Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 115 of 115

Thread: Minister urges capital region mayors and reeves to work together

  1. #101
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,525

    Default

    I think Edmonton should get annex to St Albert and Sherwood Park and cut down many counties into 4-6 counties , less the better co-operation rather than large numbers of mayors and reeves that we have right now is too much trouble.
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  2. #102
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    2,534

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Himser View Post
    The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. i agree. however the wants of the many do not outweigh the wants of the few.

    the CoE wants to keep its status as the only major player, if current trends continue CoE importance will continue to decrease as Counties and Sub Urban Cities gain more and more of the population.(from the CRB) The CoE does not want that to happen... and frankly it shouldn't. but how do you deal with that? i think amalgamation of the whole capital region into a single municipality. this would fix Many of the problems (including the industry growth) however i do not belive the new amalgamated city would care about its rural and suburban people. i belive that the city would impose a "the wants of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and this frankly is unacceptable. os the best course of action. make sure the city cares about the need sand wants of the minorities. the SAME as the needs and wants of the majority.

    and how exactly are counties holding Edmonton back? i went back 3 years of meeting min at the CRB.. every single major issue brought forward by a county was vetoed by Edmonton. Parkland County 4 Times. do you know how many times a Large Project by Edmonton was defeted. Once.... so how exactly are counties holding backl the city.

    (on that note the ONLY large project that was approved by Edmonton was Leduc Counties ASP... which as being already paid for by the taxpayers of Leduc County the City of Edmonton wants to annex the whole area that ASP covered... hmmm. i think that the facts say the CoE is a bully. read them yourself.. )
    http://capitalregionboard.ab.ca/about#publications
    Let's note that St Albert, Sherwood Park, Leduc, etc etc wouldn't exist in their present form, or anything remotely resembling their present form, if the City of Edmonton did not exist. They need to realize that they are part of the city, for all intents and purposes. They are not unique places that exist in their own right. As they are part of the city, they should be expected to pay for the services that the city provides to them.

    I also question the idea that an amalgamated city would automatically trample the rights of farmers or other residents. Edmonton's council is typically progressive and I do believe would listen to their concerns. I see no reason why they would have a pre-concieved hatred or bias against this minority population?

  3. #103
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,597

    Default

    Heard an interview of the Pittsburgh Mayor (Speaking in Detroit) on the rehab of their city, downtown and riverfront by being a hardarse and at the partial expense of the people who work but do not live in or pay taxes to Pitt amongst other controversial methods
    Thomas J. Murphy, Jr.
    Have a look see about his success
    I will refrain from posting this in the Detrorit, River front , Power plant and Downtown rehab threads
    Still waiting for the Arlington site to be reborn .......

  4. #104

    Default

    all the capital region planning board has to do is remove the counties from the board. It would solve a lot of the problems.

    Current board.

    five cities (Edmonton, Fort Saskatchewan, Leduc, St. Albert, and Spruce Grove);
    one specialized municipality (Strathcona County, which includes the Sherwood Park urban service area);
    four municipal districts (Lamont County, Leduc County, Parkland County, and Sturgeon County);
    eleven towns (Beaumont, Bon Accord, Bruderheim, Calmar, Devon, Gibbons, Lamont, Legal, Morinville, Redwater, and Stony Plain); and
    three villages (Thorsby, Wabamun, and Warburg).

    What I would do...

    Make Sherwoodpark a city (enough is enough)
    Remove the counties from the table. (the capital region is not here to protect their interests)
    Re the towns and villages there would be terms of service and the councils of each area would put forward a name and the seats could be filled by lottery. There would be 5 seats for these smaller centers.
    All together you have 11 seats - 6 Held by the major players and 5 by the minor.
    Chairman of the board is elected by the group for a set term.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 24-09-2013 at 04:40 PM.
    "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

  5. #105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    The changing of land from agricultural zoning to other uses is what creates the wealth in the land. The net worth those farmers are losing is an unearned windfall that they got by being lucky enough to have had grandparents who got the homestead they did. How is not allowing someone easy money destroying their livelihood? Unless these people are borrowing against the estimated future value of their land as something other than farmland they are doing something else to earn their livelihood right now. Society doesn't owe these people a free ride by changing land uses. If speculators couldn't be so sure that politicians would change land uses perhaps land prices would't be so high.
    You sound like a communist! Land ownership means that the owner gets to realize its value and not the community. My family bought their land over 100 years ago and I think their ancestors deserve market value when they sell. If you want a green belt then you need to compensate the land owners accordingly.

