Posts
Attended the Sub Division Appeal Board (SDAB) hearing last night at municipal hall that dealt with the Gold Creek Development appeal, and was quite impressed with the whole process, including how the chair managed things in a thoroughly professional and competent manner, and the caliber of people on both sides who conducted themselves likewise.
The end result (as far as I am concerned) is Gold Creek won hands down but we won't know that for sure until the SDAB hands down their decision in the next few days or so.
Good for them! And good for us!!!
Friday, August 21, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Search This Blog
15 comments:
I'm glad that the proceedings proceeded as they should. I bought into the Pass by purchasing a home a few years ago because I was looking for someplace to retire. A lot of Calgarians have bought second properties in smaller centres with the same idea. Canmore is out of reach and the Pass has a hospital and all of the amenities a future senior would need. It is close enough to Calgary and Lethbridge to make flying and other travel accessible. The only thing missing was a more viable tax base. I am hoping that the hospital stays and that there can be viable development that sustains the area. This process will help to augment developers' and entrepreneurs' faith in the area. My problem with the way this was handled by council was that it seemed that the Area Structure Plan was being handled willy-nilly and that anyone wanted to pitch their tent in the Pass could still be rejected even if they did their due diligence. I am not in favour of development for development's sake, but the Pass has a lot to offer and people who are looking into buying there should have options.
Dianne
Welcome Dianne, and thank you for your ‘thoughtful’ comments and opinions.
We do have our moments here and it sure feels like we are 'finally' making the right moves, that send the right signals ie: Rules here apply to all ‘equally’. A community has to build trust just like a person does. If things go the way I expect they will, then we will have turned a corner in that area. One that we should continue to build on.
A viable tax base (as you put it) is obviously crucial to our long term survival and prosperity. That is why it is reassuring to read this week's Promoter and see that our newly formed Crowsnest Advisory Committee is actively working to address this matter. We are all counting on them and wish them success.
I think council, sub division and our community learned a lot from this exercise...
...the Pass has a lot to offer and people who are looking into buying there should have options.
and will build on what they did right, and work on what they didn’t.
Again Dianne, thank you for sharing...
Sounds like the "process" is working the way it should.
Mr. Taje won't be happy! Gotta love it!!!!!!!!!
I don't know if Gary will love it or not, but I think (in this case) he was doing what he thought was right. Right that is for a small group of local people, but at the expense of the many. He lost scope of the bigger picture.
Having said that, I think he and Susan on subdivision are right on in that our community's future development should be steered towards 'infill development' ie: keeping infrastructure centralized and developing higher-density housing closer to services.
But if we want to encourage that type of development (which our Municipal Development Plan (MDP) already says we do) then we can't leave the door open in other areas, and when people like Gold Creek come along and want to act in good faith on what we say they can do in our MDP, we can’t suddenly tell them no they can’t and try and shut the doors on them.
We need consistency and fairness in our system. That is critical if we want to continue attracting those from outside, who are more than willing and able to do what our local land barons and bigwigs seem unwilling to. That is invest in our (their) community.
Infill development is great, and certainly necessary. But there does need to be a certain amount of consideration for country residential. No question there are prestine areas that need to be protected. We need to attract people here and some are looking for that condo along the river and some are also looking for that country residential.
In conversation with a member of one of our local enviromental groups he asked me the question, "Is there anywhere out in the rural areas that you would not allow development?", I asked of him "Is there anywhere out in the rural areas that you would allow development?". I would hope the answer to both questions would be yes.
We need a balance of protecting what people are coming here to see, plus allowing them the opportunity to purchase what they are looking for. The last I checked outside of Ironstone there is nobody proceeding with high density, or infill projects. Hopefully that changes when the recession ends. I wait with much anticipation for these planned high density projects to move forward.
Dean
Dean, You can be waiting forever. Unless you and council do something about it, it will never happen. I mean it all boils down to taxing what you don't want and going easy on taxing what you do want. Doesn't it?
"......I mean it all boils down to taxing what you don't want and going easy on taxing what you do want. ......"
Bang on John. And what about enforcing zoning regulations on an equitable basis. Look around the Pass and you'll see people doing things on CR properties that they would never get away with on a resisdential property in town. Both are intended for single residential homes, but you'll see numerous CR properties with a piece of crap trailer sitting on them. Their neighbours have spent many hundreds of thousands building homes and are paying property taxes in the $4000 to $6000 range. The trailer crowd are not only creating a visual blight but are getting by with paying taxes in the $1500 range. The Municipality meanwhile, is losing big tax dollars. Simply put, if the Municipality enforced zoning regulations, people would be "encouraged" to build, and the tax base would increase. However, that is not the way it's done here -- mountain freedom, you know.
It sounds like an enforcement issue not a taxation one?
Anon #1 (after me)...
Mountain Freedom ain't so Free when it keeps costing you... me... us... everyone but the ones parking their trailers. We need a paradigm shift of thinking in this area, don't we?
Anon #2 (after me)...
It always comes back to 'enforcement' doesn't it? Which ultimately comes back to our CAO.
The amount that the CNP has grown in the last 30 years makes me wonder if we should let every developer put in whatever they want.We are not Calgary.Zoning regulations should of course be enforced.Unless you are looking deep into the future(100 years)I say let them develop.When (not if)we have tremendous growth then you tighten up the rules.But for now we need the tax base.
Anon @ 3:38pm
What you say makes sense but we just can't afford it. Keeping infrastructure centralized and developing higher-density housing closer to services is not only more cost effective, but if done right, allows for themes to be developed as well as incentives for home owners and store owners to capitalize on, while at the same time enhancing the beauty and marketability of our various communities.
Thats true.But my point is that we really have not grown in 30 years or longer, so when a developer comes along and offers to build something that we can tax accordingly to what our costs are and in the long run increse our tax base I think we must.I agree with everything you have said its just that our growth is so slow it is impossible to plan those things.Bellevue has some 30 new lots with 1 new house going up and most lots not even sold,and a new subdivision(40 lots) will be completed in a couple of years,also Bellevue.Blairmores Crowsnest estaes from 20 years ago is not even full,Southmore 1 new house going up.It seems this is not what the people want.Give them what they want and tax them accordingly.
A side note that maybe you know the answer.Did Southmore and Wolfstone not have building time frames on those properties.
Anon 12:26pm
Although I don't agree with you, I must admit you make a good argument.
I don't think people move here, because of the 'politics' of the place and all the devisiveness that goes on here due to polarization. After all, we have a newspaper, and the 'gang of three' waging a 'holy war' to retain control and run this place their way... for them. They take no prisoners, and careless the cost and harm they do in the process. To them it is all or nothing. We haven't 'grown', I suggest, because of the mindset of these people who are still in control here. The ‘retrogrades’ are holding us back. We are perceived as a backward place that is not going anywhere.
But the times, 'they are a changing...' ‘A changing of the guard is a comin’.
With respect to 'Time Frames'. If I am not mistaken, Southmore has come back more than once for an extension and got them. I don't know about Wolfstone. River Run on the other hand had municipal 'direct control' on their development but for some reason council gave that up??? (Heads should role for that one!!!) Don't know if they have a time frame at present or not. Maybe, one of the councillors can tell us?
Post a Comment