No announcement yet.

Minister urges capital region mayors and reeves to work together

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

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


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


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


        • Originally posted by AAAAE View Post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


            • I mentioned this on another thread... a friend at the GOA told me the changes to the muni act are all ready to go. They are just waiting for the elections to finish up.
              "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi


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


                • Bill 28 - Modernizing Regional Governance Act Seems tepid at best. Same old, same old. Coupled with Bill 32 and you've got the appearance of doing something without actually doing much. SOP for the PC's.


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

                    It's FLAWED to say the least.
                    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi


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

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

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