It’s less than a year before the next municipal election, and the clock is ticking. A majority of Albertans will once again have their triannual opportunity to ignore their democratic right to vote for their community’s political leaders. A minority of Albertans will once again exercise that democratic right and cast their ballot. And there is a wee tiny slice of that minority who will actually considering running for their local Councils.
It’s a tough decision to make, for local politics is a very tough game. There is no other form of politics as close to the day-to-day lives of constituents. If one can survive and succeed as a Councilor, you can survive and succeed in most political arenas.
It’s even tougher here in Alberta, where we continue our passionate obsession with “Strong Leadership”. Peter Block, in his marvelous book, “Community: The Structure of Belonging”, talks about what happens when all that counts is what leaders do. The effect is to let citizens off the hook and breeds feelings of citizen dependency and entitlement. Why would any busy Albertan spend time or energy on voting when the folks who do get involved will elect a strong leader and we can snooze for the next three years? Wouldn’t we better spend our time shopping or papering our Facebook walls?
We don’t even think much about the definition of “strong leadership”. Is a “Strong Leader” a person who is “one of us”- the kind of guy or gal with whom we’d share a few beers? Could someone with extensive education or experience outside the community be trusted to lead a community of “common folks?
Speaking of definitions, does electing a “strong leader” make sense when that leader has to work together with other “strong leaders”? How many Municipal Councils are hamstrung because we elect “strong leaders” who don’t play well in groups?
So how do we find citizens with good credentials who can work together with others to find pragmatic, effective solutions to community problems? How about becoming politically engaged and looking around us for the people we know who fit that description? They may already be Council incumbents, for many Alberta Councillors have those skills. Ask these people to consider running for Council next fall and volunteer to help them with their campaigns.
I know this is radical stuff. Getting engaged in local politics is truly scary for most Albertans. Yet we also know that we get the leaders we deserve. That leads to one final question: If we citizens invest nothing in the political process, what should we expect?
Monday, November 2, 2009
Saturday, October 31, 2009
The Clock Is Ticking
It’s less than a year before the next municipal election, and the clock is ticking. A majority of Albertans will once again have their triannual opportunity to ignore their democratic right to vote for their community’s political leaders. A minority of Albertans will once again exercise that democratic right and cast their ballot. And there is a wee tiny slice of that minority who will actually considering running for their local Councils.
It’s a tough decision to make, for local politics is a very tough game. There is no other form of politics as close to the day-to-day lives of constituents. If one can survive and succeed as a Councilor, you can survive and succeed in most political arenas.
It’s even tougher here in Alberta, where we continue our passionate obsession with “Strong Leadership”. Peter Block, in his marvelous book, “Community: The Structure of Belonging”, talks about what happens when all that counts is what leaders do. The effect is to let citizens off the hook and breeds feelings of citizen dependency and entitlement. Why would any busy Albertan spend time or energy on voting when the folks who do get involved will elect a strong leader and we can snooze for the next three years? Wouldn’t we better spend our time shopping or papering our Facebook walls?
We don’t even think much about the definition of “strong leadership”. Is a “Strong Leader” a person who is “one of us”- the kind of guy or gal with whom we’d share a few beers? Could someone with extensive education or experience outside the community be trusted to lead a community of “common folks?
Speaking of definitions, does electing a “strong leader” make sense when that leader has to work together with other “strong leaders”? How many Municipal Councils are hamstrung because we elect “strong leaders” who don’t play well in groups?
So how do we find citizens with good credentials who can work together with others to find pragmatic, effective solutions to community problems? How about becoming politically engaged and looking around us for the people we know who fit that description? They may already be Council incumbents, for many Alberta Councillors have those skills. Ask these people to consider running for Council next fall and volunteer to help them with their campaigns.
I know this is radical stuff. Getting engaged in local politics is truly scary for most Albertans. Yet we also know that we get the leaders we deserve. That leads to one final question: If we citizens invest nothing in the political process, what should we expect?
It’s a tough decision to make, for local politics is a very tough game. There is no other form of politics as close to the day-to-day lives of constituents. If one can survive and succeed as a Councilor, you can survive and succeed in most political arenas.
It’s even tougher here in Alberta, where we continue our passionate obsession with “Strong Leadership”. Peter Block, in his marvelous book, “Community: The Structure of Belonging”, talks about what happens when all that counts is what leaders do. The effect is to let citizens off the hook and breeds feelings of citizen dependency and entitlement. Why would any busy Albertan spend time or energy on voting when the folks who do get involved will elect a strong leader and we can snooze for the next three years? Wouldn’t we better spend our time shopping or papering our Facebook walls?
We don’t even think much about the definition of “strong leadership”. Is a “Strong Leader” a person who is “one of us”- the kind of guy or gal with whom we’d share a few beers? Could someone with extensive education or experience outside the community be trusted to lead a community of “common folks?
Speaking of definitions, does electing a “strong leader” make sense when that leader has to work together with other “strong leaders”? How many Municipal Councils are hamstrung because we elect “strong leaders” who don’t play well in groups?
So how do we find citizens with good credentials who can work together with others to find pragmatic, effective solutions to community problems? How about becoming politically engaged and looking around us for the people we know who fit that description? They may already be Council incumbents, for many Alberta Councillors have those skills. Ask these people to consider running for Council next fall and volunteer to help them with their campaigns.
I know this is radical stuff. Getting engaged in local politics is truly scary for most Albertans. Yet we also know that we get the leaders we deserve. That leads to one final question: If we citizens invest nothing in the political process, what should we expect?
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Playing To Win At Environmental Engagement
Saying that many Canadians consider themselves environmentally conscious is like saying Albertans cheer for a pro hockey team. While we cheer for a team, the colors we wear can be very different. Just like some folks cheer for the Oilers and others for the Flames, local governments in Canada choose very different approaches to engaging with environmental issues.
A proposal to develop a huge waste management facility in Thorhild County, northeast of Edmonton typifies one approach to engaging with environmental issues. The proposed “SuperDump” will receive waste from the City of Edmonton and other sources. On the surface, it’s not the Angelina Jolie of economic development proposals. However, the Company promises local jobs and corporate community involvement, along with a substantial boost to the municipal tax base.
That was enough to win the enthusiastic support of Thorhild County Council. When ratepayers twice challenged the project because of its potential environmental impact, Councilors pointed to the projected economic benefits for the community.
Deeply concerned about potential environmental risks, particularly to the water supply, opponents of the proposed facility corralled 1200 signatures on a petition opposing approval without a complete Environmental Impact Assessment. Since there are approximately 3000 residents in the County, that’s a significant number. Yet Thorhild Council continues to enthusiastically support the proposal.
Community environmental engagement can also see the cards stacked against needed economic activity. A proposed development on Saltspring Island, British Columbia is an excellent example.
Saltspring is a community with a small commercial base primarily dependent upon tourism. Housing is expensive, and good–paying jobs are in short supply. It’s a difficult place to live for lower–income residents.
Some Island-based businesses have prospered. One of those is Saltspring Coffee. It’s one of Canada’s largest and most respected micro-roasters of certified organic, fair-trade, shade-grown, and carbon-neutral coffees.
That ongoing success made business expansion necessary. The company started the application process for building a new plant on Saltspring, promising a strong boost to the Island economy.
However, Saltspringers pride themselves on their sense of environmental responsibility and the proposed expansion quickly ran into rough seas. Local disapproval centered on the environmental impact of the proposed coffee-roasting operation, particularly to air and water quality.
To address these concerns, the company’s proposal underwent several expensive environmental studies. Ultimately, the completed studies validated the company’s strategies to mitigate the environmental impact.
Was Saltspring Coffee’s proposed expansion approved? The member of the Island Trust casting the deciding vote on the proposal said she voted “No” because the proposal was “The thin edge of the development wedge”. That hollow rationale is impossible to quantify and is a huge red flag to anyone planning future investment on Saltspring.
What lessons can we learn from Thorhild County and Saltspring Island? In Thorhild County, it appears that the mantra of economic growth for the sake of economic growth drowns out many voices calling for environmental stewardship. On Saltspring, a reflexive “All economic development is evil” mindset creates a climate that driving away future economic development.
So how can communities avoid the rigidity and dogma that can pervade community engagement on the environment? Communities winning the environmental engagement game will be the ones using the Detroit Red Wings approach to hockey. The Red Wings team culture demands players holding themselves personally accountable and working within a balanced, system-driven approach.
That’s a great model for communities looking for a winning strategy for environmental engagement. Communities implementing planning and approval processes requiring collaborative information gathering, respectful conversation, and community accountability are on the way to successfully engaging environmental issues. They are the kind of community – or hockey team– that anyone can cheer for.
A proposal to develop a huge waste management facility in Thorhild County, northeast of Edmonton typifies one approach to engaging with environmental issues. The proposed “SuperDump” will receive waste from the City of Edmonton and other sources. On the surface, it’s not the Angelina Jolie of economic development proposals. However, the Company promises local jobs and corporate community involvement, along with a substantial boost to the municipal tax base.
That was enough to win the enthusiastic support of Thorhild County Council. When ratepayers twice challenged the project because of its potential environmental impact, Councilors pointed to the projected economic benefits for the community.
Deeply concerned about potential environmental risks, particularly to the water supply, opponents of the proposed facility corralled 1200 signatures on a petition opposing approval without a complete Environmental Impact Assessment. Since there are approximately 3000 residents in the County, that’s a significant number. Yet Thorhild Council continues to enthusiastically support the proposal.
Community environmental engagement can also see the cards stacked against needed economic activity. A proposed development on Saltspring Island, British Columbia is an excellent example.
Saltspring is a community with a small commercial base primarily dependent upon tourism. Housing is expensive, and good–paying jobs are in short supply. It’s a difficult place to live for lower–income residents.
Some Island-based businesses have prospered. One of those is Saltspring Coffee. It’s one of Canada’s largest and most respected micro-roasters of certified organic, fair-trade, shade-grown, and carbon-neutral coffees.
That ongoing success made business expansion necessary. The company started the application process for building a new plant on Saltspring, promising a strong boost to the Island economy.
However, Saltspringers pride themselves on their sense of environmental responsibility and the proposed expansion quickly ran into rough seas. Local disapproval centered on the environmental impact of the proposed coffee-roasting operation, particularly to air and water quality.
To address these concerns, the company’s proposal underwent several expensive environmental studies. Ultimately, the completed studies validated the company’s strategies to mitigate the environmental impact.
Was Saltspring Coffee’s proposed expansion approved? The member of the Island Trust casting the deciding vote on the proposal said she voted “No” because the proposal was “The thin edge of the development wedge”. That hollow rationale is impossible to quantify and is a huge red flag to anyone planning future investment on Saltspring.
What lessons can we learn from Thorhild County and Saltspring Island? In Thorhild County, it appears that the mantra of economic growth for the sake of economic growth drowns out many voices calling for environmental stewardship. On Saltspring, a reflexive “All economic development is evil” mindset creates a climate that driving away future economic development.
So how can communities avoid the rigidity and dogma that can pervade community engagement on the environment? Communities winning the environmental engagement game will be the ones using the Detroit Red Wings approach to hockey. The Red Wings team culture demands players holding themselves personally accountable and working within a balanced, system-driven approach.
That’s a great model for communities looking for a winning strategy for environmental engagement. Communities implementing planning and approval processes requiring collaborative information gathering, respectful conversation, and community accountability are on the way to successfully engaging environmental issues. They are the kind of community – or hockey team– that anyone can cheer for.
Friday, September 4, 2009
The Social Side of Community Engagement
Albertans have a curious attitude towards the social element of community life. We talk a lot about the “Alberta way”, irrigating talk-show radio’s arid pastures with verbal cloudbursts extolling the wisdom found in small-town Alberta where “Community comes first.”
Yet reality is often different. When Alberta communities make important public decisions, some see economic gain as the fruit on the tree. Environmental concerns are the potential risks to the tree’s fruit. The social element of a community is the bird that might be enticed to come to sing in the tree.
We are puzzled when boom–time Alberta workers from places like Newfoundland and Saskatchewan make their money and return home. How can they turn their back on Paradise?
Do we have something to learn from Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, where life in socially engaged communities is often quite different? In those communities, the economy is the trunk of the tree providing support and feeding nourishment to the branches. The environmental element is the leaves– the sunlight receptors ensuring vigorous, sustainable growth. Anchoring the tree are the roots –the social elements of community life. All three are essential and interdependent.
Socially–engaged communities endure because of their attributes. Diversity is one of those attributes. Social diversity adds zest and vigor to community life. Yet in much of rural Alberta, the amount of social diversity is somewhere between Slim and Zippo, and Slim just moved back to Regina.
Alberta didn't start out that way. The homesteaders who broke the land and built the foundation of this province were a motley crew from all over the globe. Many were economic and/or political refugees with differing faiths and values. A common desire for a new and better life united them, along with the stark reality of their mutual interdependence. In the community “code” that governed life in that era, one never – ever – left another person alone and stuck in the ditch, even if the stuck person was your worst enemy. To do so would irrevocably stain your reputation.
Diversity can lead to conflict, and that leads to the second attribute of socially engaged communities– the ability to use conflict as a tool in building a tolerant and enduring society. Properly managed conflict is to human progress as yeast is to wine. Discussions focusing on listening before speaking, and on mutual engagement rather than posturing, lead to deeper understanding and creative solutions.
All too often, the preferred community governance “Modus Operandi” for resolving issues is issue-avoidance or unilateral decision-making. Avoiding issues always resolves them in favor of the status quo, and unilateral decision-making disempowers the community. However, open and respectful conversations on important community issues leads to a deeper examination of the issue, and the possibility of alternative solutions.
Rocky Mountain House is a good example of a community with the courage to discuss and act together on a social concern. That community engaged in a thorough examination of the issues involved in Video Lottery Terminals. The community made its decision after thoroughly discussing the pros and cons.
Regardless of whether we agree with the outcome, we should applaud the community’s courage, for there are risks associated with this kind of open discussion. Would this community discussion tear open wounds that might take generations to heal?
It took courage and a strong belief in the validity of community social engagement to take such a chance. Rocky Mountain House had that courage. That’s the kind of guts that built this province, and I believe it’s the real “Alberta way”.
In the next post, I'll share my views on environmental engagement.
Yet reality is often different. When Alberta communities make important public decisions, some see economic gain as the fruit on the tree. Environmental concerns are the potential risks to the tree’s fruit. The social element of a community is the bird that might be enticed to come to sing in the tree.
We are puzzled when boom–time Alberta workers from places like Newfoundland and Saskatchewan make their money and return home. How can they turn their back on Paradise?
Do we have something to learn from Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, where life in socially engaged communities is often quite different? In those communities, the economy is the trunk of the tree providing support and feeding nourishment to the branches. The environmental element is the leaves– the sunlight receptors ensuring vigorous, sustainable growth. Anchoring the tree are the roots –the social elements of community life. All three are essential and interdependent.
Socially–engaged communities endure because of their attributes. Diversity is one of those attributes. Social diversity adds zest and vigor to community life. Yet in much of rural Alberta, the amount of social diversity is somewhere between Slim and Zippo, and Slim just moved back to Regina.
Alberta didn't start out that way. The homesteaders who broke the land and built the foundation of this province were a motley crew from all over the globe. Many were economic and/or political refugees with differing faiths and values. A common desire for a new and better life united them, along with the stark reality of their mutual interdependence. In the community “code” that governed life in that era, one never – ever – left another person alone and stuck in the ditch, even if the stuck person was your worst enemy. To do so would irrevocably stain your reputation.
Diversity can lead to conflict, and that leads to the second attribute of socially engaged communities– the ability to use conflict as a tool in building a tolerant and enduring society. Properly managed conflict is to human progress as yeast is to wine. Discussions focusing on listening before speaking, and on mutual engagement rather than posturing, lead to deeper understanding and creative solutions.
All too often, the preferred community governance “Modus Operandi” for resolving issues is issue-avoidance or unilateral decision-making. Avoiding issues always resolves them in favor of the status quo, and unilateral decision-making disempowers the community. However, open and respectful conversations on important community issues leads to a deeper examination of the issue, and the possibility of alternative solutions.
Rocky Mountain House is a good example of a community with the courage to discuss and act together on a social concern. That community engaged in a thorough examination of the issues involved in Video Lottery Terminals. The community made its decision after thoroughly discussing the pros and cons.
Regardless of whether we agree with the outcome, we should applaud the community’s courage, for there are risks associated with this kind of open discussion. Would this community discussion tear open wounds that might take generations to heal?
It took courage and a strong belief in the validity of community social engagement to take such a chance. Rocky Mountain House had that courage. That’s the kind of guts that built this province, and I believe it’s the real “Alberta way”.
In the next post, I'll share my views on environmental engagement.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
The Economic Side of Community Engagement
In today’s “Wired World”, we throw buzzwords around like confetti at a country wedding. All too often, the buzzwords have the all the substance and staying power of the confetti-– and some of the marriages.
Politicians rattle on about “accountable government”. Advocates of nuclear energy talk about “green energy”. And folks active in the community development biz talk about “engaged communities”.
What are “engaged communities”? Would we know one if it jumped up and bit us on the backside? How does a community go from “casual dating” to “engaged?”
I believe that an “engaged community” is a community that is involved in its’ own destiny– taking responsibility for its’ own economic, environmental, and social evolution. Primarily proactive rather reactive, it sees itself as its own change agent.
Bright-eyed and alert readers not conditioned to suck up buzz-words like kids suck up candy might well ask: “And what does that verbiage really mean, Les?” That’s a fair question.
Let's start with economic matters. An engaged community accepts the premise that everything communities do is interconnected and interdependent. The members of the community Economic Development Committee would not make decisions pertaining to important economic matters in isolation. Engaged communities conduct independent studies of the short, medium and long-term implications of economic development proposals for their congruence with community values. They assess the impact of economic proposals on environmental and social elements of community life, and build corrective strategies into the final plans.
Recent Alberta history shows what can happen when a combination of provincial policy and complaisant municipal councils push development not congruent with community values. A decade ago, it took passionate and determined action by the citizens of the Counties of Forty–Mile and Flagstaff to stonewall the late and unlamented Taiwan Sugar hog mega-project.
There’s another key element to local economic engagement– supporting Main Street. Many studies have shown the positive impact of communities shopping and eating locally. Most local businesses in Alberta do an admirable job of supporting their communities. From their perspective, it’s just good business. Unfortunately, too many residents of rural Alberta (the communities outside the major metropolitan areas) don’t reward that community support. The Lure of The Mall proves too strong and they leave their dollars (and the paychecks and profits their spending generates) in the big cities. It’s the kind of shortsighted behaviour that continues to turn off the lights on small–town Main Streets across western Canada.
That’s two elements that I see as key to the economic side of community engagement. In my next post in two two weeks I’ll examine the social side of community engagement.
Politicians rattle on about “accountable government”. Advocates of nuclear energy talk about “green energy”. And folks active in the community development biz talk about “engaged communities”.
What are “engaged communities”? Would we know one if it jumped up and bit us on the backside? How does a community go from “casual dating” to “engaged?”
I believe that an “engaged community” is a community that is involved in its’ own destiny– taking responsibility for its’ own economic, environmental, and social evolution. Primarily proactive rather reactive, it sees itself as its own change agent.
Bright-eyed and alert readers not conditioned to suck up buzz-words like kids suck up candy might well ask: “And what does that verbiage really mean, Les?” That’s a fair question.
Let's start with economic matters. An engaged community accepts the premise that everything communities do is interconnected and interdependent. The members of the community Economic Development Committee would not make decisions pertaining to important economic matters in isolation. Engaged communities conduct independent studies of the short, medium and long-term implications of economic development proposals for their congruence with community values. They assess the impact of economic proposals on environmental and social elements of community life, and build corrective strategies into the final plans.
Recent Alberta history shows what can happen when a combination of provincial policy and complaisant municipal councils push development not congruent with community values. A decade ago, it took passionate and determined action by the citizens of the Counties of Forty–Mile and Flagstaff to stonewall the late and unlamented Taiwan Sugar hog mega-project.
There’s another key element to local economic engagement– supporting Main Street. Many studies have shown the positive impact of communities shopping and eating locally. Most local businesses in Alberta do an admirable job of supporting their communities. From their perspective, it’s just good business. Unfortunately, too many residents of rural Alberta (the communities outside the major metropolitan areas) don’t reward that community support. The Lure of The Mall proves too strong and they leave their dollars (and the paychecks and profits their spending generates) in the big cities. It’s the kind of shortsighted behaviour that continues to turn off the lights on small–town Main Streets across western Canada.
That’s two elements that I see as key to the economic side of community engagement. In my next post in two two weeks I’ll examine the social side of community engagement.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Rewarding Volunteers
What powers ACE communities and other active, creative and engaged communities? A commitment to society drives them, and the depth of their volunteer ethic fuels them. Empty the tank of volunteer support and the commitment to community comes to a gradual halt.
This is not an earth-shaking pronouncement. Most of our political leaders proclaim the importance of community volunteers. Yet they often deliver the level of that support needed to protect the legitimate interests of community volunteers.
A recent tragedy in Golden, British Columbia involving search and rescue volunteers has sharply focused the attention of Alberta volunteer groups. In this case, a husband and wife who were skiing at a resort in Golden ignored clearly-posted out-of-bounds signs and went missing. The couple was lost for over a week, and the wife died of exposure. As a result of that tragedy, her husband is suing the Mounties, the ski resort and the Golden and District search and rescue team for failing to conduct a proper search.
Liability insurance is of vital importance to the volunteer community. Existing liability insurance policies protect the Mounties and the ski resort operators and staff. There was liability insurance protection for volunteers in the Golden, B.C. Search and Rescue team. However, Golden Search and Rescue would have lost liability coverage if they were on a search without being called in by authorities. Now, they are being sued because authorities didn’t call them out. It’s all a wee bit crazy-making.
In Alberta, Search and Rescue Alberta president Monica Ahlstrom says that of Alberta’s 40 search and rescue teams, as many as 15 have no liability insurance. Bill 49, introduced this spring in the Alberta Legislature, promises extended “good faith” liability coverage for firefighters and fire departments protecting them from lawsuits arising from their professional duties. Yet there is presently no plan to include Search and Rescue volunteers in the proposed legislation.
Another issue emerging from the Golden tragedy concerns individuals who choose to ignore clear warning signs, meet with disaster, and then launch lawsuits. This has implications for every community hall or sports facility in Alberta, and any volunteer organization delivering public service.
Should volunteers performing community work in good faith expect a basic liability protection consistent with fire crews? Should community volunteers expect legislation ensuring that those choosing to ignore clear and adequate warnings are liable for the consequences of those choices?
Perhaps it’s time that volunteers tested the depth of the reservoir of “good faith” coverage trumpeted by our politicians. How could they test that “good faith”? Alberta’s volunteer community could- and should– ask for a “Volunteer Bill of Rights and Responsibilities” that clearly outlines the terms of volunteer service, including risk mitigation. That would go a long way towards “filling the tank” of the volunteer spirit.
This is not an earth-shaking pronouncement. Most of our political leaders proclaim the importance of community volunteers. Yet they often deliver the level of that support needed to protect the legitimate interests of community volunteers.
A recent tragedy in Golden, British Columbia involving search and rescue volunteers has sharply focused the attention of Alberta volunteer groups. In this case, a husband and wife who were skiing at a resort in Golden ignored clearly-posted out-of-bounds signs and went missing. The couple was lost for over a week, and the wife died of exposure. As a result of that tragedy, her husband is suing the Mounties, the ski resort and the Golden and District search and rescue team for failing to conduct a proper search.
Liability insurance is of vital importance to the volunteer community. Existing liability insurance policies protect the Mounties and the ski resort operators and staff. There was liability insurance protection for volunteers in the Golden, B.C. Search and Rescue team. However, Golden Search and Rescue would have lost liability coverage if they were on a search without being called in by authorities. Now, they are being sued because authorities didn’t call them out. It’s all a wee bit crazy-making.
In Alberta, Search and Rescue Alberta president Monica Ahlstrom says that of Alberta’s 40 search and rescue teams, as many as 15 have no liability insurance. Bill 49, introduced this spring in the Alberta Legislature, promises extended “good faith” liability coverage for firefighters and fire departments protecting them from lawsuits arising from their professional duties. Yet there is presently no plan to include Search and Rescue volunteers in the proposed legislation.
Another issue emerging from the Golden tragedy concerns individuals who choose to ignore clear warning signs, meet with disaster, and then launch lawsuits. This has implications for every community hall or sports facility in Alberta, and any volunteer organization delivering public service.
Should volunteers performing community work in good faith expect a basic liability protection consistent with fire crews? Should community volunteers expect legislation ensuring that those choosing to ignore clear and adequate warnings are liable for the consequences of those choices?
Perhaps it’s time that volunteers tested the depth of the reservoir of “good faith” coverage trumpeted by our politicians. How could they test that “good faith”? Alberta’s volunteer community could- and should– ask for a “Volunteer Bill of Rights and Responsibilities” that clearly outlines the terms of volunteer service, including risk mitigation. That would go a long way towards “filling the tank” of the volunteer spirit.
Development Decisions
It’s not easy to be an elected municipal leader in Alberta, particularly when it comes to making land-use decisions. Our boom and bust economy and the reluctance of past provincial governments to take long-term planning seriously have created an environment where some municipalities choose short-term growth over long-term sustainability.
How does a municipality balance long-term environmental protection with the benefits of substantial gains in tax assessment that can come from increased development? What would you do if you were that municipal leader?
When you’re a County Councillor, things are rarely straightforward, and these applications are no different. Please join me in the Council Chambers at Buttercup County, Alberta, where you are one of five County Councilors.
Council has received development applications from a couple of prominent companies proposing very large residential developments at beautiful Reelbig Lake, located at the far end of your County. Reelbig Lake is a prime recreation site, with residential, summer residential and commercial development. The development will bring in a substantial increase in assessments that will help stabilize the mill rate for your predominantly rural, agriculture-based County. All ratepayers would benefit from potentially large gains in County assessment.
There are also risks. One of North America’s leading water quality experts is on record predicting that Reelbig Lake’s water quality will suffer if these developments proceed. The expert says that there will be disturbing cumulative impacts resulting from the proposed developments. He says that Reelbig Lake will become eutrophic. Swimming will be impossible and desirable species of fish will die, and science will be unable to reverse the condition. As a Councillor with some knowledge of human nature, you know that folks will not be too keen to rent paddleboats or go fishing if that prediction comes true. If the expert is right, future property values around the lake will take a serious hit. Given the public alert already given concerning the risks to Lake water quality, there could be future lawsuits from property owners angry about the erosion of their property values.
Is this even the right time to make this decision? The provincial government is in the final stages of implementing a Land Use Strategy, which will provide a comprehensive planning process including cumulative environmental impacts as part of the approval process. Some concerned Reelbig Lake residents insist that Council table these developments to the Land Use Strategy process. The developers are pushing hard for a speedy approval of their applications. They say that the economic activity generated by the approval, combined with the assessment gains, will make this a big winner for Buttercup County.
So there you are, members of Council. I’m your County Reeve, Harry Handshake, and the way I see it, we have three options: (1) Approve the development applications in spite of the concerns (2) Reject the applications because of the concerns (3) Slow down the process and refer it to the Land Use Strategy for assessment. I’m opening the floor for discussion. What should Buttercup County Council do? Who wants to go first?
How does a municipality balance long-term environmental protection with the benefits of substantial gains in tax assessment that can come from increased development? What would you do if you were that municipal leader?
When you’re a County Councillor, things are rarely straightforward, and these applications are no different. Please join me in the Council Chambers at Buttercup County, Alberta, where you are one of five County Councilors.
Council has received development applications from a couple of prominent companies proposing very large residential developments at beautiful Reelbig Lake, located at the far end of your County. Reelbig Lake is a prime recreation site, with residential, summer residential and commercial development. The development will bring in a substantial increase in assessments that will help stabilize the mill rate for your predominantly rural, agriculture-based County. All ratepayers would benefit from potentially large gains in County assessment.
There are also risks. One of North America’s leading water quality experts is on record predicting that Reelbig Lake’s water quality will suffer if these developments proceed. The expert says that there will be disturbing cumulative impacts resulting from the proposed developments. He says that Reelbig Lake will become eutrophic. Swimming will be impossible and desirable species of fish will die, and science will be unable to reverse the condition. As a Councillor with some knowledge of human nature, you know that folks will not be too keen to rent paddleboats or go fishing if that prediction comes true. If the expert is right, future property values around the lake will take a serious hit. Given the public alert already given concerning the risks to Lake water quality, there could be future lawsuits from property owners angry about the erosion of their property values.
Is this even the right time to make this decision? The provincial government is in the final stages of implementing a Land Use Strategy, which will provide a comprehensive planning process including cumulative environmental impacts as part of the approval process. Some concerned Reelbig Lake residents insist that Council table these developments to the Land Use Strategy process. The developers are pushing hard for a speedy approval of their applications. They say that the economic activity generated by the approval, combined with the assessment gains, will make this a big winner for Buttercup County.
So there you are, members of Council. I’m your County Reeve, Harry Handshake, and the way I see it, we have three options: (1) Approve the development applications in spite of the concerns (2) Reject the applications because of the concerns (3) Slow down the process and refer it to the Land Use Strategy for assessment. I’m opening the floor for discussion. What should Buttercup County Council do? Who wants to go first?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