  6. #106
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,690

    Default

    Where in the quoted statement does it say I want a greenbelt?

  7. #107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    Where in the quoted statement does it say I want a greenbelt?
    Consider it my error as I made an assumption that you were responding to the comments about a greenbelt in the preceding post. I note that the posts after your comments also spoke of a greenbelt as a means of protecting farmland. How were you planning to protect farm land without paying compensation to the owners?

  8. #108
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,690

    Default

    I wasn't. If the owners want to get paid a market value for their land that is higher than what the buyer could carry operating it as farmland then it obviously shouldn't be farmland anymore.

  9. #109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AAAAE View Post

    Let's note that St Albert, Sherwood Park, Leduc, etc etc wouldn't exist in their present form, or anything remotely resembling their present form, if the City of Edmonton did not exist. They need to realize that they are part of the city, for all intents and purposes. They are not unique places that exist in their own right. As they are part of the city, they should be expected to pay for the services that the city provides to them.

    I also question the idea that an amalgamated city would automatically trample the rights of farmers or other residents. Edmonton's council is typically progressive and I do believe would listen to their concerns. I see no reason why they would have a pre-concieved hatred or bias against this minority population?
    True but does the City of Edmonton pay for the services that the counties provide?

    Gravel/Aggregate Extraction, and its negative impacts,
    Coal extraction, and its negative impacts (Those mines are HUGE)
    Power production and its negative impacts?
    Providing access on county roads and boat launches to every single lake in each county. (mainly for city use)
    The negative impacts from the city of High school Gravel pit Parties.. very few gravel pit parties are located in City of Edmonton land.
    Fresh water with Wetlands, and other soft costs that residents and the counties themselves are required to provide to the benefit of the city?

    I don't see the City of Edmonton volunteering to pay for any if these negative externalities? at least when people from counties travel to the city they buy things at City stores, or visit city areas and almost always spend money. the great thing about a day on the lake is its free... to a city person, it comes of of the county taxpayers pocket to build those roads, those accesses and boat launches, ( and contrary to popular c2e beliefs the province does of cover as much as you think)

    Maybe just Maybe the city is slightly in the negative side financially... they have to at least consider the city costs to the counties before county residents will feel any sort of sympathy.

    As for amalgamated city doesn't care. well our current County Councils don't care, acreage people move into the east of Parkland county.. they get politicians to pass laws that hurt the rural/farmland residents. and these people at least live on 1-2 acre area in a "rural" setting. I very highly doubt that a downtown person would care even a little bit.

    there is already a large murmur in the more rural areas of splitting off from the city people turned acreage people in the east and joining Yellowhead county or Brazeau.

  10. #110
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    11,445

    Default

    Sherwood Park and St. Albert are approaching capacity in terms of development. I think both of these places will have to have some kind of LRT or bus rapid transit to support future growth.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  11. #111

    Default

    I mentioned this on another thread... a friend at the GOA told me the changes to the muni act are all ready to go. They are just waiting for the elections to finish up.
    "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

  12. #112

    Default

    Ready to review and argue over yes, not ready to set in stone yet though

  13. #113

    Default

    Bill 28 - Modernizing Regional Governance Act http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...281/story.html Seems tepid at best. Same old, same old. Coupled with Bill 32 and you've got the appearance of doing something without actually doing much. SOP for the PC's.

  14. #114

    Default

    It allows other regions to get what we have... which doesn't solve the problems.

    It's FLAWED to say the least.
    "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

  15. #115

    Default

    Well the counties seem to think this is a big deal because it validates everything the board does and enshrines it into law..

    I really dont see any other region volunteering to have a capital region style board still. the counties would never freely enter due to the unfair balance of power and now that ALL decisions by the board (including the stupid ones that have no right to be brought up at that level) will now be enshrined in the MGA and not just be this separate entity its even less likely anyone will join on their own free will (expecaly as they are doing what their people elected them to do and look after their own interests).

    The biggest one i have a problem with is that now elected people of any municipality CANNOT follow their own constituents wishes they MUST go with what the PC party tells them to vote.. enshrined in law now.. do we really want municipalities just puppets of the province?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •