foresight when selecting the airport location initially (remember the still current complaints of hiw distant eia is?) combined with a lack of political will to prevent it (which ironically is what's being objected to here ).
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  43. #43
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,201
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    (...)i have not "heard word one" either but have heard rumors about ils and a runway extension to 6,500' along with a commented "only 8 minutes to the hospital".

    (...)

    already. we have a successful model to emulate already in springbank and the longer we take the more difficult we make it. how "edmontonian".

    ...I certainly hope that the 6,500' extension rumour is correct...that is the length I, and others, have been pushing for...not the 5,000' that keeps surfacing on the rumour mill....

    ...6,500X150' would be awesome...but adds cost...6,500X100' will do for most aircraft that would use this...150 just adds ZVL as an IFR alt for YEG for flight planning to more aircraft...

    ...ILS would be a part as well...discussion on some av boards have this plan well discussed...even the $$$ amount...just, yet again, is a discussion on whose $$$$ it is...and I don't take that discussion flippantly...I firmly beleive there is a great business model at ZVL that could outperform Springbank (YBW)...especially since there is a better runway configuration...and other really great assets...


    ...as for the bolded part... is all I can say
    President and CEO - Airshow.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •