No announcement yet.

Edmonton vetos Parkland County Industrial Development

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Oh snap!

    I guess I'd better drive back out west and shut off that ~5100MW of coal fired electricity!!!!!!

    Tell me AShetsen...what heavy industry was proposed for this development that would land pollutants on Edmonton...and be worse than putting these WITHIN Edmonton's borders as the veto's comments would suggest? I honestly don't know if there were any heavy upgraders, chemical plants, or the like planned. Access to water would be issue #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. I may have mistakenly thought/expected this to be another Nisku...kind of like it already is...but I am open to be proven wrong...

    That is why I am not really liking this regional deal...seriously...when it comes to the really heavy goes where geographically it makes sense...access to water rates and regional lobbying be darned...

    These industries are not competing with Parkland vs Edmonton vs Sturgeon...they are competing Edmonton region vs Saskatoon region vs Great Falls vs...

    For the Parkland County perspective....
    President and CEO - Airshow.


    • #17
      When the Genessee was built I remember there was a lot of discussion exactly about the fact it would be up the wind stream from the city.

      Look, you guys can say what you want about political infighting and all that. I won't argue.

      I just wanted to point out there IS at least one good reason why heavy capital-region industry ought to be put in Strathcona county rather than Parkland.

      In any case the city -- a city, any city -- is by definition more important and takes all the precedence over its metropolitan hinterland. It must; otherwise there is some serious decay going on.
      Last edited by AShetsen; 15-02-2013, 09:34 PM.


      • #18
        I know Genesee well...very very well

        ...emissions from that do not normally blow into the city...if anything...Wetaskiwin or Stettler...

        It is where it is because of proximity to good fuel and the pond is 1.3 miles from the river. Period.

        Keephills and Sundance...ditto

        Genesee -Highway 19
        Keephills = 23 ave
        Sundance = 34 ave

        Wind is SE. Look at google earth and think...I wonder why the main runways in this area are oriented 12/30. If you want a good visual weather vane...take the runway 12/30 at YEG and put it over the stack of Genesee (highway 770, township road 504) and draw the line out from it...give or take 20 deg magnetic from the starting 120 deg...

        I still see no reference to heavy industry in the Parkland proposal. No water = no heavy industry...that's usually a good hint...

        I am open to be educated otherwise...but I would think that heavy industry on what is essentially 300 Street and Stony Plain Road is a nonstarter and I think the county would know that..., until proven otherwise...any talk of a DOW or a Sherritt or the like going there is a red herring and a distraction from the real point...

        This is a Nisku. This is akin to the districts along the Yellowhead. It is medium industrial at best...pipe companies...distribution centres...staging and laydown yards...etc...

        The real city is more important or less important than the "hinterlands". They all are important resources that should be utilized effectively to allow this economic engine to produce and compete GLOBALLY!

        ...but how we are structured is the issue. Let's be clear...this is completely...totally...and without question a REVENUE discussion. ...sprawl...density...all nice ¢oncept$ being u$ed as a politi¢al hammer to avoid having the real $eriou$ di$¢u$$ion$ on the ¢on¢ept$ and fru$tration$ that are ¢ore to thi$ ¢ontinued $niping and re¢ent veto$$$$$$.

        President and CEO - Airshow.


        • #19
          Sometimes, on certain issues I get the sense -- I could be enirely wrong, I admit -- the site runners have more of an emotional or other interest of whatever kind than on other issues over which argument rages with nary a peep from the big'uns.

          This is one of these issues.

          You protest too much, over a very simple point about the prevailing wind.

          I'll leave it at that, in this thread. Enjoy venting whatever frustrations you feel you must vent.


          • #20
            AShetson is right. I spend my days mostly traveling between 20st at Sherwood Park freeway, where I have a product storage facility, and customers on the west end and in the Parkland County industrial zones. The stink by Sherwood Park is constant and noticeable.

            Maybe the types of businesses that would open in and expanded Acheson wouldn't be smelly. Maybe they would. I don't know. But as far as stink goes, it's a real concern.
            "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal


            • #21
              Sigh…early apologies…long winded mode on…wall of text to follow...

              Originally posted by AShetsen View Post
              Sometimes, on certain issues I get the sense -- I could be enirely wrong, I admit -- the site runners have more of an emotional or other interest of whatever kind than on other issues over which argument rages with nary a peep from the big'uns.

              This is one of these issues.
              Your point? You’re saying that individuals cannot have an interest in one topic over another? Are you suggesting that your point on prevailing winds has somehow been censored? Are you saying that if one of…in your words…the "big’uns" engages or “peeps” that somehow this changes, discredits, or invalidates all other opinions? …a challenge to a point is inappropriate when the challenger may be a “big’un”?

              You purport to know who all the “big’uns” are and which threads they are involved in? You can prove that there aren’t “big’uns” in other threads…and they somehow do what?

              I’m an interested person who wants this region to succeed and is sick and tired of the major initiatives get blown out of the water over petty infighting. Maybe….just maybe…I couldn’t care less about what music you’re listening to…a lasagna recipe….glass tower architecture…the latest Oilers trade…or whatever and so I don’t engage there…but it also does not make that discussion any less relevant.

              I feel that you won’t even get a chance to discuss anything if the economics and the economy of the region aren’t functioning…or functioning more as a result of being lucky with our proximity to oil than our own hard work and intelligence. I’d prefer to not just be dumb lucky.

              You protest too much, over a very simple point about the prevailing wind.
              You brought up the prevailing wind discussion...a red herring at best given the type of development I see proposed here...expected it to stick...and I challenge it…therefore I protest too much? What does that really say about the prevailing wind point as a whole? Is it just a distraction…for it has been used before.

              I ask if there is truly heavy, pollutant emitting industries proposed in this corridor…(that as Chmilz rightly says “stink” like many in refinery row do)…and I don’t get an answer. Truly…I want to know if any such “stinky” industry is planned! If it is, then I would align with you and shame Parkland County for thinking that an upgrader was appropriately located in Acheson…

              You bring up Genesee…a topic that fortunately or unfortunately I have intimate knowledge of on multiple sides of that stakeholder pie…but that project is what…60kms WSW from our downtown? I do so to demonstrate why heavy industry locates where it locates…park proposals be darned. Access to water, transport, fuel, raw materials, and environmental studies do this…not Parkland vs Leduc County…Genesee v Keephills was not Parkland v Leduc…

              To extrapolate on your logic, and the logic of this veto, I will ask the following.

              The City of Edmonton, by allegedly garnering all approvals needed by adhering to the guidelines and following the process as outlined by the CRB for a development of this type and the requisite customers therein, put forth this proposal in or adjacent to one of the following areas:
              • White Industrial
              • Bonaventure Industrial
              • Ministiam Industrial
              • Winteburn Industrial
              • Youngstown Industrial
              • Garside Industrial
              • Edminston Industrial
              • Huff Bremmer Industrial
              • Armstrong Industrial
              • Hagman Industrial
              • or any of the industrial parks within NW Edmonton bordered by 215 street in the west, 137 avenue in the north, 127 street in the east, and Stony Plan / Mayfield/ 111 ave to the south
              • or if Acheson was WITHIN the borders of the City of Edmonton

              would the City of Edmonton consider the development inappropriate for the region? Furthermore, would a concern brought to the City of Edmonton about the prevailing winds as you put forth:
              1. be a reason for Edmonton planners or politicians to tolerate a veto from a surrounding municipality?
              2. entertain no votes from Leduc, Calmar, and Fort Saskatchewan on the basis of said appropriateness or even on the basis of competition and being prevented from garnering revenue?
              3. mean that the City of Edmonton would propose refineries, chemical processing plants, and other heavy industries as you suggest just because they have this land; thereby ignoring the wind discussion in their thought process as you suggest Parkland County may have?
              4. in the name of winds and socially responsible development, would the City of Edmonton tolerate suggestions to immediately address its housing issues by closing, remediating, expropriating, and transforming the aforementioned industrial areas into dense, eco-friendly, socially responsible housing; complete with lakes and canals, agri-hood developments, power generation, hills and parks, and a car reduced lifestyle? Would they then force all industry to pack up and move to the South East – Millwoods be darned?

              Well, would they?

              You know the answers to the above. We all know the answers to the above questions. Hence the next part…

              …and yes…yes I did type question (d) as hyperbolic as it may be. Why? …because the power of a veto is a dangerous thing. It is even more dangerous if the product or procedure followed the outlined due process and did pass within the rules and guidelines set forth and then you hammer someone with a veto. There is a reason why the President rarely utilizes this power, even though by the rights guaranteed to that office in the Constitution of the United States allows that office the opportunity. Use of a veto (and the moral high ground it suggests) opens you up to all kinds of strawman arguments, slippery slope accusations, abuse of power calls, and causal relationships that may or may not have a bearing on the real issue but are certainly good PR hooks and distractors.

              ...I'm having a hard time trying to see the justification in this veto in this case...

              Dancing around the real issues of revenue generation and regional control and skirting around the potential issue of why Edmonton may not be process and cost competitive enough to simply attract these businesses to its borders in the first place feels disingenuous to me. If the model is wrong regionally, we need to fix it. We need a more locally governed process whereupon we can have ready dispute and revenue sharing options within a given region to eliminate as much of the infighting as possible.

              …or annex…welcome to M&A and a key tenant in the market economy.

              That is where my head goes…so…

              …given our current construct…why not try to always win by being faster, more efficient, and a better overall value proposition than our closest competitors. Why not use our talents and energy to discover if the complaints of an overly encumbering bureaucracy and planning process, a business unfriendly attitude, and difficulty to get a straight answer are true? If so, fix it. If not, fix the perception. If I want the revenue, I will work at it where the choice is yours to be here, and I’ve made it a no-brainer for you to want to be here. You want to make it so that Parkland County or any neighboring competitor in this space doesn’t have as good of a business case, especially since we are not talking refineries or other major windborne emitters that were brought into this discussion.

              Root cause analysis…look into it… the fight is now FINALLY rearing its head in Calgary…I think the time to review all this is long overdue…

              So, veto schmeto. We need to walk the talk…we need to think bigger.

              Moral of the story: This conversation will never end unless revenue sharing is on the table. It is that, or annexation.

              I'll leave it at that, in this thread. Enjoy venting whatever frustrations you feel you must vent.
              Thank you. I am glad I have your permission to do so.

              ...and to my earlier point...I'm still waiting for an answer on the heavy, stinky industry proposed.
              President and CEO - Airshow.


              • #22
                Could it be that Mayor vetoed this because it was being proposed right on Edmonton's borders? Then would the expectation be that the City would have to supply the water, sewage, utilities and other infrastructure? I recall this same issue arose with the River Cree Casino.
                “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012


                • #23
                  I would think that the water supply issues etc would have to be paid for by the developer.

                  Where this may come in to play is any increased demands on the plants...whereupon again I stress revenue sharing must be on the table...or negotiated that Parkland etc assist in paying for upgrades to the water infrastructure at the plant site.
                  President and CEO - Airshow.


                  • #24
                    One piece that I do have a question on...

                    ...I can understand a discussion on appropriateness as a region if there are brownfield or vacant industrial lots that could be used v developing all new...

                    ...therefore, what is preventing this and how can we as a region (and especially as a city) make this more viable? ...again...referring to our ability to market our advantages and to turn this brownfield into the color of money...
                    President and CEO - Airshow.


                    • #25
                      The poll results seem to not be pasting well this morning.

                      As of noon:

                      Option 1 - 32 votes or 40.51%
                      Option 2 - 8 votes of 10.13%
                      Option 3 - 5 votes or 6.33%
                      Option 4 - 6 votes or 7.59%
                      Option 5 - 7 votes or 8.86%
                      Option 6 - 15 votes or 18.99%
                      Option 7 - 6 votes or 7.59%

                      This includes all 79 votes by registered and guest voters.

                      Netting out the guest votes (I do see cases of multiple votes by the same guest IP), the results are

                      Option 1 - 7 votes or 25.93%
                      Option 2 - 3 votes or 11.11%
                      Option 3 - 5 votes or 18.52%
                      Option 4 - 1 vote or 3.70%
                      Option 5 - 2 votes or 7.41%
                      Option 6 - 6 votes or 22.22%
                      Option 7 - 3 votes or 11.11%

                      Total 27 votes

                      A slightly different result.

                      FOR THE YEA

                      All in, the combined option 1 & 2 is 50.54%

                      Registered only, option 1 & 2 combined is 37.04%

                      FOR THE NAY

                      All in, the combined 4 & 5 is 16.45%

                      Registered only, option 4 & 5 is 11.11%


                      All in 6.33%

                      Registered 18.52%

                      For the annexation question

                      All in 18.99%

                      Registered 22.22%

                      None of the above

                      All in 7.59%

                      Registered 11.11%


                      • #26
                        Edmonton's end game

                        Originally posted by RichardS View Post

                        I attended the CRB meeting and I think that Parkland County had the right through the Capital Regional Plan and the support of CRB administrator's to have their plan approved. It was vetoed by Edmonton substantially because the project was large, encompassing industrial uses and was immediately adjacent to Edmonton's west boundary. The same thing occurred when Leduc County tried to put forward an ASP for a large industrial project 2 years ago. ( It got approved when the 5000 plus acre plan was downsized to about 1000 acres)

                        The real issue is whether Edmonton will annex these lands so it can control and benefit from its development. If Edmonton's plan is to annex these adjacent lands I understand their position and encourage them to start the annexation process immediately. If Edmonton is simply playing "silly bugger" and thwarting progress for the sake of squelching growth then shame on the City.

                        Think also of the land owners who should have the right to have an ASP prepared in a Priority Growth Area in accordance to the Capital Growth Plan and see orderly development occur, irrespective of which municipality the land is situated in. Neither the County or the City should be able to "sterilize" private owner's land because of bickering.

                        Having said all of this I hope the City's end game is to annex strategic parcels of land adjacent to its borders. Time will tell.


                        • #27
                          Thank you for your post!

                          I agree, if the long term plan is annexation, then it is understandable to act in this way. But as you rightly say, then if if is annexation, announce your intentions immediately. This silly bugger is getting old.
                          President and CEO - Airshow.