View Poll Results: Regional Choice

Voters
39. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1

    1 2.56%
  • 2

    6 15.38%
  • 3

    0 0%
  • 4

    0 0%
  • 5

    23 58.97%
  • 6

    7 17.95%
  • 7

    0 0%
  • 8

    1 2.56%
  • 9

    1 2.56%
Results 1 to 72 of 72

Thread: Great(er) Edmonton

  1. #1

    Default Great(er) Edmonton

    Don't mind the subject, I couldn't think of a better title. We all call Edmonton home. If we travel far away, we dont say we live in Jasper Place, Millwoods, Sherwood Park, or St Albert... we say we are from or near Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. We come to connect 2 "Edmonton", but the region is very unconnected.

    This is a poll, for the masses, to see which option they would prefer here. Given that most agree that that current "working" agreements/arrangements in our Region simply are not working at all, for plenty of reasons..

    Many here have been giving plenty of thought on this issue, and this issue is coming up full steam in the next year (I figure). I've listed a few options/ideas I have for the region. Some of them completely workable, and some a little harder, and some are just wild ideas. Please feel free to comment/share yours. Clearly, something needs to be done... What should be done?

    How would you like to see the Region work in the future?

    1) Edmonton and region remains the same and functions the same. The imbalances are kept... etc

    2) Revenue and Cost Sharing only. Formal boundaries stay the same. Some shared services such as emergency/transit/sewer/etc.

    3) Cost Sharing Only. Other counties help Edmonton on specific projects such as homeless shelters, central libraries, arenas... as they see fit, when they see fit, and under a multitude of conditions.

    4) Edmonton is split up and given to the surrounding counties. Each County forms a new government, and has to form a controlling regional government for the whole region. "Edmonton" is no longer, instead, its 4-5 counties, and a regional government

    5) Edmonton absorbs/amalgamates all urban areas with in the Region that touch its borders or are within 20 km of its borders. Unicity, similar to Calgary

    6) Edmonton and surrounding urban areas and counties that border Edmonton are redrawn. Most of the far out farmland is given to the further out Counties. The urban areas of Edmonton are divided into 5-6 boroughs, a new civic government is formed. One Central borough and 3-5 boroughs for the remaining areas.

    7) Same thing as above, except no Central Borough, and downtown is the dividing point. Each borough has similar responsibilities and costs, as each part as a section of downtown, and, suburban areas, and rural areas, and growth areas.

    8.) Strathcona County or St Albert or etc is given Edmonton, and Edmonton ceases to exist.

    9) Other - please provide details
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  2. #2
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    City Of Champions
    Posts
    3,854

    Default

    5 + Edmonton has veto power in any rezoning of agriculture land within 30 km's of the bordering county.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LindseyT
    5 + Edmonton has veto power in any rezoning of agriculture land within 30 km's of the bordering county.
    I would hope that would be the plan in a few more then just the 5th option. I really hope that happens in any end result. That's one of the biggest issues is the push outwards in all directions.
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  4. #4
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    283

    Default

    That's quite a few options.
    First off I believe we need to reduce the size of the region to something that makes better sense and is more manageable. The example I give is Parkland County; I seriously doubt that much of that county West of Hwy 43 (if even that far) should actually be considered a part of the region.

    Once we have a better idea of what the region should actually look like then we can worry about dividing up boroughs. I think it should be the City of Edmonton plus at least 4-5 other boroughs; one for each large cluster of urban area. As for Edmonton I think that the city border should be the ring road in the TUC. It's simplistic, easy to determine and quite obvious. There are no invisible lines to argue about once it's complete.

    The unicity concept I don't believe would be even possible with all of the in-fighting we see today. Although it would probably be the optimal result.
    Likewise dividing up the middle of Edmonton doesn't seem right to me either. The name of 'Edmonton' should remain. For better or worse it's how the world identifies us.

  5. #5
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,221
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    You know where I sit Feepa...you've proofread it...

    I'll have it tweaked soon...and hopefully have the governance model structured properly.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    You know where I sit Feepa...you've proofread it...

    I'll have it tweaked soon...and hopefully have the governance model structured properly.
    I didn't know I was proofreading it, but I certainly have read it
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  7. #7
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,221
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Proofread, read it to see if I am on track, whichever. Good to see some ideas out there. I think I'll stop in this debate now and see what happens.

    Plus, I'm getting tired of some of the anonymous insulting pm's.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  8. #8
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    172

    Default

    Maybe I'm wrong in this thinking, but I wonder if one of the problems with a seamless regional agreement is the fear that those communities outside of Edmonton will look like they are an extension of Edmonton as opposed to being individual and separate communities.

    Even if no amalgamation is done.

  9. #9
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,221
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    You're not wrong Terry.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  10. #10
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryguy
    As for Edmonton I think that the city border should be the ring road in the TUC. It's simplistic, easy to determine and quite obvious. There are no invisible lines to argue about once it's complete.
    See Washington DC for why that's a bad idea. It'll immediately lead to outside the Henday = "suburban paradise," inside the Henday = "slummy gang wars" despite any truth to the contrary.

    I'm big on the borough idea; I think there needs to be an Edmonton on the north bank and a Strathcona on the south bank myself.

  11. #11
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,221
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    too small.....given where I've seen the dividing lines proposed...
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  12. #12
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,206

    Default

    In concept, most here know I am strongly in favour of amalgamation for the region. In implementing that, I am not sure we are large enough to warrant borough politics as they are often put forward as a model. I am as strongly opposed to ward politics within a single council as I am in favour of amalgamation and fear borough politics with separate councils and budgets would be even worse. My fear is that it would entrench differences between the boroughs rather than bridge them and would forever high-light - if not revel in - their inequalities.

    Even within the ward system we have now in Edmonton, there are disputes about how the different wards don’t receive their fair share of projects and money. They don't however seem to compare or dwell on taxes paid - or overall revenues taken in - as a like measure. I think you have to have a strong single political body/voice for the region and that can only come from a single autonomous council that has not delegated (abrogated?) it’s responsibility to all of it’s citizens and neighborhoods.

    “Local” events don’t need local government – look at either the downtown or Strathcona markets, or the silly parade, or the “show and shines” or the Chinese new years celebrations or a host of other “community” events. St. Albert will not "lose" it's farmers' market or it's artists or it's bilingual heritage. What we do have to remember when we have this discussions is that the entire Greater Edmonton Region is NOT a large city in terms of either area or population and does NOT warrant more than one level of local government.

    One need only look at the regions problems now where St. Albert and Strathcona and Fort Saskatchewan and Edmonton and Leduc and all of the others have their own planning departments and zoning bylaws and permit procedures etc. If I am involved in a dozen projects within the region, I should be able to discuss all of them in one place (not necessarily with the same planner but at least in the same building). These projects are almost universally complementary to each other and not competitive - they do not need competitive jurisdictions in order to be successful.

    One of the reasons we struggle as a region is that we keep trying too hard to invent options and alternatives that might work on a more equitable basis for the entire region when they are all in fact not much different than what we have now with some modicum of cost and/or revenue sharing or other tinkering or fine tuning. A violin without a bow or a saxophone without a reed will never play the right notes regardless of how much tuning you give them.

    If the current framework doesn’t work - and we all know that on a fair and equitable basis it does not (all we have to do is look at the region’s and the province’s goals thirty years ago for 75% of the regions growth to take place within the city of Edmonton to know it does not) - we should have learned enough over those same thirty years to know that without a single level of control and accountability, we will never achieve the real potential that the capital region and all of its components should be able to achieve.

    PS If it's not readily apparent, I cast my ballot for option 5.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  13. #13
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    653

    Default

    I should clarify my position. I agree with Ken that amalgamation makes the most sense, however, for once I appear to be the one playing the realist to his idealist.

    My main concern with the amalgamation issue is that it will be fought tooth-and-nail by the regional municipalities. If it is imposed from above by the provincial government, awesome. I just don't think they have the cajones to do it.

    When I say borough, I am not picturing something akin to seperate cities stuck together. What I think needs to happen is that we need to find some way to get a single level of government to control planning, zoning, transportation, etc. That's the main goal. In order to get there, I think we need to make some concessions.

    If regional governments want to stay semi-independent; okay. They can have their fire departments, school districts, control over rec centres, I don't really care. Whatever doesn't hurt the bigger region (that much). In order to give the regional municipalities power, we need to come up with rational units. Clearly Beaumont doesn't equal Edmonton, and they need to give up on that. St. Albert also doesn't.

    That's where the boroughs come in. If you take Edmonton and slice it up, then you can assign little pieces like NW to St. Albert, and the far west end (Lewis Estates) to Parkland county. If you take one big Edmonton, and break it up into pieces, suddenly each of the resulting five or whatever boroughs will be relatively equal.

    Throughout it, though, we need to make sure that it's the top level government that has all the real power. So in that sense, this is all kind of a trick to get the municipalities on board and take their power away. I would rather see a half dozen equal units bickering than thirty tiny towns holding sway over the only major player in the region.

  14. #14
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    172

    Default

    I vote #5

  15. #15
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Big E
    Posts
    1,205

    Default Re: Great(er) Edmonton

    Quote Originally Posted by feepa

    8.) Strathcona County or St Albert or etc is given Edmonton, and Edmonton seizes to exist.
    The proper word is "ceases", actually.

    And I vote for #5.

  16. #16
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,221
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    ...and letters like this just make me wonder...the rhetoric on all sides gets ridiculous....

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton Sun
    I saw Mayor Stephen "Whinedel" on CityTV's Breakfast Television and he's still on the hunt to control the entire capital region. I have lived in Strathcona County for 24 years and I have a message for Whinedel: try cleaning up your own backyard and keep your grubby little hands off of our county! You can't provide the basic services for Edmonton when it comes to snow clearing, pothole repair, road repair, policing and many other services. Concentrate on the problems of your own city and leave us alone. You are not going to get our industrial tax base.

    Fraser R. Dalziel

    (The mayor loves a fine whine.)
    http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/L...9/4613954.html

    Again, when it comes to royalites, it is money for ALL Albertans, but when it comes to the same tax base, it is for a small county alone?

    Sheesh.

    It is just another point for the reality of this debate - money. Hide it behind manifest destiny, hide it behind "great planning", hide it behind "efficent small government", in reality it is money.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  17. #17
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    ...It is just another point for the reality of this debate - money. Hide it behind manifest destiny, hide it behind "great planning", hide it behind "efficent small government", in reality it is money.
    and we all know that whenever anyone says "it's not about the money...", in the end it's ALWAYS about the money.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  18. #18

    Default

    Dear Fraser R. Dalziel,

    Please stop driving on Edmonton city roads, and stop using the services of the City

    Signed,

    Citzens of Edmonton.
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  19. #19
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton - Blue Quill
    Posts
    3,070

    Default Re: Great(er) Edmonton

    Quote Originally Posted by feepa

    8.) Strathcona County or St Albert or etc is given Edmonton, and Edmonton seizes to exist.
    That sounds so confrontational. Don't you mean "Ceases to exist"?

    I voted for number 5.
    Fly Edmonton first. Support EIA

  20. #20
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,506

    Default

    I like option 5, only on larger scale. Amalgamate Edmonton, all of Sturgeon county, all of Strathcona county, the eastern half of Parkland county, the eastern half of Leduc county and all the cities and towns within.

    It would take more than this to stop sprawl though. In addition to intelligent industrial planning there would need to be significant restrictions on new residential development. A large unicity (or strong regional government) is a necessary but not sufficient condition to make this happen. The political will needs to be there as well.

  21. #21

    Default

    Interestingly the regional fiefdom mindset is not just outside Edmonton's borders but also inside. Hasn't anyone else found it funny that Millwoods holds its own Canada Day fireworks and party? I remember standing on Victoria Park Road with all the other people year after year watching the main fireworks only to see a little smattering of light from the far southeast after the downtown display is done. Compared to other major cities, the downtown fireworks is not that great. But the Millwoods display is downright laughable. And that's what I think other cities across Canada think of Edmonton's regional politics: laughable. That is, if they even give a second to think about Edmonton in the first place.

    The great abdundance of cheap land and the provincial government's cowardly stance towards urban sprawl have led to an epidemic of infectious NIMBY'ism (Not In My BackYard) in this city. While I'm strongly in favour of amalgamation, I also realize that this NIMBY'ism cannot be ignored. That's why I'm in favour of a borough system in the context of amalgamation.

    But first things first, if Metro Edmonton is to amalgamate, the provincial government must steadfastly preserve the farmland ringing Metro Edmonton to a large and substantial radius. For urbanites, this means that any new residential, commercial, and industrial development outside Metro Edmonton's borders would be severely limited. This would prevent the sprouting of new bedroom communities in the future which would repeat the situation we are in today. Not only that but we'd preserve small towns and villages as they are without having them lose their character in becoming yet another bedroom community. Any new development must be proven to benefit the communities of which they are part first and foremost without "selling out" to urban interests.

    Second, in amalgamation, Metro Edmonton should be divided into boroughs that recognize the NIMBY'istic reality in this city. Like previous posts, I like the idea of reviving Old Strathcona, giving part of the northwest to St. Albert, etc. But these boroughs must only be strong and vibrant cultural neighbourhoods. They cannot have real political power. They should be an acknowledgement, a celebration, of the distinct character of each part of the city. Boroughs should be based on where people live and not where they work. Residential areas should form the core of each borough with adjacent commercial and industrial areas lumped in for the sake of one contiguous geographic entity.

    To avoid further fractious politics, wards should be deliberately redrawn such that ideally there is a 50% overlap (in terms of population, not geography) in one borough and a 50% overlap in another. Each ward should elect only one representative to city council. The danger in two representatives is that one person may come to represent the people of one borough and the other person the other. Wards then would force different boroughs to act together as a political unit and ensure that they remain symbolic entities only. Furthermore, by splitting boroughs into different wards, whenever one borough outgrows another one substantially, the impact is halved because neighbouring boroughs - through wards - "absorb" the excess voters.

    Wards should have distinct names instead of numbers. Numbers, be it for wards or streets, may have a greater psychological impact than expected. It should come as no surprise that the largest bedroom communities in Metro Edmonton - St. Albert and Sherwood Park - do not have numbered streets. Even parts of Edmonton that want to "stand out" have named roads - like new developments in Riverbend or even the recent road signage in the Garneau area. Ward names should not be artificial designations like the "new" names that popped up along Yellowhead Trail recently to denote business areas. They should be organic and not shy away from the boroughs they represent. For example, they should be straightforward self-explanatory names like "Sherwood Park - Millwoods" and "St. Albert - Castledowns". (These are only examples. I'm still very unsure which specific parts of the city should be lumped together, divided, or on their own become boroughs)

    Using names instead of numbers may just be a symbolic gesture but it's better than nothing in terms of allaying the fears of outlying communities when it comes to amalgamation. As someone else pointed out, those fears are real - case in point: Jasper Place. Boroughs not only preserve the individual identities of outlying communities but they acknowledge the existing reality of NIMBY'ism even within Edmonton - as illustrated by the example of Millwoods' own Canada Day fireworks display. If further gestures are required, a new coat of arms could be drawn up with each part representing a borough. There should be as many symbols drawn up as required to placate the regional fiefdoms for the absence of real political power.

    I think most people in the outlying communities on some level must acknowledge that they live in something greater called Edmonton. Those who resist amalgamation likely want to retain the individual character of their neighbourhoods and they have every right to do so. Safeguarding one's neighbourhood is entrenched in the borough system. Strong symbolic boroughs pull the carpet out from under the feet of politicians who ride this sentiment only to enhance their own self-serving political ends.

    Amalgamation to create politically symbolic but culturally powerful boroughs with politically powerful but culturally insignificant wards is a check-and-balance system. It checks against each borough becoming its own regional fiefdom soon wanting to break away from an amalgamated Metro Edmonton. It balances against the uniformity and loss of identity many - both outside and inside Edmonton - dread when memories of Jasper Place and previous annexation adventures are revisited.

    Hopefully this will ensure that all cylinders in the regional economic engine fire together so that Metro Edmonton finally gets the respect it - as Canada's fifth-largest city, one-million strong, with one of the country's most diverse and successful economies - rightfully deserves.

  22. #22

    Default

    ^^ In complete agreement
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  23. #23
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    Maybe I'm uninformed or just confused but it seems to me that this whole issue is a diversionary tactic. We think that we are in a mess and rather than accepting it and finding a way to fix it, we deny our faults and blame anyone and everyone else.

    Does St. Albert, Beaumont, Fort Saskatchewan or any other community adjacent to our boundaries try to usurp Edmonton's zoning authority?

    Edmonton has it's boundaries and within those boundaries we have more land than we now need or are able to adequately service. Within those boundaries our planning department appears to be little more than a revenue source as it seems to be constantly overruled by council.

    Now we want to deny our neighbor their right to rezone land because we might want to expropriate it in 25 years?

    Let's assume we are successful and the development goes a mile or two east. Would that reduce traffic anywhere? The same people would drive the same roads to the same destinations. They would just drive a little further and it would just add a little to the cost and would pollute just a little more.

    Wouldn't we be further ahead if we were to sit at the table and plan to meet the expected infrastructure needs?

    Can someone tell us what, if anything, can be gained by meddling in our neighbor's business?

  24. #24
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    /\ the issue that the proposed community is on the border. as such, the two municipalities must coordinate planning and land use. Inevitably, of several thousand people who would live in the proposed "growth node" would add to traffic in edmonton. then there would be calls for edmonton to spend money on road improvements and other things to accomodate that growth. So why should Edmonton change our money allocations to react to choice made by our neighbours?

    As Richard said it, if municipalities were to ignore their neighbours, than what recourse would Strath County have if Edmonton were to approve and build some polluting, ugly, stinkly factory right on the border?

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    /\ the issue that the proposed community is on the border. as such, the two municipalities must coordinate planning and land use. Inevitably, of several thousand people who would live in the proposed "growth node" would add to traffic in edmonton. then there would be calls for edmonton to spend money on road improvements and other things to accomodate that growth. So why should Edmonton change our money allocations to react to choice made by our neighbours?

    As Richard said it, if municipalities were to ignore their neighbours, than what recourse would Strath County have if Edmonton were to approve and build some polluting, ugly, stinkly factory right on the border?
    3 points/questions:

    1. I agree with many that the proposed growth node isn't optimal. My fear is that it will turn into some sort of urban ghetto given the increased density without the increased amenities that often go with it. However the way to make sure these projects do not go ahead is for Edmonton to do things like the Quarters.

    2. Everything I've read on wind directions (including some things posted on C2E, stats Can info and Weather Network stats) shows the pre-dominate winds coming from the south for the majority of the year in Edmonton and around. Is this not true?

    3. In 2006 Strathcona County generated just over $50M in industrial property taxes. How much of this do people feel Edmonton should receive in revenue sharing? Even at 25% it would be only $12.5M.

  26. #26

    Default

    ^^ you just dont get it do you?
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  27. #27
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish
    /\ the issue that the proposed community is on the border. as such, the two municipalities must coordinate planning and land use. Inevitably, of several thousand people who would live in the proposed "growth node" would add to traffic in edmonton. then there would be calls for edmonton to spend money on road improvements and other things to accomodate that growth. So why should Edmonton change our money allocations to react to choice made by our neighbours?

    As Richard said it, if municipalities were to ignore their neighbours, than what recourse would Strath County have if Edmonton were to approve and build some polluting, ugly, stinkly factory right on the border?
    Well, why should those thousands of people add to traffic in Edmonton? Wouldn't they be supporting the Edmonton economy by shopping and working and attending events here? Would there be less demand on the road infrastructure if that node were a mile or two to the east? Could we handle it better if it were built on 17 street?

    This fight isn't about a factory. It's about Edmonton throwing its weight around and one-upmanship. You said "the two municipalities must coordinate planning and land use." But Edmonton appears only to oppose without reason. If it were a dirty factory, I could see some valid reasons for opposing it, but that isn't the case.

    However, it could be that Edmonton is planning to set a legal precedent by losing this case so that we can use it in a future argument to enable us to "build some polluting, ugly, stinkly factory right on the border" without opposition from the neighbors.

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards
    ^^ you just dont get it do you?
    Explain it to me.

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ins
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards
    ^^ you just dont get it do you?
    Explain it to me.
    again? Though - you should learn enough over the next coming months - hopefully you dont let just one view limit your opinion on this. I've lived in various parts of this region, including sherwood park. Theres much more than just revenue sharing. Hopefully over the coming months, you'll see past the SC view, and try to see it from the whole perspective.

    Oh, and someone needs to tell me whats so unique about each and everyone of these bedroom communities over Edmonton...? Just are, just another suburban community
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards
    Quote Originally Posted by Ins
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards
    ^^ you just dont get it do you?
    Explain it to me.
    again? Though - you should learn enough over the next coming months - hopefully you dont let just one view limit your opinion on this. I've lived in various parts of this region, including sherwood park. Theres much more than just revenue sharing. Hopefully over the coming months, you'll see past the SC view, and try to see it from the whole perspective.

    Oh, and someone needs to tell me whats so unique about each and everyone of these bedroom communities over Edmonton...? Just are, just another suburban community
    Unfortunately, it is you that can't see past your view. For instance I've been waiting for someone to be outraged at Edmonton, a city sprawling to the south with low density projects and tons of high density opportunies within it's core, for actually looking at annexing more land.

    Edmonton wants more regional planning, so what, everyone does. Other players just won't give Edmonton a veto. Edmonton also wants more money from the region, and complains loudly in general terms about the burdens they bare yet refuses to quantify them. What politician would ever agree to such a blank cheque.

  31. #31
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,221
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish

    As Richard said it, if municipalities were to ignore their neighbours, than what recourse would Strath County have if Edmonton were to approve and build some polluting, ugly, stinkly factory right on the border?
    Thanks grish. That is the core issue, good for the goose and gander here... It is not like we are talking distances like Vegriville or Edson here, these are immediately adjacent communities, and are geographically forced to share and work together, or sue each other into bankruptcy, whichever. Again Ins, Strathcona County is not autonomous in the true spirit of the word, so when I see that word thrown around, it annoys me. ...because Edmonton is not truly autonomous either, and you'd find out if Edmonton proposed that hypothetical factory...

    The same appeared with the NW AHD extension from our friends in St Albert. While the TUC is owned and planned by the province, it did not stop residents and politicians alike from St Albert to protest and decry Edmonton as the planners that caused this debacle. So, to dwells' question, yes, they try to at least force their opinion on other municipalities, whether or not that blamed municipality is actually at "fault".

    I use the "smelly" factory or power plants because I remember all too well the debates around the Genesee Generating Station project from Edmonton Power. If you want to see municipalities that are not even adjacent to this project try to flex muscle on this project, search GAPS and Edmonton Power/Genesee at your local library.

    As for the winds Ins, at ground level it is NW/SE mainly; however, if you go slightly up in altitude, it is more ESE/WNW - look at those wonderful orange/brown bands in the sky most days - they come from the power plants out in Wabamun, Genesee, etc.

    As for the growth node being prevented by things like the Quarters, that is not likely. I will guarantee that when the Quarters is built, so will this "growth node" if certain people in SC have their way. This belief in autonomy has SC and others looking to expand their specific borders to increase their specific population as the councils are insular and the planners, paid by the respective councils, are going to react in kind. The node and the Quarters are not mutually exclusive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skyscraperz
    Interestingly the regional fiefdom mindset is not just outside Edmonton's borders but also inside. Hasn't anyone else found it funny that Millwoods holds its own Canada Day fireworks and party?
    While I agree with what you are say here, and see it with Jasper Place vs Glenora, or worse, Ward politics in itself, I wanted to address the fireworks specifically. Weren't these put in place due to complaints from the south side that they found it hard to come downtown, so they put a secondary display down south to give that side of the river a spot? I am not sure anymore, but I thought there were news stories at the time this started?

    The difference being here though that Millwoods etc don't harbour the same feelings of pseudo-autonomy. In the end, the fighting is more for an intersection or a school, not for a whole new neighborhood or worries about expanding their specific economic clout on a large scale. As a part of Edmonton, they get the revenue/cost sharing bit, it is more posturing for specific parts of the capital budget.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  32. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ins
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards
    Quote Originally Posted by Ins
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards
    ^^ you just dont get it do you?
    Explain it to me.
    again? Though - you should learn enough over the next coming months - hopefully you dont let just one view limit your opinion on this. I've lived in various parts of this region, including sherwood park. Theres much more than just revenue sharing. Hopefully over the coming months, you'll see past the SC view, and try to see it from the whole perspective.

    Oh, and someone needs to tell me whats so unique about each and everyone of these bedroom communities over Edmonton...? Just are, just another suburban community
    Unfortunately, it is you that can't see past your view. For instance I've been waiting for someone to be outraged at Edmonton, a city sprawling to the south with low density projects and tons of high density opportunies within it's core, for actually looking at annexing more land.

    Edmonton wants more regional planning, so what, everyone does. Other players just won't give Edmonton a veto. Edmonton also wants more money from the region, and complains loudly in general terms about the burdens they bare yet refuses to quantify them. What politician would ever agree to such a blank cheque.
    This is where you don't get it. Edmonton won't be the same Edmonton. It will have different and more equal representation. I would hope that the whole ward system and upper workings of council is all changed to something to better suit the interior region, and make change to the "sprawling" city. Those suburbs of Millwoods, Sherwood Park, Callingwood, and places south of the Anthony Henday. St Albert. Castledowns. Spruce Grove Jasper Place. Clairvview Beverly. Downtown. Oliver. Strathcona. Crestwood. Capliano. Fort Sask. Tewillegar. ...etcWe are all in this together.

    Who's talking about a blank cheque? This thread is not about what mandel or who ever is spouting. This is our ideas to make a region better. What would you do? You're very quick to critique, but have not a plan. I would imagine you think the status quo continues to work? How would you deal with the mass differences and inefficiency in this region?
    How is it currently fair that some parts of the region deal with homelessness, crime, and other issues...while sheltered parts of the region are not?
    How much sense does it make to have 4-6 separate transit systems?
    Different police forces? Schools? Infrastructure building... etc

    How does it make sense that Edmonton Region has over a Million different people divided in 23 Separate Councils/mayors or reeves, etc. We all use all parts of this region. Some less some more, but we are all here ... TOGETHER.

    Its time to re-invent how this Entire Region Works... It doesn't make sense. It hasn't for 30-50 years.
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  33. #33
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,221
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ins
    For instance I've been waiting for someone to be outraged at Edmonton, a city sprawling to the south with low density projects and tons of high density opportunies within it's core, for actually looking at annexing more land.
    Ins, please look at other threads on this forum to see quite a lot of concern to outrage at sprawl... Sprawl dominates discussions on condo projects in Buildings and Architecture. Sprawl is a common theme in Transportation and Infrastructure.

    Actually, Edmonton's planning receives a good amout of ire in C2E and in the media. 23 ave. Yellowhead. Pretty much all of Ward 1 north of the Whitemud. 87th ave LRT extension gets slapped because it does not offer TOD opportunities. The cries for the Muni's closure are part and parcel due to the desire to redevelop inward.

    There is also a concern about annexation of just raw land, but that bleeds directly into why SC and others sprawl too. There are a lot of people applying the same "stop sprawling so much" brush to Edmonton as well as others.

    I'm actually surprised you don't see these themes. It is everywhere in C2E.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  34. #34
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards
    ^^ you just dont get it do you?
    I admit that I do not.

    Here's just a few things that I don't get (pardon me if I'm spanning threads)
    How a city that can't manage 700 sqkm can manage 10,000 sqkm.
    How an infrastructure too costly for 700 sqkm suddenly becomes affordable when expanded 10,000 sqkm.
    How a council that approves hundreds of hectares for low density development can effectively handle sprawl.
    How a transit system that can't handle one city of 684 sqkm can provide service to what is now 23 municipalities and 10,000 sqkm.
    How an administration that blames neighbors, the province and the feds for its inadequacies can suddenly acquire responsibility and accountability.

  35. #35
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,221
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    All very good questions...

    The answer lies in ensuring that ALL municipalities, organizations, and processes are up for debate.

    There is more than enough "blame" to go around, and the Edmonton Region as is will not be equipped in handling any new work, nor combat any old problems.

    There are bigger issues, such as the MGA and how municipalities are funded/can raise funds that play into this debate. Really, municipalities are wards of the province. The Feds and the Province have the taxation powers, and the surpluses.

    Sprawl can be more effectively contained if fewer self-interested or "autonomous" planning departments are consolidated and plans kept in check.

    "Infrastructure" for Genesee is nowhere near as costly as 23 avenue. Trust me, it can be managed. Run a grader on the roads when needed, keep the snow removed, and you pretty much have it. The odd rehab to the bridges, but the province takes care of a lot of that anyway. The costly infrastructure is IN the city.

    Transit is only applied where it makes sense. No one here is suddenly saying Burderheim gets the #34. Co-ordinated park and rides, smaller busses in off peak hours, co-ordinated schedules in the adjacent communities, etc, that is what transit is talking about. If you chose to live in New Sarepta, guess what, you need to factor commuting costs by car into your decision. It is called individual accountability for where you choose to live. If I moved back to Genesee, guess what, gravel roads, septic, and a huge gas bill become a reality.

    The key here, and Medwards hit it, is that everything is up for debate. No one is innocent, and no one organization is gold.

    Many are looking at this from the present and the past. Therein lies the problem...so let's take what works best in certain areas, remove the inefficiencies and the opportunities for conflict, and get a new solution that works for the most people.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  36. #36
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Many are looking at this from the present and the past. Therein lies the problem...so let's take what works best in certain areas, remove the inefficiencies and the opportunities for conflict, and get a new solution that works for the most people.
    History is the only means we have of projecting to the future. Unfortunately, most of what we have in our recent history is spotty with ineptitude, self-pity, confrontation, belligerence, unaccountability and envy.

    I can't help but feel that if the city were to annex the land for the node tomorrow, the development they are now fighting would be approved next month, and construction would start in January. Infrastructure would just have to catch up...

    Why do I have such a low opinion of the city? I really don't know. Maybe it's all the unfinished projects juxtaposed to a perception of frivolous waste. Maybe it's the effort spent on assigning blame to other jurisdictions instead of fixing problems. Maybe it's the ever increasing taxes.

    Bottom line: Since past performance is all that I have to judge the future, I don't have the confidence that amalgamation is in anyone's best interest.

  37. #37

    Default

    Actually, Edmonton's planning receives a good amout of ire in C2E and in the media. 23 ave. Yellowhead. Pretty much all of Ward 1 north of the Whitemud. 87th ave LRT extension gets slapped because it does not offer TOD opportunities. The cries for the Muni's closure are part and parcel due to the desire to redevelop inward.
    I do read the other threads and you're right there is lots of talk about sprawl. I was just surprised no one mentioned it in this thread.

    Thanks for the info on the wind directions.

  38. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dwells
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards
    ^^ you just dont get it do you?
    I admit that I do not.

    Here's just a few things that I don't get (pardon me if I'm spanning threads)
    How a city that can't manage 700 sqkm can manage 10,000 sqkm.
    How an infrastructure too costly for 700 sqkm suddenly becomes affordable when expanded 10,000 sqkm.
    How a council that approves hundreds of hectares for low density development can effectively handle sprawl.
    How a transit system that can't handle one city of 684 sqkm can provide service to what is now 23 municipalities and 10,000 sqkm.
    How an administration that blames neighbors, the province and the feds for its inadequacies can suddenly acquire responsibility and accountability.
    Well, I would hope a new administration would be worked out in the grand scheme of things. Look towards the future, stop "dwelling" on the past.
    I guess its alright for the St Alberts and Sherwood Parks to approve hundred of hectares for low density but not the city?

    All you people that are against this are looking at it completely wrong.

    Look at it from the point of the Region. Not "Edmonton wants to gobble up everything, and do as it please" It will never be like that. We must start working together as a region. Instead of pointing fingers, and placing blame for what has happened in the past. Stop being so childish, and try to see the full picture. The whole region sucks. It needs to work differently. Please see that. Open your eyes.
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  39. #39
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,221
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dwells
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Many are looking at this from the present and the past. Therein lies the problem...so let's take what works best in certain areas, remove the inefficiencies and the opportunities for conflict, and get a new solution that works for the most people.
    History is the only means we have of projecting to the future. Unfortunately, most of what we have in our recent history is spotty with ineptitude, self-pity, confrontation, belligerence, unaccountability and envy.

    (...)
    Bottom line: Since past performance is all that I have to judge the future, I don't have the confidence that amalgamation is in anyone's best interest.
    Who says amalgamation while leaving ineptitude intact is an answer?

    Yes, there are examples of ineptitude, but also examples of getting things done. Plus, who says we need to look at just Edmonton's history? Minn/St Paul was in a similar place, why can't we look at that example?
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  40. #40
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Quote Originally Posted by dwells
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Many are looking at this from the present and the past. Therein lies the problem...so let's take what works best in certain areas, remove the inefficiencies and the opportunities for conflict, and get a new solution that works for the most people.
    History is the only means we have of projecting to the future. Unfortunately, most of what we have in our recent history is spotty with ineptitude, self-pity, confrontation, belligerence, unaccountability and envy.

    (...)
    Bottom line: Since past performance is all that I have to judge the future, I don't have the confidence that amalgamation is in anyone's best interest.
    Who says amalgamation while leaving ineptitude intact is an answer?

    Yes, there are examples of ineptitude, but also examples of getting things done. Plus, who says we need to look at just Edmonton's history? Minn/St Paul was in a similar place, why can't we look at that example?
    or we could just have each of the regional entities submit to an overall performance review conduced to agreed upon standards (or overall standards set by the province if need be) and the top performer would then get to amalgamate all of the others. If that means Cathy ends up being mayor of the entire amalgamated entity because they really do a better job out there than anyone else, then who really cares as long as we get on with it without bickering for another 50 years?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  41. #41
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,221
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Exactly. I really don't care who makes it to the chair, just as long as we can stop the bickering on all sides. If Cathy, or Nolan, or Stephen's methods won, then so be it.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  42. #42
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards
    All you people that are against this are looking at it completely wrong.

    Look at it from the point of the Region. Not "Edmonton wants to gobble up everything, and do as it please" It will never be like that. We must start working together as a region. Instead of pointing fingers, and placing blame for what has happened in the past. Stop being so childish, and try to see the full picture. The whole region sucks. It needs to work differently. Please see that. Open your eyes.
    Maybe Richard's summary will help to clarify the picture.

    And remember, Doug Radke will have access to much more information than we have. He won't be limited by my myopic opinion.

  43. #43

    Default

    All you people that are against this are looking at it completely wrong.

    Look at it from the point of the Region. Not "Edmonton wants to gobble up everything, and do as it please" It will never be like that. We must start working together as a region. Instead of pointing fingers, and placing blame for what has happened in the past. Stop being so childish, and try to see the full picture. The whole region sucks. It needs to work differently. Please see that. Open your eyes.
    What's the full picture? A borough system? One centralized government? Totally integrated services. How poliitically possible are many of the alternatives being suggested? I focus on cost sharing vs. revenue sharing because these are the things that are realistic at this point in time. My eyes are wide open.

  44. #44
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ins
    All you people that are against this are looking at it completely wrong.

    Look at it from the point of the Region. Not "Edmonton wants to gobble up everything, and do as it please" It will never be like that. We must start working together as a region. Instead of pointing fingers, and placing blame for what has happened in the past. Stop being so childish, and try to see the full picture. The whole region sucks. It needs to work differently. Please see that. Open your eyes.
    What's the full picture? A borough system? One centralized government? Totally integrated services. How poliitically possible are many of the alternatives being suggested? I focus on cost sharing vs. revenue sharing because these are the things that are realistic at this point in time. My eyes are wide open.
    cost sharing doesn't and won't work - all you have to do is look at the three levels of government that exist in this country and the only one which is broken and why. municipalities do not have the same ability to match revenues to expenses and their costs are countercyclical (i.e. the investments are needed before the revenue is generated). insisting that what revenues there are within a region - any region - can remain fragmented and distributed only following some agreement on cost sharing and negotiations on what qualifies to be cost-shared and on what formula should be used to cost share those things that do qualify is and will be completely counter productive. it will generate another level of bureaucracy and another forum for continued disagreement and bickering for another fifty years - it will not generate a solution. and that's the full picture - a borough system or centralized government or some other form of implementing it doesn't matter ("a rose by any other name" - maybe that could be the new licence plate motto for the edmonton region?) but totally integrated services (which does not have to mean identical services everywhere) and management and taxes regardless of what you call it is exactly what you should be looking at.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  45. #45

    Default

    totally integrated services (which does not have to mean identical services everywhere) and management and taxes regardless of what you call it is exactly what you should be looking at.
    Should be and what is realistic are too completely seperate things.

  46. #46
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,221
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dwells
    (...)

    And remember, Doug Radke will have access to much more information than we have. He won't be limited by my myopic opinion.
    not to mention more time to spend on this...

    ahhh, to get PAID to do this...spar, volley, debate, drink coffee, write, debate more, spar more....drink beer....slur....someone says they love you...hug....REGION SOLVED....wake up...regrets...spar again...
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  47. #47
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,221
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ins

    Should be and what is realistic are too completely seperate things.
    Define realistic....

    When one realizes the need for change, and potentially RADICAL change, then doesn't "what's realistic" take on a whole new identity? If a government can pick up a pen and create a "hamlet", they can also do other interesting things. Sherwood Park is a precident....a dangerous one for some.

    We aren't talking about creating the fully honest politician or the perfect religion here...
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  48. #48
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    252

    Default

    Can I ask what you think is so UNrealistic about it?

  49. #49
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ins
    totally integrated services (which does not have to mean identical services everywhere) and management and taxes regardless of what you call it is exactly what you should be looking at.
    Should be and what is realistic are too completely seperate things.
    so now i am confused - are you agreeing that this is what should be done with your only concern being whether it can or how it would be implemented?

    or are you saying you don't believe it can or would be implemented and on that assumption by you alone we shouldn't even be bothering to try and do something even you think should be done?

    those are two very different positions... and i for one still believe that what "should be" and what is "realistic" are not and should not be completely seperate things.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  50. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by codeman9669
    Can I ask what you think is so UNrealistic about it?
    What's unrealistic about this?

    totally integrated services (which does not have to mean identical services everywhere) and management and taxes regardless of what you call it is exactly what you should be looking at

    It's amalgamation/annexation by another name. Many of the regional partners don't want integrated services. SC for instance will not send tax money to another municipality without knowing where that money will go. Several powerful Provincial Minister's (including the current Premier) would never go for this proposal. In my opinion it is unrealistic.

    One thing that I have found interesting is that when we moved here 2 years ago, property taxes in Edmonton and Sherwood Park were virtually identical. I know SC is looking at a big property tax increase as well. I think in the Park we have better rec facilities (and more of them) than Edmonton has in the newer sections. Other than that, we don't get much more bang for our buck (snow removal, etc.). So my question earlier as to how much of the industrial revenues Edmonton would like to have is partly motivated by what the tax increases to SC residents would be to maintain the same budget. For instance if SC lost 1/4 of the proepty taxes generated by industry then property taxes would have to rise by about $150 per head or $600 per year per family of 4. Is this the kind of savings an integrated region will generate because this is a huge political hurdle that needs to be overcome. Which is why I'm always curious to quantify things.

