Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

St. Albert wins annexation fight

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

  • #16
    "empire building", "right to exist". I'm sorry when you start alluding to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in a post about regional co-operation and annexation your message loses creditibility. Not to mention your tone and the fact that I haven't noticed too many annexation supporters around here anyway. Seems most want a representative form of regional co-operation.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by mick
      I haven't noticed too many annexation supporters around here anyway.
      Remember this?



      Not quite the same as the ill-fated '79 plan, but the above map is from a fairly new thread on annexation.

      Ralph60 is right. Wednesday's decision affirms St. Albert's right to exist. It's written right into the Municipal Government Board's recommendation. If the annexation hadn't been approved, it would've doomed this city's future. Clearly, cabinet wasn't willing to let that happen.

      Annexation is a moot point, at least when we're talking about Edmonton taking over St. Albert. Besides, Edmonton's current interest seem to be at its south borders.

      Sure, historical studies that recommended a uni-city for the region are on Edmonton's side. But they weren't acted upon and it doesn't look like they will be.

      Should there be changes to how the region interacts? Most definitely. Change will come, but for all municipalities.

      Annexation is fun to debate in a forum. Who doesn't like to imagine what-ifs, like what if they knew how to count in Florida? Well, they couldn't, now it's history. Let's move on.

      There are plenty of advantages to remaining separate, but integrated. That's if the province finally takes a lead role for the first time in 11 years and makes the much-needed changes.

      Comment


      • #18
        Mick wrote:
        "I haven't noticed too many annexation supporters around here anyway"

        I guess I am just paranoid.

        Monkeyman wrote:
        "Nope, but I suspect it'll become Edmonton. "

        Onishenko wrote:
        "My vote is in for annexation. "

        Feepa wrote:
        " annexation should occur
        Perhaps these should be the new borders for the actual City of Edmonton. "

        Titanium48 wrote:
        "I say extend the boundaries feepa drew to include all of the Strathcona county, all of Parkland county east of highway 770, all of Sturgeon county (or at least the south half of it) and all of Leduc county east of Thorsby."

        Monkeyman wrote:
        "That this needs to be shoved down the throats of the municipalities is axiomatic. "

        Brentk wrote:
        "I am writing a letter to my MLA: Time to annex Sherwood Park and the rest"

        Murman wrote:
        "When is Edmonton FINALLY gonna get some [email protected] and get the annexation application filed?

        Gloves would be off, if it were me. "

        I guess you're right Mick, these forums are all about regional cooperation not annexation.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by ralph60
          I will stop using them, and stop commenting on the city as soon as Edmonton stops taking funding from the province and the Feds.
          Until then, it is open season.
          oh cause St Albert is self-sufficent. Dream on dreamer
          A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by mick
            "empire building", "right to exist". I'm sorry when you start alluding to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in a post about regional co-operation and annexation your message loses creditibility. Not to mention your tone and the fact that I haven't noticed too many annexation supporters around here anyway. Seems most want a representative form of regional co-operation.
            This is the crux of a lot of my rants too. Manifest destiny.....Sherwood Park...riiiiiiiight.... recognized St. Albert's "right to exist".....oh brother....

            What the province recognized here is that, as things sit today, St. Albert needs room. They are well past their growth limits, so as things exist now, they need the land. As for this being "farmland", I call BS. There are development plans for this area, and Dickie "Edmonton=boogeyman" Plain wanted to make sure a "revenue-sucking suburb and power center" didn't appear on St. Albert's doorstep, use St. Albert's "infrastructure", and send all the tax revenue to another place...aka murman's HIPOCRISY comment - and very very very valid. When the shoe is on the other foot, St. Albert sings a different tune, throws out “empire building”, and others hide behind manifest destiny.

            I give ralph60 credit. He knows where I sit on this debate and I know where he sits because he has had the spine to sit with me in person and debate this issue. His contention is mainly the policies and procedures when it comes to expenditures in Edmonton, from reporting to accounting practices. His thoughts are fiscal. He is being contentious just to stir up the pot I’ll bet…

            Annexation supporters exist, but ONLY if it is the last resort to getting a co-operation deal in place. Annexation fails in other areas because they forget to just rip the band-aid off and make it so, rather they allow boroughs and pseudo-councils and organizations that seem to try to placate the “sovereignty” feelings while adding tons of costs in bureaucratic deadweight. That is my fear in a co-operation deal too, that the rules similar to the voting red tape the ACRA proposed recently will only slow things down and introduce layers of complexity in order to protect the phony baloney jobs and cost the region more.

            There is a deal that would work. However, it is really only 1 step from annexation, so either solution is politically charged. The difference between the annexation deal and the co-operation deal that I see is that the taxation powers for an area remain intact, and the debt burden exposed by these little fiefdoms remains theirs. That is why I laugh at the “empire building” comments, St. Albert is so broke that Edmonton doesn’t WANT it. Sherwood Park has hidden its mismanagement under excess revenues for so long that Edmonton doesn’t want the headache that running it more within the budget called reality would create. Add to this the fact that these snobvilles would freak louder than a Twin Brooks elitist when anything closely resembling social services would move in, and that is a migraine that they do not want.


            Don’t forget that 1981 was FORCED onto Edmonton…

            For any deal to work, the threat of full out amalgamation needs to be there. A REAL threat, not kid gloves.
            President and CEO - Airshow.

            Comment


            • #21
              Don't put me into the mix as a supporter of annexation. I want to de-annex parts of Edmonton. If Sherwood Park want to grow, fine they can have Mill Woods. St. Albert can have the north end. They can provide transit to the suburbs. I'm a firm believer in smaller governments.

              I am however making a prediction. My side will lose. Edmonton and Calgary will be given a big stick, the outliers will be shoved into mega-municpalities. And it will be due to the suburban parasites doing stupid things like creating suicidal precedents.

              Comment


              • #22
                Feepa wrote:
                "oh cause St Albert is self-sufficent. Dream on dreamer "

                St. Albert gets funding from upper levels of government as well, so feel free to use our roads and comment on our spending all you want.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Monkeyman wrote:
                  "suburban parasites"
                  This is a good basis for cooperation.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Richards wrote:
                    "As for this being "farmland", I call BS. There are development plans for this area"

                    As the land sits now it is being farmed. That is my point, St. Albert is not annexing existing communities. The province has shown that St. Albert is the logical administrator of any development plans.
                    If Edmonton doesn't want St. Albert then why is this discussion taking place and if they don't want Sherwood Park either than all that is left is an empire building tax grab.
                    Good Luck with that.
                    As far as being contentious just to stir the pot
                    Gee do you really think so?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I have already stated my position regarding a regional council, or whatever you want to call it, but I guess it needs repeating.
                      One jurisdiction, one vote, with a veto for Edmonton.
                      This is a far better set up for Edmonton than any others currently being proposed. I am all for a working region.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by ralph60
                        I have already stated my position regarding a regional council, or whatever you want to call it, but I guess it needs repeating.
                        One jurisdiction, one vote, with a veto for Edmonton.
                        This is a far better set up for Edmonton than any others currently being proposed. I am all for a working region.
                        Here's a better idea. A regional council should be directly elected. Get the separate jursidictions out of the way. Let them play in their own playgrounds. Make it a ward system, and purposefully make the boundaries of the wards not match those of the cities.

                        A regional council should be a regional council, not a confederal council of people seconded from the cities, towns and counties.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Monkeyman wrote:
                          "Here's a better idea. A regional council should be directly elected. Get the separate jursidictions out of the way. Let them play in their own playgrounds. Make it a ward system, and purposefully make the boundaries of the wards not match those of the cities.

                          A regional council should be a regional council, not a confederal council of people seconded from the cities, towns and counties. "

                          This is also a good approach, it forces people outside of their comfort zone and makes them look regionally as well. My biggest concerns are cost and the possibility of another layer of bureaucracy, but those are valid concerns regardless of the format.

                          Ideas like these are valid starting points for the debate. The biggest problem facing regional cooperation is attitude. There is too much empire building from EVERYBODY involved.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I don't think one vote, one jurisdiction with a veto for Edmonton would work particularly well. It allows the smaller jurisdictions to punch well above their weight. I still the EU qualified majority voting would work best. It requires more co-operation to get things passed but forces the smaller entities to get together to stop initiatives from the larger ones.

                            Separate ward system is interesting but I would definetly worry about the turf wars that would pop up. It would need to be strictly limited to certain regional issues.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by mick
                              It would need to be strictly limited to certain regional issues.
                              Absolutely! Clearly defined responsibilities, as well as a clearly defined and limited method of getting revenue.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by ralph60
                                Richards wrote:
                                "As for this being "farmland", I call BS. There are development plans for this area"

                                As the land sits now it is being farmed. That is my point, St. Albert is not annexing existing communities.
                                I'm from Genesee. It was a farming community. There is a farming community, and St. Albert is annexing it. Explain the difference please, as I have a feeling that the farming communities north of St. Albert aren't too thrilled with this...

                                Are you saying that becasue areas like Genesee don't have street lamps and paved roads means they are less of a community?
                                President and CEO - Airshow.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X