Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

City of Edmonton announces annexation plans

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Did some number crunching on the claim the City is running short of developable land on its southern boundary.



    Source: http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...in-effect.aspx

    This covers the area between the Henday and the South City limit (41 Avenue SW). As these population figures show, the area has only 13.8% of its fully built-out population 31 years after the City annexed it.

    The claim that the City is short of developable land on its southern boundary is not true.

    Comment


    • Why does New York City have the highest property taxes in the US if density is so sustainable and this is the highest % properrty tax on the highest value property in NA. Why is the list of property taxes in NA inverseley proportional to sprawl if sprawl is so unsustainable? I say density is unsustainable.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Medwards View Post
        Things have changed since the 60s Tom
        Not the regs on airport landscapes...

        Check the Canadian Air Regulations.

        As proven by the infringement on Springbank that was just approved and the developments in the flight path and adjacent to EIA in and around Leduc.

        Winnipeg also shows the same development pattern as does Calgary and Saskatoon.

        Seems people just gotta build right up to the airports, under the flight paths and then complain.

        Now in Ontario the big infringement is wind turbines up to the edges of and in some cases into the approach paths....not wise.

        Interestingly most pilots I know are big wind turbine fans and don't have an issue with them being around airports...just with them being put where they create a hazard.

        In my highly biased personal opinion

        Comment


        • Originally posted by East McCauley View Post
          Did some number crunching on the claim the City is running short of developable land on its southern boundary.



          Source: http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...in-effect.aspx

          This covers the area between the Henday and the South City limit (41 Avenue SW). As these population figures show, the area has only 13.8% of its fully built-out population 31 years after the City annexed it.

          The claim that the City is short of developable land on its southern boundary is not true.
          This land is for 30 years growth. Edmonton and the region could very well be approaching 2 to 2.5 million people by then.
          A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

          Comment


          • ^^The Capital Region Board forecasts a population of 1.73 million for the region and 1.18 million for the City by 2044. See page 8 here: http://capitalregionboard.ab.ca/-/re...edsept2010.pdf

            That's population growth of 370,000 over the next 30 years for the City of Edmonton.

            According to the draft Growth Coordination Strategy released in May 2012 (i.e. the draft the development industry managed to kill), Edmonton has room within its existing boundaries for 672,000 additional residents (refer to pages 35 and 36, Tables 1, 2 and 3).

            Edmonton has a land supply of over 50 years within its existing boundaries making the proposed annexation simply a land grab.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Krokwalk View Post
              Why does New York City have the highest property taxes in the US if density is so sustainable and this is the highest % properrty tax on the highest value property in NA. Why is the list of property taxes in NA inverseley proportional to sprawl if sprawl is so unsustainable? I say density is unsustainable.


              Actually NYC is not the highest property taxes in America .


              check and see for yourself

              http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=86599&page=1
              Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

              Comment


              • Originally posted by East McCauley View Post
                Did some number crunching on the claim the City is running short of developable land on its southern boundary.



                Source: http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...in-effect.aspx

                This covers the area between the Henday and the South City limit (41 Avenue SW). As these population figures show, the area has only 13.8% of its fully built-out population 31 years after the City annexed it.

                The claim that the City is short of developable land on its southern boundary is not true.
                Population numbers like that and still no plans to increase the number of inner city freeways now before the costs become so absurdly high that it would bankrupt the city to build but cripple the city if they dont build. Most of the arterial roads headed into the core are packed as it is right now with the current population levels of the south....it's insanity to not plan for wider roads and freeflow now! Even further southern expansion on the street car...I mean SE-LRT...and SW-LRT....

                Comment


                • leduc county council issues letter to residents in wake of annexation

                  Leduc County, Alberta – Leduc County council is issuing a letter to residents and businesses, to be published in local newspapers by week’s end, clarifying council’s stance on topics relating to the City of Edmonton’s proposed annexation. (Click here to view/download the letter to residents)

                  The City of Edmonton announced March 5 that it intends to annex roughly 38,000 acres of Leduc County land, including the International Airport and a portion of Nisku.

                  “It is important for residents, business owners and industry partners to know that Leduc County council has ratepayers’ best interests in mind. We are not prepared to hand over vital portions of Leduc County and council will challenge the City of Edmonton throughout the process,” says Mayor John Whaley.

                  Leduc County has traditionally collaborated with neighbouring municipalities to reach mutually beneficial agreements when growth must be facilitated. In fact, after lengthy negotiations with the City of Leduc, Leduc County council voted March 12 to allow the city to proceed with an application to annex 1,300 acres of county land.

                  A letter of intent, dated April 11, 2012, demonstrates Leduc County’s willingness to explore how both the county and the City of Edmonton could grow together through examining collaborative growth options. Despite the letter being signed by both parties, alternative options for growth were never explored and instead, the City of Edmonton proceeded with an annexation application.

                  “We do not have a right to say no to the annexation. We have the right to come to the table and negotiate,” Whaley says. “We’re committed to working through a process and securing the best results for the region and for the ratepayers of Leduc County.”

                  Residents and business owners are invited to direct any questions or comments regarding the annexation proposal to the Mayor’s office at 780-955-4560 or by e-mailing [email protected].

                  - 30 -

                  For more information, contact:

                  Megan Sarrazin, Communications Officer
                  Email: [email protected]
                  Phone: 780-955-3555 ext. 6183
                  http://www.leduc-county.com/communic...-of-annexation
                  A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

                  Comment


                  • Its a shame that edmonton cant annex everything from the city limits east to highway 21. I mean, with the tax dollar base increase from the refineries and houses perhaps we could afford to fix the roads that all the people who live in the satellite communities use and help wear down daily on their commute.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GranaryMan View Post
                      Its a shame that edmonton cant annex everything from the city limits east to highway 21. I mean, with the tax dollar base increase from the refineries and houses perhaps we could afford to fix the roads that all the people who live in the satellite communities use and help wear down daily on their commute.
                      I had a discussion with a civil engineer who showed me the math, and a tractor unit puts over 600x more wear on a roadway than your typical passenger car. Considering that the vast majority of tractor traffic originates and/or terminates within city limits, those puny passenger cars coming from the 'burbs don't really do much other than create some traffic.

                      The discussion was initially about how EV's should be taxed for their wear on roadways, since we currently collect tax from fuel for that reason. He said we should really be taxing the balls off tractor units for destroying our roads, not passenger vehicles.
                      "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

                      Comment


                      • You don't get many potholes on highways (it's just aswell as they would be constantly closed). Maybe they should use the same cement mixture that is used on highways on city main thoroughfares.
                        Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gemini View Post
                          You don't get many potholes on highways (it's just aswell as they would be constantly closed). Maybe they should use the same cement mixture that is used on highways on city main thoroughfares.
                          Hiways don't have curbs or water that sits on their edge...

                          Apples and Oranges.
                          "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
                            Originally posted by Gemini View Post
                            You don't get many potholes on highways (it's just aswell as they would be constantly closed). Maybe they should use the same cement mixture that is used on highways on city main thoroughfares.
                            Hiways don't have curbs or water that sits on their edge...

                            Apples and Oranges.
                            ACTUALLY, highways dont have red lights or stop signs usually wherr vehicles will sit weighing dowbthe road way putting in the ruts that fill with water and then slowly erode away the surface.


                            I think if edmonton had more...er...a real freeway system so that cars could go from point A to downtown and then point B on the opposite side of the city there would be less damage. Especially on many of the smaller streets as more traffic could be funneled to the freeway. And all of this is off topic.


                            Why hasnt edmonton looked at annexing all of sherwood park?! I mean its just a "hamlet" so you wouldnt think it would be as difficult to annex as a large city. Plus some of thw tax dollars could also be used for the missing 100 million for the arena.

                            I think if edmonton annexes everything it wants including the airport it should next be lookong at all of sherwood park. Would then make more sense to build an lrt line there and once again the increased tax base from all the industrial and refineries plus the residental could help fund the lrt.

                            Why hasnt edmonton tried to annex sherwood park yet?!?!

                            Comment


                            • Wouldn't annexing Sherwood Park mean annexing all of Strathcona County? Taking away Sherwood Park and Refinery Row pretty much cuts off any tangible tax base for the rest of the county.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by TerryH View Post
                                Wouldn't annexing Sherwood Park mean annexing all of Strathcona County? Taking away Sherwood Park and Refinery Row pretty much cuts off any tangible tax base for the rest of the county.

                                I suggest reading chapter 11 (page 245 onwards) of Social Geography of Canada, which can be found on Google Books.

                                Edmonton did propose to annex all of Strathcona County in 1979.

                                To summarize, the Provincial government at the time was supportive of self determination for municipalities, which led to today's landscape. The surrounding communities are therefore emboldened to pretty much operate as though they were in a vacuum. The Regional board is failing due to the attitude fostered by this stance.

                                Really, with the surrounding communities as rich and powerful as they are now as a result of events, they won't ever be willing to give anything up.
                                Last edited by Foolworm; 21-03-2013, 02:33 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X