  51. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor
    Quote Originally Posted by Ins
    totally integrated services (which does not have to mean identical services everywhere) and management and taxes regardless of what you call it is exactly what you should be looking at.
    Should be and what is realistic are too completely seperate things.
    so now i am confused - are you agreeing that this is what should be done with your only concern being whether it can or how it would be implemented?

    or are you saying you don't believe it can or would be implemented and on that assumption by you alone we shouldn't even be bothering to try and do something even you think should be done?

    those are two very different positions... and i for one still believe that what "should be" and what is "realistic" are not and should not be completely seperate things.
    It is my opinion and assumption that it would not be done at this point in time and that it shouldn't be done.

    I've stated before and I'll state again that if I was Edmonton, I would move on cost sharing. Give the region what they want, cost things out. Move in increments. Try to get development by-laws, etc. uniform. Over time you'll get what you want. Don't start with hot button items like schools and police and certainly don't disparage the Industrial Heartland on there development capabilities. This gets you nowhere.

  52. #52
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,221
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ins

    It's amalgamation/annexation by another name. Many of the regional partners don't want integrated services. SC for instance will not send tax money to another municipality without knowing where that money will go. Several powerful Provincial Minister's (including the current Premier) would never go for this proposal. In my opinion it is unrealistic.
    So,

    You're telling me that becasue Iris Evans will go into the Premier's office and continue to sob and sing "Independance Forever", and Peter Elzinga will still think the lines drawn in 1981 are correct, that there is no change forthcoming? Who are the other "powerful" cabinet ministers or others that still have contacts into the Tories?

    That tells me 2 things:

    1. I've been right all along that it is simple ego and delusions of manifest destiny that keep this alive.

    2. Time for a change on many levels.

    It just "steels my resolve". This game is just selfish.

    Let me be blunt Ins. This will be a couple cabinet ministers undoing. The demographics of Alberta are changing. The urban vote, and urban issues, will be not only center stage, but the entire stage. Edmonton MLA's get it. When I speak to my local MLA's and MP's, they get it. When I ask scholars in the area, they get it. This issue WILL be center stage as soon as Ed drops the writ, and the results are in. Calgary is facing it. Grande Prairie, Red Deer, Peace River, you name it.

    So, change in this region is realistic. The mood is there. The 45 and under folks see this clearly and work in a world where petty borders no longer matter. Warburg vs Thorsby is stupid, Edmonton vs Strathcona County is even more silly. Collaboration and planning is happening on a GLOBAL scale. Our petty debate quagmired in silly historic ego will die, one way or another.

    Port ALBERTA alone is driving this...add the other major global and national events, and suddenly we all should give our heads a HUGE shake.

    As to your financial points, you are looking insular again. Trust me. SC and Sherwood Park could and in my opinion WOULD gain if only people would see past their old world.

    Plus, if there was not "much to lose" financially, why fight amalgamation so hard? Seriously, let's be real here, this debate is all about money, the protection of it, and the hoarding of it by virtually everyone in this debate. ...and I mean EVERYONE.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  53. #53
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ins
    ...For instance if SC lost 1/4 of the proepty taxes generated by industry then property taxes would have to rise by about $150 per head or $600 per year per family of 4. Is this the kind of savings an integrated region will generate because this is a huge political hurdle that needs to be overcome. Which is why I'm always curious to quantify things.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ins
    I've stated before and I'll state again that if I was Edmonton, I would move on cost sharing. Give the region what they want, cost things out. Move in increments. Try to get development by-laws, etc. uniform. Over time you'll get what you want. Don't start with hot button items like schools and police and certainly don't disparage the Industrial Heartland on there development capabilities. This gets you nowhere.
    if you really want to quantify things, you should do it with some real numbers. the county collects 31% of its revenue from industy and 24% from residents. if you "lost" 1/4 of the total revenue, you should also "lose" the costs associated with that 1/4. so your 24% might go to 26% if costs are 75% of the amounts collected. for an 1,800 per annum tax bill, you would see an increase to 1,950. but these are are purely theoretical/hypothetical numbers.

    if you want to look at the real hard numbers that illustrate the discrepancies within the region (discrepancies which have to be made up for by each of the component municipalities), you only have to look at the following comparisions of their non-residential assessment compared to toal assessment:

    edmonton 24.3%
    fort saskatchewan 63.7%
    leduc city 23.3%
    st. albert 11.1%
    spruce grove 16.2%
    leduc county 65.4%
    parkland county 35.4%
    strathcona county 44.3%
    sturgeon county 46.9%

    cost sharing will never be able to equitably resolve this and recognizing that is certainly no disparagement towards the development capabilities within the Industrial Heartland and lessens them not one iota.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  54. #54
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ins
    Quote Originally Posted by codeman9669
    Can I ask what you think is so UNrealistic about it?
    What's unrealistic about this?

    totally integrated services (which does not have to mean identical services everywhere) and management and taxes regardless of what you call it is exactly what you should be looking at

    It's amalgamation/annexation by another name. Many of the regional partners don't want integrated services. SC for instance will not send tax money to another municipality without knowing where that money will go. Several powerful Provincial Minister's (including the current Premier) would never go for this proposal. In my opinion it is unrealistic.

    One thing that I have found interesting is that when we moved here 2 years ago, property taxes in Edmonton and Sherwood Park were virtually identical. I know SC is looking at a big property tax increase as well. I think in the Park we have better rec facilities (and more of them) than Edmonton has in the newer sections. Other than that, we don't get much more bang for our buck (snow removal, etc.). So my question earlier as to how much of the industrial revenues Edmonton would like to have is partly motivated by what the tax increases to SC residents would be to maintain the same budget. For instance if SC lost 1/4 of the proepty taxes generated by industry then property taxes would have to rise by about $150 per head or $600 per year per family of 4. Is this the kind of savings an integrated region will generate because this is a huge political hurdle that needs to be overcome. Which is why I'm always curious to quantify things.
    Just as I thought...it is small-mindedness and not being able to see the larger picture that makes this unrealistic, not the actual (eventual) execution.

    (Just as a side note Ins, this is not a statement directed at you, but a general statement.)

  55. #55
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,221
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    It is a valid general statement.

    Watching CBC news last night, their story had many "joe/jane averages" saying the typical statements.

    If I wanted to live in Edmonton...I would.

    They use our roads, so its fair.

    We have "character" and are "unique".

    So, I wouldn't call it small mindedness as much as I would call it rhetoric and a belief structure set in a different age, or a different economic reality. Remember, a drive to St Albert at one time was an actual DRIVE, not a line on the road. Cars were different. Mobility was less. Moving to St Albert was a HUGE move where you didn't see people except on major holidays. Going to St Albert's Second Cup for an evening coffee with friends was not commonplace.

    City vs arguments are geting passé in 2007, some people haven't figured that out yet.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  56. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor
    Quote Originally Posted by Ins
    ...For instance if SC lost 1/4 of the proepty taxes generated by industry then property taxes would have to rise by about $150 per head or $600 per year per family of 4. Is this the kind of savings an integrated region will generate because this is a huge political hurdle that needs to be overcome. Which is why I'm always curious to quantify things.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ins
    I've stated before and I'll state again that if I was Edmonton, I would move on cost sharing. Give the region what they want, cost things out. Move in increments. Try to get development by-laws, etc. uniform. Over time you'll get what you want. Don't start with hot button items like schools and police and certainly don't disparage the Industrial Heartland on there development capabilities. This gets you nowhere.
    if you really want to quantify things, you should do it with some real numbers. the county collects 31% of its revenue from industy and 24% from residents. if you "lost" 1/4 of the total revenue, you should also "lose" the costs associated with that 1/4. so your 24% might go to 26% if costs are 75% of the amounts collected. for an 1,800 per annum tax bill, you would see an increase to 1,950. but these are are purely theoretical/hypothetical numbers.

    if you want to look at the real hard numbers that illustrate the discrepancies within the region (discrepancies which have to be made up for by each of the component municipalities), you only have to look at the following comparisions of their non-residential assessment compared to toal assessment:

    edmonton 24.3%
    fort saskatchewan 63.7%
    leduc city 23.3%
    st. albert 11.1%
    spruce grove 16.2%
    leduc county 65.4%
    parkland county 35.4%
    strathcona county 44.3%
    sturgeon county 46.9%

    cost sharing will never be able to equitably resolve this and recognizing that is certainly no disparagement towards the development capabilities within the Industrial Heartland and lessens them not one iota.
    Mandel has often dispraged the Industrail Heartland and there planning and development capabilities.

  57. #57

    Default

    You're telling me that becasue Iris Evans will go into the Premier's office and continue to sob and sing "Independance Forever", and Peter Elzinga will still think the lines drawn in 1981 are correct, that there is no change forthcoming? Who are the other "powerful" cabinet ministers or others that still have contacts into the Tories?
    Read what I said again, I am telling you that the many of the regional players don't want it (including the people). In SC I believe that the politicians are reflecting the views of their constituencies not satisfying their egos at all. I think many have misread Cathy's reelection. She got reelected in part because of her regional stance not despite it.


    Plus, if there was not "much to lose" financially, why fight amalgamation so hard?
    It's primarily about the community Richard. I know many here look at it as a bland suburb with no uniqueness. It just isn't so. It's also about money, otherwise why would Edmonton be pounding revnue sharing instead of regional planning?

  58. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by codeman9669
    Quote Originally Posted by Ins
    Quote Originally Posted by codeman9669
    Can I ask what you think is so UNrealistic about it?
    What's unrealistic about this?

    totally integrated services (which does not have to mean identical services everywhere) and management and taxes regardless of what you call it is exactly what you should be looking at

    It's amalgamation/annexation by another name. Many of the regional partners don't want integrated services. SC for instance will not send tax money to another municipality without knowing where that money will go. Several powerful Provincial Minister's (including the current Premier) would never go for this proposal. In my opinion it is unrealistic.

    One thing that I have found interesting is that when we moved here 2 years ago, property taxes in Edmonton and Sherwood Park were virtually identical. I know SC is looking at a big property tax increase as well. I think in the Park we have better rec facilities (and more of them) than Edmonton has in the newer sections. Other than that, we don't get much more bang for our buck (snow removal, etc.). So my question earlier as to how much of the industrial revenues Edmonton would like to have is partly motivated by what the tax increases to SC residents would be to maintain the same budget. For instance if SC lost 1/4 of the proepty taxes generated by industry then property taxes would have to rise by about $150 per head or $600 per year per family of 4. Is this the kind of savings an integrated region will generate because this is a huge political hurdle that needs to be overcome. Which is why I'm always curious to quantify things.
    Just as I thought...it is small-mindedness and not being able to see the larger picture that makes this unrealistic, not the actual (eventual) execution.

    (Just as a side note Ins, this is not a statement directed at you, but a general statement.)
    I'm putting an issue out there that needs to be addressed. If Edmonton wants more revenue than it has to come from somewhere. If that somewhere ends up being industrial taxes, then the regions that lose that tax base will need to come up with it from someone. If that someone is the tax payer in the region than that is an issue that must be addressed. It's just being realistic.

  59. #59

    Default

    ^^ which is why full out amalagamation is making more and more sense.

    1 for all and all for 1. 1 Great City.
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  60. #60
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards
    ^^ which is why full out amalagamation is making more and more sense.

    1 for all and all for 1. 1 Great City.
    That was my first thought when I read that as well. If all the money goes in one bucket, and comes out of one bucket, then there is no issue.

  61. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by codeman9669
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards
    ^^ which is why full out amalagamation is making more and more sense.

    1 for all and all for 1. 1 Great City.
    That was my first thought when I read that as well. If all the money goes in one bucket, and comes out of one bucket, then there is no issue.
    If money were the only issue that would be true.

  62. #62

    Default

    Cost sharing, revenue sharing = money.
    A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

  63. #63
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ins
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor
    Quote Originally Posted by Ins
    ...For instance if SC lost 1/4 of the proepty taxes generated by industry then property taxes would have to rise by about $150 per head or $600 per year per family of 4. Is this the kind of savings an integrated region will generate because this is a huge political hurdle that needs to be overcome. Which is why I'm always curious to quantify things.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ins
    I've stated before and I'll state again that if I was Edmonton, I would move on cost sharing. Give the region what they want, cost things out. Move in increments. Try to get development by-laws, etc. uniform. Over time you'll get what you want. Don't start with hot button items like schools and police and certainly don't disparage the Industrial Heartland on there development capabilities. This gets you nowhere.
    if you really want to quantify things, you should do it with some real numbers. the county collects 31% of its revenue from industy and 24% from residents. if you "lost" 1/4 of the total revenue, you should also "lose" the costs associated with that 1/4. so your 24% might go to 26% if costs are 75% of the amounts collected. for an 1,800 per annum tax bill, you would see an increase to 1,950. but these are are purely theoretical/hypothetical numbers.

    if you want to look at the real hard numbers that illustrate the discrepancies within the region (discrepancies which have to be made up for by each of the component municipalities), you only have to look at the following comparisions of their non-residential assessment compared to toal assessment:

    edmonton 24.3%
    fort saskatchewan 63.7%
    leduc city 23.3%
    st. albert 11.1%
    spruce grove 16.2%
    leduc county 65.4%
    parkland county 35.4%
    strathcona county 44.3%
    sturgeon county 46.9%


    cost sharing will never be able to equitably resolve this and recognizing that is certainly no disparagement towards the development capabilities within the Industrial Heartland and lessens them not one iota.
    Mandel has often dispraged the Industrail Heartland and there planning and development capabilities.
    which has what to do with our exchange or with any of the above actual, real numbers?

    to correctly note - as the above numbers prove - that the "success" of the Industrial Heartland has come in no small part from a price paid by other parts of the region including Edmonton is in my mind an acknowedgement of the unfairness of the above "splits" within the region, not a call for ending growth as you seem to imply.

    hoarding the results because they were attracted to your back yard in order to spend them in your front yard while sending part of the bill to your neighbors while insisting that all of the revenue is "yours" is what creates these disparities in the first place and continuing along that path will not rectify them.

    what you see in these numbers is not the result of good planning and development capabilities - it is the result of taking advantage of accidental and inintended geographic anomalies that should no longer exist. at least that's how i see it.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  64. #64
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,221
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ins

    Read what I said again, I am telling you that the many of the regional players don't want it (including the people). In SC I believe that the politicians are reflecting the views of their constituencies not satisfying their egos at all. I think many have misread Cathy's reelection. She got reelected in part because of her regional stance not despite it.

    (...)

    It's primarily about the community Richard. I know many here look at it as a bland suburb with no uniqueness. It just isn't so. It's also about money, otherwise why would Edmonton be pounding revnue sharing instead of regional planning?
    We differ on the "bland suburb" because it has as much uniqueness as Callingwood and as much community as Parkview. Seriously Ins, take someone from outside the region...they'll tell you. I knew someone who moved his main office from Capilano to SP, just to be closer to his house. ...but when the Houston folks came up, they were supposed to be "wowed" by SP and Millenium Place, and instead were . Then my ex and I took them to WEM and other area attractions...suddenly their impressions changed.

    It IS just another suburb. Really.

    As for Cathy's re-election numbers, it COULDN'T be that the vote was split 3 ways? Look at the numbers...she didn't win the majority of the people who bothered to vote. 2/3rds voted for someone else...don't forget that.

