Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

City of Edmonton announces annexation plans

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

  • #76
    This was then 2008:

    http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...9-b1adf4ee41c7


    This is now 2013:
    http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/St...941/story.html
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

    Comment


    • #77
      So is the annexed land going to be all Port Alberta...assuming that gets off its figurative arse?
      “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

      Comment


      • #78
        The annexed land will be for future growth. It might not be needed for another 10-15 years but at least the City knows they have it when it's needed. There is too much land there for it all to be Port Alberta, (***)uming it does get off it's figurative arse.
        Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

        Comment


        • #79
          So I will cut Sloan some slack for this. She couldn't vote yes because she is AUMA President and it would have been a conflict of interest otherwise.
          Don't feed the trolls!

          Comment


          • #80
            ^ If she is really is n conflict of interest.. than she can't vote period... so don't cut her slack.
            "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


            • #81
              Originally posted by ScottieA View Post
              A huge part of this is the city finally gaining full control of the airport.
              If this goes through, will the Board of ERAA move to kick the county reps off?

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by ScottieA View Post
                So I will cut Sloan some slack for this. She couldn't vote yes because she is AUMA President and it would have been a conflict of interest otherwise.
                Ah ok that makes more sense
                www.decl.org

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Medwards View Post
                  Summary of Thomas Hindericks: Developing the former City center airport in to sustainable housing is bad.
                  Developing areas in the south of the city is also bad.

                  These Million plus people coming to the region over the next 30 years have to go somewhere, and they won't all fit into horsehills.

                  TH is getting as bad as some of the Calgary trolls on this forum.

                  In my highly biased personal opinion.
                  I wasn't going to re engage but I hate words being put in my mouth.

                  1) Can't spell my name. Rude

                  2)
                  Developing the former City center airport in to sustainable housing is bad.
                  Yep still think closing ECCA is a bad idea, but it's gonna hapen as I have repeated quite a number of times.

                  3)
                  Developing areas in the south of the city is also bad.
                  Nope never said that, read what is written and you will find I am not opposed to the annexation and have been very very clear about that.

                  Opposed to the hypocrisy about sprawl, you bet.

                  4)
                  These Million plus people coming to the region over the next 30 years have to go somewhere, and they won't all fit into horsehills.
                  First off I'll believe it when I see it, oil ain't gonna drive this cow that long and there's nothing on the horizon to replace it.

                  And who says that 20 years out they will even want to be in Edmonton?

                  I've been in Edmonton over 30 years and watched it change, some good/some bad, but one thing is for sure...it is nothing like the Edmonton that attracted me here.

                  Crystal ball gazing that far out is such a massive guessing game you might as well roll dice.

                  And that comes back to what got me irritated in the first place...

                  What happened to?
                  - Urban sprawl
                  - Grow in not out
                  - Grow up not out
                  - Greenfield development
                  - Local farming, local produce and food supply

                  There are cities around the world with less sq km than Edmonton and way more population.

                  It's not the annexation that irritated me, it's the hypocrisy.

                  The annexation, go for it CoE, as I have already said.

                  Then again, I never felt sprawl was a big issue...so I'm at least consistent.

                  In my highly biased personal opinion

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Cod Father View Post
                    Originally posted by ScottieA View Post
                    A huge part of this is the city finally gaining full control of the airport.
                    If this goes through, will the Board of ERAA move to kick the county reps off?
                    Can't, its part of the Provincial legislation as a "Regional" airport authority.

                    In my highly biased personal opinion

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      I'd prefer that the airport board remain a regional body just like I support a similar group for public transit.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        If there is one thing not in short supply within the City's existing boundaries, it is undeveloped residential and industrial land. There are over 40 neighbourhoods in already approved Area Structure Plans that are completely undeveloped or only partly developed. And that doesn't even include the 3 large undeveloped Urban Growth Areas in the NE, SW and SE.

                        This is a completely unjustified land grab that once again puts a lie to the claims made in the MDP about curbing sprawl through compact urban growth.

                        But never fear, Edmonton may be a sprawling city with ever further flung suburbs. But to prove our "smart" growth bona fides, we're going to spend billions on a completely contradictory "urban style" street car system.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          I'm not opposed to Edmonton annexing the land that is on the West side of the QE II, but the land on the East side right on top of Beaumont is just unecessary. Isn't the land to the west already larger than what already exists up in Horse Hills? But yes, I do like the idea of annexing the airport which is why I support that part of the annexation plan. What the city should do, if they are smart, is hold on to that land just like they did for Horse Hills all this time by leaving it mainly rural. In fact, aside from the proposed industrial uses around the airport, keep most of it agricultural to make up for the land that's about to be developed in the Northeast.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by ScottieA View Post
                            So I will cut Sloan some slack for this. She couldn't vote yes because she is AUMA President and it would have been a conflict of interest otherwise.
                            If you have a conflict of interest, you leave the room during debate and abstain.

                            Voting no, if you have a conflict of interest, can get you in court.

                            No slack - she's just pretty much always the odd one out. Or maybe just odd - never sure.
                            ... gobsmacked

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Personally I am opposed, let the cities and counties keep their boundaries as is. As said before the city of Edmonton has stated that it wishes to become a more dense city then they should be happy with their borders.

                              Similarly with Beaumont, I might approve a 1/2 mile strip around the town to allow for future expansion but not their 1-2 mile in most directions.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                I agree eventually more land needs to be annexed. But perhaps they should look at accomplishing their infill target in mature neighbourhoods before taking more land.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X