A good news budget?

[cowman]

Well hopefully Red Deer County has learned from its past mistakes and will assure that it doesn't get screwed, again, by some slick developer...ie. the federal government and the airbase!
Linda what is this Natural Capital Component? What does that mean?

[cakadu]

Natural capital is basically preserving and creating value in the land - grasslands and functioning watersheds. When establishing policies that affect agriculture, the value of natural capital should be calculated into whatever is being planned i.e. urban growth. It would mean that land use decisions would take into consideration the concept and value of natural capital, with the resulting outcomes being more closely aligned with the public good.

This isn't a really new concept - it has been around for many years. What makes it different now is that many of the decision and policy makers are starting to take notice of it, so it may actually have some value in future decision making. The public may start to watch more carefully the things that land managers are doing. If you do things that take the value of natural capital into consideration, then you are rewarded and if you don't, well you bear the consequences of it.

The Canada West Foundation has a fairly substantial project going on it right now and you can find out more about it at
www.cwf.ca

Personally, I believe the concept has merit and have also believed for a very long time now that it should be a public policy issue and is not a cost that is borne solely by the landowner - which in most cases is the producer.

We have to start attaching a value to what we all want to see preserved for future generations. If something doesn't have value attached to it, then we are less likely to look after it. None of us want to see anything happen to the National Parks, so what kind of value would you put on those?

It is maybe an idea whose time has come.

[cakadu]

Emrald - if that is the case with respect to the lake development then how can the County possibly justify chopping up agricultural land to satisfy making those lots, when on the other, some of the councillors are taking a no more first parcel out stance? Seems to me that something isn't quite cricket there.

On another matter, what do you feel is the responsibility of a councillor who attends various and sundry conferences and gets paid to be at them? Should the councillor just report back to Council, or should there be some mechanism whereby the councillor shares the outcomes of the conference with the ratepayers? I feel that we should be seeing some sort of value for councillors attending these things - I don't have a problem with them doing it - but it should somehow be related to what they are doing and they should be accountable to us in some fashion, particularly if we are footing the bill for them to go so to speak. One pet peeve of mine is when they register to go and then don't show up. It is a waste of the fees. I'd like to hear your thoughts on it, please.

[cakadu]

AS an elected official I used to provide a written report on any conferences I attended, and also brought back any applicable information from the conference. All this information was available to the public upon request. I used to hold meetings twice a year in each of the community halls in my division and provide written reports on the most significant conferences and seminars I had attended as their councillor.
I members of the public don't feel that they are getting adequate feedback from councillors who attend conferences, conventions etc. I would suggest that a group arrange an appointment on a council agenda and suggest that such information be included in the county news letter.