Annexation Pressure

[cakadu]

The City of Red Deer and the County of Red Deer are going to start negotiations on annexing land for the City's industrial growth. These will be very interesting negotiations to keep abreast of because of the fact that the County wants and needs to do it's own commercial expansion, so there will be some competing interests to be sure. The City doesn't want to loose any more revenues to the County, which it has in the past few months because the City simply did not have enough land to accomodate the industrial needs.

Now, given that the County has in the works keeping agricultural land just that, how much pressure will there be on the outlying areas to bear the burden of what the other areas cannot i.e. the sprawl of the city.

What sorts of things have some of the rest of you witnessed and what kind of solutions were arrived at?

The County needs to ensure that all of the County will benefit from it's decisions. What are some ways that this can take place?

[Horse]

The Annextion process is very involved. Landowners in the proposed annexation area will have their say as to whether or not they want to have their land annexed to the City. The County must assure that the loss of land will not have a negative impact on the county as a whole. Either the decision will be made between the City and County or it will end up in front of the Municipal Government Board, who will hear from all parties affected which could include landowners some distance away if they can make a case that the loss of assessment in the annexation area will negatively affect them.
The Minister will likely require that both parties enter into mediation. The process is not a quick fix thats for sure.

[cowman]

I think the city of Red Deer is a little alarmed by the countys' very agressive interest in building industrial parks. Not much need for city industrial land when the county industrial parks are cheaper and right on the cities doorstep?
The city would love to annex the land to the west but it just isn't going to happen? The county has already told them they can move south and east and that is just about it!
I don't have much empathy for the city of Red Deer. For years they did everything in their power to keep businesses out so as not to compete with the "old boys club" of Red Deer business! Luckily we had some people on County Council who were pro-developement in those days! We still have some who have common sense, but unfortunately we also have some who prefer to live in some sort of bucolic fantasy of the happy peasant toiling away on the land! I believe some of these need to do a reality check?

[cowman]

The urbans have always had a bee in their bonnet about rural municipalities generating industrial development in urban fringe areas. I guess they see rural as agriculture and nothing else, but when it comes to wanting rural funding for recreation facilities they sure as heck can't expect that to come from only the agricultural assessment. Do you think that the new Red Deer Council will dig their heels in on this or are there some 'urban' focussed members now ?
Leduc County is gearing up for an annexation battle with Edmonton over the airport, depending on what direction Mandel decides to go with it.
Annexation where there are no people affected doesn't have near the potential for a 'blood bath' as the ones that involve large residential areas etc. In my opinion Intermunicipal Development Plans and Intermunicipal Planning Commissions can deal with growth in the urban fringe area without lands being annexed unless the urban centre is completely out of land for future development.

[cakadu]

Emrald, do you mean the City Council or the County Council?

At the Land Use Conference that was part of the Ag Summit Process, one of the planners there talked about how we have to keep from sprawling outward and better utilize what is already there. He talked about how many homes had only one person living in them, or at best 2 and some of the houses were quite big. He brought up that maybe we should be looking at populating more of these homes and be building up, not out.

We're going to have to get this all figured out and soon because the choices we make today have to be sustainable long into the future. Building on the fringes is fine, but what about those areas that have no hope of ever becoming part of the fringe?

[cowman]

Linda: How nice of this planner to say that but in reality that isn't going to happen? In fact the sprawl and bigger and bigger housing is going to increase?
I was hearing the same drivel thirty years ago...and the city continues its relentless march across the best farmland! That won't change...only increase?
Now just suppose you decided you wanted to use your land for some sort of business...say a small widget factory? Some "planner" is going to decide whether you can do it or not? Well yes he is, in fact. You see you are now in a "protected agricultural area"! But fear not because the "planner" says he can get you hooked up with some fine land right next to Red Deer and it will only cost you 20 times as much as what you can get for your designated "farm land"!
Of course you realize if you have to pay this unreal price for the land your widget factory can't make a profit, so you decide to not go ahead. So what has happened? First of all some government planner has killed a business that could have been adding to the commerce of this country and creating real wealth. Next he has convinced you that to try to stand on your own two feet is not a very good idea. And third...now his masters(who happen to own the big widget factory in Red Deer) won't have any real competition and can continue to rip off the consumer!
Anytime you get a government doing its best to kill commerce, you should know you have a real problem!

[cakadu]

We may not be happy with all the decisions that are made, but somewhere and some how an overall plan must be drawn up, with input sought with as much input as possible so that we don't run into problems down the track.

There are many reasons why businesses do not go ahead and some may be due to planning decisions. Planning must be done in order to ensure that both the short-term and the long-term are looked after. Long-term can be 10, 20 or even 50 years out. Emrald has said it well when he said you don't want the luxury spa going in next to the farm and then have them spend all of their time trying to get the farm shut down.

Let's hope that the County can hold the City off on developing further west.

Essentially to have rural areas survive, we need to have the basics in hand - access to health care, commerce, schools and recreation. Growth and prosperity are welcome - they need to be handled well, with hard decisions being made and the end result will be that not all people will be happy with the decisions.

We need to learn lessons from other areas that have faced these sorts of challenges and overcome them. Look at both the bad and the good because I'm sure not all decisions resulted in positive outcomes.

Look at how quickly Balzac is meeting Calgary. How are they dealing with the challenges? I'm still amazed that on the airport road, that one farm is still there, despite the fact that the residential area is coming fairly close to it now. I wonder how much longer they will be able to hold out?

The best way to deal with it is to become as informed and foward thinking as possible.

[cowman]

The thing that really bugs me about all the so-called planning is it isn't very universal or "written in stone"? If you have the "pull" you can pretty well take the plans and throw them in the garbage can!
Do most councillors have the fortitude to stand up against controversy to protect any policy? I would suggest that as soon as the phone starts ringing or they get some bad press they start looking for a way out? Now having said that, I will say that your late councillor(Stoyberg) was a man of integrity who always voted how he saw it! Quite often against the rest of council.

[cakadu]

I'm with you on that one - if there are rules, then they apply equally to everyone and not be bent to allow certain things. Certainly integrity has to enter into it and not the old "go along to get along". I'm sure it isn't easy to stand up for what you believe in when there is all kinds of pressure (whether perceived or real) being put on you.

As space becomes more of a rare commodity, I have no doubt that the pressure will become tremendous. The backbone needs to be there to stand up for what is right for everyone as a whole and not just the few.

[cakadu]

I was referring to the County Council Linda. IT is easy to second guess what councillors will do, but land uses change and in municipalities with a lot of pressure for 'urban type' growth or the opportuinty for industrial assessment, the council needs to address long term planning goals and allow development to occur in the areas that will have the least negative affect. It isn't too easy to stifle growth in Alberta, given the demands of the industries that keep the province an attractive place to live and do business. I for one would not want to live adjacent to a busy primary highway but the residential growth along Highway 2 through Red Deer is crazy.
Anyone who has their very own little corner of the province without looking out the window at a 'city' heading for their backyard should consider themselves lucky.

[cakadu]

It's hard to say just how tough the new council is going to be on keeping agricultural land intact. With a couple of new faces on the council and without the benefit of the information that the councillors receive when making a decision, it is too early to make any kind of judgement to that effect.

Add to that the conflicting recommendations from both the Reeves Task Force and the Ag Viability Study and who knows where we are going to end up.

I agree that it has to happen with minimal impact and/or negative affect. Whether you go east or west of the highway #2 corridor, I think that eventually there will be development creeping further and further out. How quickly and what kind of development is anyone's guess at this point in time.

[cowman]

Funny that you should mention the Reeves task force and the agricultural viability study and how they are not in agreement...at all!
You will note that the Reeves task force was the opinion of the people, while the ag land use study was a paid for thing by an expert? Now who do you listen to in a democracy? Do you go with the people or do you go with the paid planner?
The session, of the Reeves task force, that I attended showed very clearly what the people wanted. At the end of the meeting this guy stood up and said "Who wants to keep our right to First Parcel Out?" All the hands went up except for a couple of Dutch farmers and one councillor!
Kind of makes you wonder if the powers that be at the county and especially the planners understand who they are working for? If they want to change these sort of rules where peoples assets are going to be wiped out because of some bucolic fantasy, then I would suggest we need to consider whether we actually live in a democracy?
The other thing I would question is who are we saving all this valuable agricultural land for? It isn't for the most part the people who are the present day aging farm population! Their kids already know that ag is a loser and have moved on. So I guess it must be for the wealthy European farmers who are moving in? I guess they have pretty well polluted their own soil with manure so they need a fresh place to start all over again. I wonder why they can't do that out in the wide open spaces to the east instead of insisting on clustering around the highway #2 corrider?

[cowman]

cowman, I find your comments interesting. However, regardless of where landowners come from, if land is for sale in an area where they want to farm, and they have the money to buy the land, where does it say that they cannot do so ? The European farmers as well as our own Canadian farmers must adhere to very stringent regulations as far as applying manure is concerned in Alberta,regardless of where they farm.
In my area there was a huge cry for 10 acre parcels 12 years ago when people were planning on making their fortunes with ostriches, llamas etc. The county agreed and a lot of 10 acre parcels were created. After the people lost their shirt with llamas and ostriches, they soon realized that the 10 acres was a lot more than they needed to have a dog and cat. They had to control weeds, keep the grass down and no-one wanted to rent those few acres to pasture cattle or horses so it was a liability. Now the county allows a minimum of 4 acre parcels and up to three per quarter but that is being reviewed.
If all municipalities decide to have open season on subdividing productive agricultural lands, future generations will suffer. I do think that Red Deer County is doing a good job of allowing orderly development along the Highway 2 corridor. It will be a real challenge for them to make decisions that will please the majority of their citizens as the pressures increase for development in a wider area around Red Deer.