Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vote - Time for a Regional Greenbelt?

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

  • #31
    ^ Or the many more commuters that live in Saint Albert live there work here.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Titanium48 View Post
      I agree that if this is going to happen, it needs to big. That doesn't mean it will me more difficult than a smaller, useless greenbelt though, even if there is compensation required. The value of most of that area will be unchanged, as nobody expects the vast majority of that 100 km radius circle to be anything but farms for the foreseeable future. Perhaps a provincewide implementation of something like BC's agricultural land reserve.
      Firsthand experience with the Okanogan ALR...

      ...it can be broken....it is not as secure as one is led to believe...
      President and CEO - Airshow.

      Comment


      • #33
        ^ There are some problems with the way BC implemented the ALR that I would want to see fixed if we were to bring it here. BC's 5 acre minimum is ridiculous - 5 acres is not a farm. It isn't even a hobby farm, it's an overgrown acreage. I'd want to see a 1/4 section minimum lot size here. We would also need to avoid BC's mistake of including land that is not suitable for agriculture in the ALR, which prevents these areas from being more productively used as small acreages. Some provision for recreational subdivisions (eg. lakefront lots) would also be good, with maximum lot sizes rather than minimums.

        Comment


        • #34
          I voted yes, not because it will eliminate sprawl, it won't, only economic decline will do that. However it will slow it down giving mature neighborhoods more opportunity to recycle, act as a land reserve, and protect farm land and greenspace near cities, which might be more and more valuable decades from now.

          Maybe, if and when the annexation bid is successful, that could present an opportunity to set up greenbelt(s), if some of the farmers who fought the annexation are open to this idea and willing to do it voluntarily. Cooperation with Leduc and Leduc County would certainly be needed to help make this happen. I'm dreaming perhaps.

          Ottawa wants to develop large sections of it's greenbelt, which has outlived it's intended use, if it ever lived up to it (but the green space still widely appreciated and cherished in it's own right), however they've come up against the National Capital Commission which has not been cooperative on the issue.
          Last edited by Snake Eyes; 27-05-2015, 11:44 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            How about we fix the problem with the artificial limit to infill growth first.... like maybe combining R1-5 zoning under one style BAM. instant available 5X population density increase in capacity...

            limited zoning IMO i the number one reason for sprawl. it extremely risky for a large developer to build a condo or townhouse project... whereas its a heck of a lot less risk for hem to build greenfield.

            (also we have some pretty silly limits on number of people allowed to live in "one dwelling")

            Fix these problems first... then maybe you can do a greenbelt as long as you allow nodal growth even in the greenbelt (the city might be the centre but it is NOT the region)

            you know follow some of that modern urbanism with TOD ideas that indicate downtown is not the centre of everyone's universe.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Himser View Post
              limited zoning IMO i the number one reason for sprawl. it extremely risky for a large developer to build a condo or townhouse project... whereas its a heck of a lot less risk for hem to build greenfield.
              I don't think so, the cost of a tear down is a lot more than the cost of greenfield land. But yes, freeing up zones will help (steps are / have been taken in that direction), but on its own, I don't think is enough because the land price differential is so huge.

              Comment


              • #37
                A lot of what Himser is asking for is actually already in the works

                http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...ng-infill.aspx

                The region needs to stop the growth from these commuters towns too. No, you are not a unique butterfly.
                A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

                Comment


                • #38
                  So we need to limit growth to Edmonton only? That seems a bit selfish.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    And yes the new plans are awesome. Great work someone at city hall is thinking about the current problems with infill.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Himser View Post
                      So we need to limit growth to Edmonton only? That seems a bit selfish.
                      Its not so much about limiting growth, rather, changing the type of growth. The plan here is for a regional greenbelt impacting all towns. There will still be growth, it will just be more up, and in, rather than out.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by moahunter View Post
                        ^do they currently have the right to build sprawl on though, other than acearages? My limited understanding is the City has to give the go ahead first, for new land to be subsumed within it. You can't just turn your farmland close to the city into a suburb or a town, so no rights are lost if the Province makes a rule that prevents this ever happening. A greenbelt may not be able to stop what is already approved, but it should be able to stop new sprawl like the annexation to YEG, or a greenbelt could be drafted to allow current uses including acearages perhaps (which still often have farmlets on them).
                        The Capital Region plan has designated Priority Growth Areas where density must meet urban density targets. If you create a green belt within these areas I strongly suspect that compensation will be owed to these land owners.

                        The realty is that these Priority Growth Areas do act to protect the premature development of farmland because a developer must have urban services and build to a dense urban standard. In the interim, the owner is motivated to keep the land as farmland as agricultural taxes are nominal.

                        All in all I think the system works fine without a green belt.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          http://capitalregionboard.ab.ca/-/ma...reas%20Map.pdf

                          Priority growth area... not quite the green belt idea at all.

                          http://capitalregionboard.ab.ca/priorities/land-use
                          A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Medwards View Post
                            I am confused with your response....I don't think the green belt idea will work.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X