EDITORIAL COMMENT - Mar. 9/06 - City/County Land War Will Benefit No One
Editorial
Comment
Mar. 9, 2006
City/County Land War Will Benefit
No One
When I came to Red Deer in 1973, I immediately fell in love with the
City and was impressed by its beauty and careful planning. I have taken
a keen interest in the growth of the City and the region ever since. And
I want to see the City continue to grow and prosper. So it is very
disturbing to me that the City has chosen to take an adversarial
approach rather than a co-operative one with their County counterparts
concerning development on the City’s fringe.
The 'land wars' between the City and the County are of no value to any one. In spite of all the great benefits for locating in the Red Deer Region, prospective businesses looking for land will just go somewhere else.
The City has recently concluded that the County is aggressively limiting the City's ability to grow, and as a result, initiated a dispute mechanism against the County, effectively putting the brakes on all County growth around the City and well beyond until the dispute is resolved, possibly dragging on for several months.
After reviewing the City’s background information and comments and attending the Council meeting at which the decision to use the dispute mechanism was made, I have concluded that City Hall does not have a grasp of the County’s intentions. Their excuse is that the County hadn't invited them to take part in the planning process in the proper manner.
Comments from Councillors and administration suggest that there is more to it than just poor communication – they either aren't paying attention to what is public knowledge or they are taking a position of procedural arrogance. It was suggested at the meeting that the County should not plan any growth close to the City as it would ‘sterilize’ land that the City might need for future growth, or at the very least, do so only with the City’s blessing and using the City’s procedures. The implication is that the City’s expansion well into the future takes precedence over the County’s current economic opportunity around the City.
What I found a little bizarre was the fact that no one mentioned at the meeting that the County had recently presented a proposal to the City whereby the City could almost triple their available land over which they could have jurisdiction and therefore complete control. This area includes most of the County’s prime industrial tax base to the west and north of the City including the land that the City wants to annex for immediate industrial development west of Highway 2. It is also the area identified in the City's own 2004 Growth Study that was of future interest for expansion.
Why would the County
make such an offer if their intention was to restrict City growth? When
the City rejected the proposal citing that there were strings attached,
the County had no choice but to continue with their own strategy on the
fringe, especially considering the current economic climate of high
demand for serviced land.
The County’s major condition in the proposal is that the City not expand
to the southwest from the City’s landfill to the Red Deer River,
including Gasoline Alley -- in effect, the area covered by the
Springbrook Gasoline Alley Area Structure Plan – in the foreseeable
future. After all, if the County is going to give up its prime
industrial tax base and spend billions of dollars to create a new one in
the southwest, it just doesn’t make economic sense to do so if the City
decides to grab it in the future.
Even if the City
doesn’t like some aspects of the County's proposal, it could serve as a
starting point for a revised Intermunicipal Development Plan and a joint
long term vision for both municipalities.
Each Council and administration has stated that they want to co-operate
with the other for their mutual benefit, and I believe that to be true.
But for that to happen, each must agree to blend their strategies toward
a regional vision where both municipalities benefit as equal partners
rather than taking an adversarial and jurisdictional approach. Let’s get
on with it immediately before any real damage is done.
Paul Pettypiece
published in Red Deer Advocate Mar. 11,
2006 and Red Deer Express Mar. 15, 2006
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 Feb. 24, 2006 - 'City
and County Need Joint Vision'
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