Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: St. Albert wins annexation fight

  1. #1
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    226

    Default St. Albert wins annexation fight

    St. Albert wins annexation fight

    Susan Ruttan, edmontonjournal.com
    Published: Thursday, February 15, 2007

    St. Albert has just grown by 30 per cent, thanks to a provincial cabinet decision approving annexation of 1,336 hectares of land from Sturgeon County.

    The decision ends six years of wrangling over how much the city of St. Albert should pay for the land.

    It appears St. Albert has won the fight. The cabinet order requires the city to pay the county $800,000 over 10 years, plus turn over a portion of the taxes from the annexed area for five years.

    St. Albert Mayor Paul Chalifoux estimates the total cost at about $1 million, which is very close to the $1.1 million in total compensation that St. Albert had offered for the land. Sturgeon1s counter request was for closer to $15 million.

    The new land lies west and north of the current St. Albert boundary, including a potentially valuable strip of commercial land along Highway 2 just north of the city boundary.

    [email protected]

  2. #2

    Default Re: St. Albert wins annexation fight

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Town Crusader
    St. Albert wins annexation fight

    Susan Ruttan, edmontonjournal.com
    Published: Thursday, February 15, 2007

    St. Albert has just grown by 30 per cent, thanks to a provincial cabinet decision approving annexation of 1,336 hectares of land from Sturgeon County.

    The decision ends six years of wrangling over how much the city of St. Albert should pay for the land.

    It appears St. Albert has won the fight. The cabinet order requires the city to pay the county $800,000 over 10 years, plus turn over a portion of the taxes from the annexed area for five years.

    St. Albert Mayor Paul Chalifoux estimates the total cost at about $1 million, which is very close to the $1.1 million in total compensation that St. Albert had offered for the land. Sturgeon1s counter request was for closer to $15 million.

    The new land lies west and north of the current St. Albert boundary, including a potentially valuable strip of commercial land along Highway 2 just north of the city boundary.

    [email protected]
    Hypocrisy, it doesn't become you, St. Albert...

  3. #3

    Default Re: St. Albert wins annexation fight

    Quote Originally Posted by murman

    Hypocrisy, it doesn't become you, St. Albert...
    Nope, but I suspect it'll become Edmonton.

  4. #4
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,880
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    /\Huh?

    I side with murman on this one...
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  5. #5
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    682

    Default

    ^I think he meant that St. Albert will become a part of Edmonton.

  6. #6
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Annexation info:

    O.C. 38/2007

    February 14, 2007

    The Lieutenant Governor in Council orders that

    (a) effective January 1, 2007, the land described in Appendix A and shown on the sketch in Appendix B is separated from Sturgeon County and annexed to the City of St. Albert,

    (b) any taxes owing to Sturgeon County at the end of December, 2006 in respect of the annexed land are transferred to and become payable to the City of St. Albert together with any lawful penalties and costs levied in respect of those taxes, and the City of St. Albert upon collecting those taxes, penalties and costs must pay them to Sturgeon County, and

    (c) the assessor for the City of St. Albert must assess, for the purpose of taxation in 2007 and subsequent years, the annexed land and the assessable improvements to it,

    and makes the Order in Appendix C.

    For Information only

    Recommended by: Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing

    Authority: Municipal Government Act
    (sections 125 and 138)

    APPENDIX A

    DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE LANDS SEPARATED FROM STURGEON COUNTY AND ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF ST. ALBERT


    ALL THAT PORTION OF SECTION SIXTEEN (16), TOWNSHIP FIFTY-FOUR (54), RANGE TWENTY-FIVE (25) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN, LYING OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF ST. ALBERT.

    THE ROAD ALLOWANCE LYING EAST OF ALL THAT PORTION OF SECTION SIXTEEN (16), TOWNSHIP FIFTY-FOUR (54), RANGE TWENTY-FIVE (25) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN, LYING OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF ST. ALBERT.

    THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION TWENTY-ONE (21), TOWNSHIP FIFTY-FOUR (54), RANGE TWENTY-FIVE (25) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN.

    THE ROAD ALLOWANCE LYING EAST OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION TWENTY-ONE (21), TOWNSHIP FIFTY-FOUR (54), RANGE TWENTY-FIVE (25) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN.

    ALL THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF SECTION TWENTY (20), TOWNSHIP FIFTY-FOUR (54), RANGE TWENTY-FIVE (25) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN LYING SOUTHWEST OF THE SOUTH-WESTERLY LIMIT OF THE DRAINAGE DITCH AS SHOWN ON ROAD PLAN 629NY, AND LYING WEST OF THE WEST LIMIT OF THE ROAD AS SHOWN ON PLAN 6467LZ.

    THE NORTHEAST QUARTER AND THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION SEVENTEEN (17), TOWNSHIP FIFTY-FOUR (54), RANGE TWENTY-FIVE (25) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN.

    ALL THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION EIGHTEEN (18), TOWNSHIP FIFTY-FOUR (54), RANGE TWENTY-FIVE (25) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN LYING SOUTH AND EAST OF THE RIGHT BANK OF CARROT CREEK.

    THE WEST HALF OF SECTION SEVEN (7), TOWNSHIP FIFTY-FOUR (54), RANGE TWENTY-FIVE (25) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN.

    LEGAL SUBDIVISIONS THIRTEEN (13) AND FOURTEEN (14) AND ALL THOSE PORTIONS OF LEGAL SUBDIVISIONS ELEVEN (11) AND TWELVE (12) LYING NORTH OF THE ROAD ALLOWANCE SEPARATING THE ST. ALBERT SETTLEMENT FROM THE SAID LAND, ALL WITHIN SECTION SIX (6), TOWNSHIP FIFTY-FOUR (54), RANGE TWENTY-FIVE (25) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN.

    ALL THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION ONE (1), TOWNSHIP FIFTY-FOUR (54), RANGE TWENTY-SIX (26) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN, LYING EAST OF THE RIGHT BANK OF CARROT CREEK.

    ALL THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF SECTION TWELVE (12), TOWNSHIP FIFTY-FOUR (54), RANGE TWENTY-SIX (26) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN, LYING EAST OF THE RIGHT BANK OF CARROT CREEK.

    ALL THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION THIRTEEN (13), TOWNSHIP FIFTY-FOUR (54), RANGE TWENTY-SIX (26) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN, LYING EAST OF THE RIGHT BANK OF CARROT CREEK.

    ALL THOSE PORTIONS OF RIVER LOTS SEVEN (7), EIGHT (8), NINE (9), TWELVE (12) AND THIRTEEN (13), ST. ALBERT SETTLEMENT, LYING EAST OF THE RIGHT BANK OF CARROT CREEK.

    RIVER LOTS FOURTEEN (14), FIFTEEN (15), SIXTEEN (16) AND TWENTY-SEVEN (27), ST. ALBERT SETTLEMENT.

    RIVER LOTS FIFTEEN-A (15A) AND SIXTEEN-A (16A), ST. ALBERT SETTLEMENT.

    ALL THOSE PORTIONS OF RIVER LOTS THIRTEEN-A (13A) AND FOURTEEN-A (14A) LYING EAST OF THE RIGHT BANK OF CARROT CREEK.

    THOSE PORTIONS OF ROAD PLANS 882-1682 AND 6467LZ WITHIN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION TWENTY (20) AND THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION TWENTY-ONE (21), TOWNSHIP FIFTY-FOUR (54), RANGE TWENTY-FIVE (25) WEST OF THE FOURTH MERIDIAN, AND THE ADJOINING GOVERNMENT ROAD ALLOWANCE, WHICH LIE SOUTH OF A LINE DRAWN EASTERLY FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST LIMIT OF ROAD PLAN 882-1682 WITH THE NORTHEAST LIMIT OF THE DRAINAGE DITCH AS SHOWN ON ROAD PLAN 629NY AND PERPENDICULAR TO THE EAST BOUNDARY OF ROAD PLAN 6467LZ.

    ALL INTERVENING ROAD ALLOWANCES, REGISTERED ROAD PLANS, REGISTERED HIGHWAY PLANS, ALL INTERSECTIONS AND ALL INTERVENING RAILWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY PLANS.

    APPENDIX B

    A SKETCH SHOWING THE GENERAL LOCATION OF THE AREAS

    ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF ST. ALBERT




    Annexation Areas

    APPENDIX C

    ORDER


    1 In this Order, "annexed land" means the land described in Appendix A and shown on the sketch in Appendix B.

    2 For taxation purposes in 2007 and subsequent years up to and including 2021, the annexed land and the assessable improvements to it

    (a) must be assessed by the City of St. Albert on the same basis as if they had remained in Sturgeon County, and

    (b) must be taxed by the City of St. Albert in respect of each assessment class that applies to the annexed land and the assessable improvements to it using the municipal tax rate established by Sturgeon County.

    3(1) Section 2 ceases to apply to a portion of the annexed land and the assessable improvements to it in the taxation year immediately following the taxation year in which

    (a) the portion becomes a new parcel of land of 16 hectares or less created as a result of subdivision or separation of title by registered plan of subdivision or by instrument or any other method that occurs at the request of, or on behalf of, the landowner,

    (b) becomes a residual portion of 16 hectares or less after a new parcel referred to in clause (a) has been created,

    (c) is redesignated at the request of, or on behalf of the landowner under the City of St. Albert Land Use Bylaw to another designation other than Urban Reserve,

    (d) the portion receives a development permit for a commercial or industrial development,

    (e) the portion is the subject of a local improvement project described in a local improvement by-law initiated by or on behalf of or with the support of the landowner pursuant to which the City of St. Albert water and sewer services are made available to it, or

    (f) the portion is connected to the water or sanitary sewer services provided by the City of St. Albert.

    4 After section 2 ceases to apply to a portion of the annexed land in a taxation year, that portion of the annexed land and the assessable improvements to it must be assessed and taxed for the purposes of property taxes in the same manner as other property of the same assessment class in the City of St. Albert is assessed and taxed.

    5(1) In this section, "compensation amount" means the amount of municipal property taxes payable to the City of St. Albert under Part 10 of the Municipal Government Act in respect of the annexed land for a taxation year.

    5(2) The City of St. Albert must pay to Sturgeon County

    (a) 100% of the compensation amount on or before December 31, 2007

    (b) 80% of the compensation amount on or before December 31, 2008

    (c) 60% of the compensation amount on or before December 31, 2009

    (d) 40% of the compensation amount on or before December 31, 2010

    (e) 20% of the compensation amount on or before December 31, 2011.

    6 In 2009 and later years up to and including 2018, the City of St. Albert must, on December 31 of each year, pay to Sturgeon County $80,000 as revenue sharing.

    7 Notwithstanding the effective date of this Order, for the period January 1, 2007 to March 31, 2007 inclusive, Sturgeon County is responsible for

    (a) the direction, control and management of all roads within the annexed land,

    (b) providing municipal services within the annexed land, and

    (c) any liability that arises from

    (i) the direction, control and management of all roads within the annexed land, and

    (ii) the provision of any municipal services within the annexed land.

    http://www.gov.ab.ca/home/Orders_in_.../2007_038.html

  7. #7
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,492

    Default

    I wonder if the construction of the Hwy 2 bypass has anything to do with the acquisition of this land?

  8. #8

    Default St. Albert just got 30% bigger!

    St. Albert just got bigger
    Province approves annexation of land in Sturgeon County; city will grow by 30 per cent


    Susan Ruttan, The Edmonton Journal
    Published: Friday, February 16, 2007


    EDMONTON - St. Albert will grow by 30 per cent due to a provincial cabinet decision approving annexation of 1,336 hectares of land from Sturgeon County.

    The city of 56,000 has also won a years-long battle over how much compensation Sturgeon County should get for the land.

    The cabinet order requires St. Albert to pay the county $800,000 over 10 years, plus turn over a portion of local taxes from the annexed area for five years.

    St. Albert Mayor Paul Chalifoux estimates total compensation will be about $1 million, which is what St. Albert had offered for the land. Sturgeon had sought nearly $15 million.

    County Mayor Helmut Hinteregger said Thursday the county had claimed the higher amount for the loss of valuable commercial land along Highway 2, north of St. Albert.

    "We're going to have to lick our wounds and carry on," Hinteregger said, adding he's glad the principle of cities paying for annexed land was upheld.

    He suspects the Municipal Government Board, which adjudicated the annexation dispute, may have been swayed by the fact the county is about to become rich from construction of giant bitumen upgraders on its land.

    Municipal Government Board recommendations go to cabinet for final approval. Chalifoux told a news conference he's happy "to put this acrimonious issue to rest."

    He said the city will move quickly to get its plans in order so it can accept development applications for the new land, which lies west and north of St. Albert.

    As a bedroom community, St. Albert is short of commercial and industrial development, which helps bolster a city's tax base. That's one goal for the new land, Chalifoux said.

    Right now, only 11 per cent of the city's tax assessment is non-residential and the mayor said St. Albert wants to boost that to 20 per cent. Another goal will be to create more affordable housing and perhaps more "green" housing, with solar panels and geothermal heating, he said.

    "We've had a reputation of being a niche-type residential community and with our demographics we definitely do have to broaden our housing stock."

    Chalifoux assured residents within the annexed zone that their tax rates will remain at the lower Sturgeon County level for 15 years, provided they don't develop their land.

    He said the annexation is expected to initially push local taxes up, then pull them down, so over 25 years the effect will be neutral.

    Sturgeon County is also losing land to towns inside its boundaries. Gibbons annexed 54 hectares last fall, and both Redwater and Bon Accord are in annexation negotiations.

    Redwater Mayor Connie Tchir said she hopes to have annexation of 1,350 hectares approved by spring. The town is expanding on three sides in preparation for a population surge from 2,500 to 30,000 due to nearby upgrader construction. About 35 per cent of the Redwater annexation land cannot be developed because there are oil and gas piplelines underneath, she said.

    [email protected]

    --30--

  9. #9
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey
    I wonder if the construction of the Hwy 2 bypass has anything to do with the acquisition of this land?
    They're related issues, for sure. The road is needed for existing subdivisions in NW St. Albert and to access future subdivisions in the annexation area. The city wants to expand its tax base; the road should help with that.

  10. #10
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,065

    Default

    Murman wrote:
    "Hypocrisy, it doesn't become you, St. Albert..."
    There is nothing hypocritical about this.
    There is a huge difference between St. Albert annexing undeveloped farmland for future development and Edmonton annexing developed residential or industrial areas for empire building and taxation purposes.
    This ruling shows that the province recognizes St. Albert's right to both exist and to grow. So you can all take your Greater Edmonton Empire wet dreams and file them where the sun don't shine.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60
    Murman wrote:
    "Hypocrisy, it doesn't become you, St. Albert..."
    There is nothing hypocritical about this.
    There is a huge difference between St. Albert annexing undeveloped farmland for future development and Edmonton annexing developed residential or industrial areas for empire building and taxation purposes.
    This ruling shows that the province recognizes St. Albert's right to both exist and to grow. So you can all take your Greater Edmonton Empire wet dreams and file them where the sun don't shine.
    Oh, I don't relish being in your position now. Sometimes, most times, discretion is the better part of valour. Instead, you have used charged language does nothing to better the debate. Very unbecoming.

    All I can say is "beware the wrath of Richard".

  12. #12
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,065

    Default

    Bring it on.

  13. #13
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,065

    Default

    The reason for the inflammatory language (and this time I refuse to apologize) is because this ruling was a clear signal that the province recognizes St. Albert's right to exist.
    St. Albert has been more than willing to cooperate with the city on a number of projects and has taken a leadership role in regional cooperation.
    Yet some people refuse to let the annexation issue die.
    It is this attitude that infuriates me, it is just as ignorant and short sighted as the counties move, walking out of talks. Regional cooperation is absolutely critical but it won't be acheived as long as people keep harping on annexation.
    If the annexation issue keeps being raised, the level of debate will continue to drop.
    To make a further point, debating this issue with me is like wrestling with a pig, we all get dirty and even if I lose I still enjoy it.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60
    The reason for the inflammatory language (and this time I refuse to apologize) is because this ruling was a clear signal that the province recognizes St. Albert's right to exist.
    St. Albert has been more than willing to cooperate with the city on a number of projects and has taken a leadership role in regional cooperation.
    Yet some people refuse to let the annexation issue die.
    It is this attitude that infuriates me, it is just as ignorant and short sighted as the counties move, walking out of talks. Regional cooperation is absolutely critical but it won't be acheived as long as people keep harping on annexation.
    If the annexation issue keeps being raised, the level of debate will continue to drop.
    To make a further point, debating this issue with me is like wrestling with a pig, we all get dirty and even if I lose I still enjoy it.
    Please stop using the COE services and roads. Tax-dodger (sorry, I just had to...)

  15. #15
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,065

    Default

    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.

  16. #16

    Default

    "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.

  17. #17
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    26

    Default

    Quote 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.

  18. #18
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,065

    Default

    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.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote 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

  20. #20
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,880
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote 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.
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  21. #21

    Default

    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.

  22. #22
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,065

    Default

    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.

  23. #23
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,065

    Default

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

  24. #24
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,065

    Default

    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?

  25. #25
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,065

    Default

    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.

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote 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.

  27. #27
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    2,065

    Default

    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.

  28. #28

    Default

    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.

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote 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.

  30. #30
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,880
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote 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?
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •