EDITORIAL COMMENT - Feb. 16/06 - City and County Need Joint Vision
Editorial
Comment
Feb. 16, 2006
City and County Need Joint Vision
As a neutral by-stander with nothing to
gain or lose, and one who wants to see the entire region prosper, I’m a
little disturbed about the recent ‘land wars’ between the City and the
County.
A booming economy, a desire for growth by both jurisdictions and just
being in the right place at the right time has put the City and County
in a collision course over land. Several years of co-operation and
goodwill are being tested with the City’s perception that it should be
able to annex in any direction whenever needed and, at the same time,
control the County’s development on the City fringe.
This has come to a head with the City’s desire to annex land west of Highway QE2 and south of Highway 11A, a departure from previously worked out agreements with the County.
After running out of serviced industrial land much sooner than anticipated, and in the City’s eagerness to have more available as soon as possible, they have put the cart before the horse in trying to achieve it.
In 1999, the City and the County came to an agreement over future development of the land around the city with the Intermunicipal Development Plan, a legal document ratified by both parties. This plan was supposed to guide development around the City well into the future. The good news and the bad news is that the Red Deer Region economy has exploded since then and forced both municipalities to revisit their growth strategies and, as a result, fundamental changes of direction and thinking have occurred.
Up until recently, the County was seen as primarily agricultural, and if the City needed land, it would just expand into the County. It is seen as a natural progression and many City officials have expressed ‘disappointment’ that the County would not just accept that natural order of things. In addition, some are suggesting that only the City can provide the industrial land that developers want and imply that there is a shortage of serviceable land in the region, which is misleading at best.
In the meantime, the County and several surrounding towns have matured and seen the opportunity at hand to take advantage of the current boom, one that will likely last for some time.
The County has apparently tried to co-operate with the City and present options to alleviate the pressure the City is experiencing. In the fall, the County suggested a long term vision that would allow the City to expand in all directions except directly south or southwest. The City, at least unofficially, took the position that it didn’t want its hands tied in any direction and therefore wasn’t willing to accept a gesture that could have reduced a great deal of stress and time for the City getting the land it needed for several decades.
Both parties have recently completed Strategic Growth Strategies, and although compatible in many respects, conflict dramatically in the northwest. The County’s position is that the annexation proposal does not conform to the Intermunicipal Development Plan and until a new joint long term vision is agreed upon, it generally opposes the city boundary shifting to the west side of Highway QE2, considered for many years the western extreme of city expansion.
The Burnt Lake Area Structure Plan, one of the outcomes of the 1999 agreement, assumed that no annexation would take place in that area in the near future. According to the IDP, the two areas identified as future industrial for the City were north of Highway 11A east of Highway QE2 and south of Delburne Road (19 St.).
In the most recent growth study by the City, a change in focus has emerged. The south industrial is considered too expensive to develop and the north is more suited to commercial and residential due to the location of Hazlett Lake and the potential for high end housing. Furthermore, the new proposed annexation area along the Highway is high profile and close to Edgar.
Aside from the departure from the IDP, the downside of this approach is that, as residential development polarizes southeast and industrial development northwest, the cost and congestion of getting people back and forth across the river will be ever-increasing.
It’s clear that the City and the County have to re-address the Intermunicipal Development Plan before any annexation proposal can proceed, especially when one or both of the parties is changing their direction in where they want to proceed. It is to the benefit of both municipalities to work together rather than apart. And the City has the most to lose by not working out a long term vision agreement with the County as soon as possible.
Paul Pettypiece
Other commentaries on this subject:
Editorial comment Dec. 27, 2006 - 'Gasoline
Alley Annexation Will Be Costly to Taxpayers'
Background Report Dec. 16, 2006
- 'City and County Disputes . . . Challenge and Opportunity'
Background Report Dec. 16, 2006
- 'The Dynamics of Competitive Rapid Growth'
Editorial comment July 26, 2006 - 'Annexation
Spat Needs Local Fix'
Editorial comment July 26, 2006 - 'City and
County are Partners in Growth'
Editorial comment Mar. 9, 2006 - 'City/County
Dispute Will Benefit No One'
Red Deer Future Growth
Maps
Back to Feature
Page
Copyright © AbundanceNet 2006 RedDeerRegion.com
"the center of one of the hottest
economic regions in the world."
- TD Economics
2003
Home
The Central Alberta
Region |
Communities of the
Region | Accommodation
Attractions |
Recreation | Community Life
|
Business & Economy |
Shopping
| Dining |
History
Convention & Hospitality |
Campgrounds |
Transportation |
Climate
|
Geology |
Regional Map
Recent & Archived News |
Coming Events
|
Population Statistics
Contact Us |
Site Map
Published
by AbundanceNet
Springbrook, Alberta, Canada
Phone 403-886-2640
paul@abundancenet.com