    As for "the people", I'm finding out that more and more people in St Albert, Sherwood Park, Spruce Grove, etc really...to quote Joe FM...don't give a Rat Sass about autonomy...they are actually in favour of this regionalization. It is similar to the NIMBY factor in the development industry - only those that give a rat sass show up at the meetings. Don't think that those who have other things to do don't think differently - I'm finding more support for a couple of ideas this forum has spawned more often than "I really LURVE Leduc."
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  65. #65

    Default

    which has what to do with our exchange or with any of the above actual, real numbers?

    to correctly note - as the above numbers prove - that the "success" of the Industrial Heartland has come in no small part from a price paid by other parts of the region including Edmonton is in my mind an acknowedgement of the unfairness of the above "splits" within the region, not a call for ending growth as you seem to imply.

    hoarding the results because they were attracted to your back yard in order to spend them in your front yard while sending part of the bill to your neighbors while insisting that all of the revenue is "yours" is what creates these disparities in the first place and continuing along that path will not rectify them.

    what you see in these numbers is not the result of good planning and development capabilities - it is the result of taking advantage of accidental and inintended geographic anomalies that should no longer exist. at least that's how i see it.
    Never implied ending growth.

    Didn't reply because I don't know what to say. Your math proves that the industrial revenues are outside Edmonton. We already know this. Edmonton wants some of those revenues. To say this is unfair these guys are nothing but lucky is a pointless argument in that it will get you no where. To say this costs Edmonton money and strains the infrastructure and prove the cost is a good argument.

  66. #66

    Default

    We differ on the "bland suburb" because it has as much uniqueness as Callingwood and as much community as Parkview.
    I know you believe this. I disagree.

    As for Cathy's re-election numbers, it COULDN'T be that the vote was split 3 ways? Look at the numbers...she didn't win the majority of the people who bothered to vote. 2/3rds voted for someone else...don't forget that.
    I know the numbers. What I'm saying is she won because of her stance on the region otherwise she was toast. In my opinion.

  67. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ins
    We differ on the "bland suburb" because it has as much uniqueness as Callingwood and as much community as Parkview.
    I know you believe this. I disagree.

    As for Cathy's re-election numbers, it COULDN'T be that the vote was split 3 ways? Look at the numbers...she didn't win the majority of the people who bothered to vote. 2/3rds voted for someone else...don't forget that.
    I know the numbers. What I'm saying is she won because of her stance on the region otherwise she was toast. In my opinion.
    So now you're channeling the vibe of the voting populace?
    [email protected][email protected]: the 5th Horseman of the Apocalypse

  68. #68
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    11,540

    Default

    I think what could be a decent first step would be reciprocal agreements for services with some municipalities:

    (1) Library services could be Metro-Edmonton wide. We could have a library card that would allow us to pool and maximize our resources.

    (2) Transit services could also be Metro-Edmonton wide. I'm sure that there would be people in Edmonton who would be interested in using Servus CU Place, or Millennium Place. In return, Edmonton could allow more routes for the Metro Edmonton communities. Edmonton and other communities could get bus service to the Edmonton International Airport.

    For other services, I think that these would require more review.

    Being a Sherwood Park resident, I think the availability of local services and businesses (e.g., Costco, Superstore and others) means that we don't have to travel to Edmonton to use their infrastructure as frequently. I think the generalization that we use services and infrastructure for "free" is becoming a weaker argument. Also, Edmonton residents are starting to use our services more often.

    What I find upsetting about this whole regional cooperation issue is every time that the municipalities get together they each bring their own agenda (Note: I'm not excusing Strathcona County). We could collaborate on infrastructure, but every year we waste will mean that inflation will eat away at it, or that the planning will be inefficient.

    Also, I think that the Metro Edmonton municipalities will cooperate further if they don't perceive Edmonton as wanting to raid revenues from industry.

  69. #69
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    11,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dwells
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Many are looking at this from the present and the past. Therein lies the problem...so let's take what works best in certain areas, remove the inefficiencies and the opportunities for conflict, and get a new solution that works for the most people.
    History is the only means we have of projecting to the future. Unfortunately, most of what we have in our recent history is spotty with ineptitude, self-pity, confrontation, belligerence, unaccountability and envy.
    When I see a comment like yours dwells, it echoes the sentiments of many Metro Edmonton residents. Edmonton has blamed many of its problems on just about everyone else (e.g., Calgary, the Capital Region, the Province, etc.), rather than taking responsibility for its issues, and finding a solution. When I hear stuff like this, it shows no respect for the people who helped build this city.

    Edmonton has to face its past before it can move into the future.

  70. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat
    Quote Originally Posted by dwells
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS
    Many are looking at this from the present and the past. Therein lies the problem...so let's take what works best in certain areas, remove the inefficiencies and the opportunities for conflict, and get a new solution that works for the most people.
    History is the only means we have of projecting to the future. Unfortunately, most of what we have in our recent history is spotty with ineptitude, self-pity, confrontation, belligerence, unaccountability and envy.
    When I see a comment like yours dwells, it echoes the sentiments of many Metro Edmonton residents. Edmonton has blamed many of its problems on just about everyone else (e.g., Calgary, the Capital Region, the Province, etc.), rather than taking responsibility for its issues, and finding a solution. When I hear stuff like this, it shows no respect for the people who helped build this city.

    Edmonton has to face its past before it can move into the future.
    I've only just read the last few posts within this thread... interesting Sherwood Park perspective, cause when I read dwells' what we have comment I took it to be all inclusive... as in "all regional inclusive" sharing the history he describes as "spotty with ineptitude, self-pity, confrontation, belligerence, unaccountability and envy". It reads, to me, as if your Sherwood Park perspective doesn't want to share in any of the described historical accountabilities.

    That solution you suggest Edmonton find - it's coming your way, sooner than later... imposed ala Stelmach, cause you know it isn't going to happen otherwise.

  71. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cat
    I think what could be a decent first step would be reciprocal agreements for services with some municipalities:

    (1) Library services could be Metro-Edmonton wide. We could have a library card that would allow us to pool and maximize our resources.

    (2) Transit services could also be Metro-Edmonton wide. I'm sure that there would be people in Edmonton who would be interested in using Servus CU Place, or Millennium Place. In return, Edmonton could allow more routes for the Metro Edmonton communities. Edmonton and other communities could get bus service to the Edmonton International Airport.

    For other services, I think that these would require more review.

    Being a Sherwood Park resident, I think the availability of local services and businesses (e.g., Costco, Superstore and others) means that we don't have to travel to Edmonton to use their infrastructure as frequently. I think the generalization that we use services and infrastructure for "free" is becoming a weaker argument. Also, Edmonton residents are starting to use our services more often.

    What I find upsetting about this whole regional cooperation issue is every time that the municipalities get together they each bring their own agenda (Note: I'm not excusing Strathcona County). We could collaborate on infrastructure, but every year we waste will mean that inflation will eat away at it, or that the planning will be inefficient.

    Also, I think that the Metro Edmonton municipalities will cooperate further if they don't perceive Edmonton as wanting to raid revenues from industry.
    The_Cat I agreee that these two make most sense. The library one is already happening in a sense. There is a book exchange between Edmonton, SC, Fort Saskatchewan and I believe St. Albert where you can request a copy of any book from any of the systems and there are daily drop offs between the different library's.

  72. #72
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    11,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff
    That solution you suggest Edmonton find - it's coming your way, sooner than later... imposed ala Stelmach, cause you know it isn't going to happen otherwise.
    Jeff, I'd like to see our municipalities come towards a workable solution. If we work together, we'll have a greater chance of achieving a win-win soultion. When Premier Stelmach comes forward with his plan in January, I hope that municipalities buy into this.

    Edmonton has done a lot of great things in the past, and it continues to do great things today. My family has lived in the Edmonton area for over 100 years, and we are proud to be a part of Edmonton's history.

    We as a region have a great future. Edmonton should look to the outside for new ideas, but I think that we should be Edmonton before trying to be another "Calgary", "Toronto", "London" or other city that looks desirable to visit. Let's build on our strengths.

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
  •