June 10, 2009
City Clerk
Plan It Calgary
P.O. Box 2100, Stn. M.
Calgary, AB Canada T2P 2M5
Mail code #8145
Dear City Clerk:
The Shawnee Evergreen Community Association (SECA) is not prepared, at this time, to support Plan-it Calgary for the following reasons:
- We have not had enough time to review and formulate an appropriate response to this massive document or the summary. The city has taken a number of years to research and prepare the plan yet they expect a volunteer board made up of lay people to respond in a few weeks. This is both unfair and unrealistic.
- We fail to understand the rush to finalize Plan-it Calgary. After all it is a 60 year vision. While the plan acknowledges “Growth Costs Money” we suggest another old saying “Haste Makes Waste” would be equally appropriate.
- Plan-It Calgary was developed between the years of 2006 – 2008 during which time the city of Calgary and its major industry (Oil and Gas) experienced a “boom”. The current economic outlook reflects a different reality and an increase of 1.3 million people in 50 – 60 years may be a considerable overestimate. This mistake was made in past plans.
- Within the context of Plan-It Calgary draft MDP, City Council needs to consider the broader land use policy issues created by re-designating any existing recreational and/or green space to residential and/or commercial space. Case in point is that the Shaw-Nee Slopes golf course has been targeted by a developer for a short sighted redevelopment plan and, if a developer can target this community using the guise of Plan-It Calgary to justify its goal to despoil a relatively new subdivision and replace it by building high density housing, then any existing recreational space will also become the target of similar speculative schemes. These recreational green spaces have been well incorporated into the fabric of our great City and it would be a travesty to start rezoning any of them to support commercially driven land use benefits for the sake of Plan-It. The only benefits are short term developer windfalls. City communities faced with this type of redevelopment are the losers and have to live with the negative consequences for generations to come. This would be a great detriment to our City and reduce our ability to be considered as “one of the best Canadian Cities to live in”.
- Green spaces are carefully considered as part of the original subdivision approvals for these communities and the balance between residential/commercial and community space usually form a part of the original approval process. These green spaces offer much needed balance and sustainability to our neighbourhoods and our broader environment. People and animals inhabit them and you have to appreciate the reduction to our carbon footprint that the trees offer the City. We do not believe that the City can afford to entertain any reduction of these well thought out land use mixes for the benefit of any one developer who cites Plan-It as his rationale for proposing to replace green space with high density development. The City must incorporate some basic policy within their MDP to protect lands from short term windfall profiteers who, as in the Shaw-Nee Slopes example are manipulating Plan-It Calgary for their own short-term financial gain. The City can easily achieve its proposed transit centre housing densities by utilizing existing zoned lands – especially near the Fish Creek Station where 25 acres of city-owned land awaits development.
- There are endless examples of progressive city policies used to protect their open spaces (i.e. Central Park, New York City, or City of Edmonton, Parks & Rec, etc) but more importantly it is now up to Calgary City Council to make a bold statement in their Land Use Policy documents to protect the majority against any such recreation rezoning attempts on a City wide basis. This is not just about the Shaw-nee Slopes Golf Course – consider any existing recreational space (golf courses, tennis courts, ball diamonds, soccer pitches, etc) that need your protection now more than ever. We suspect that for every one of these highly prized community use spaces that there is a hungry developer in the woods eying them up as a ‘great development opportunity’ for their own personal gain. We along with other community associations will be very interested in how the City deals with (or fails to deal with) the Shaw-nee Slopes example and the outcome of Plan-It when it reaches City Council will be evidence of this.
The issue of developers exploiting Plan-It Calgary for financial gain is our biggest concern but having brought this fact to your attention, we believe that City Council will give due diligence to this issue as it is surely not what Plan-It Calgary intended.
Our community supports many of the principles and broad goals contained within Plan-it Calgary. For example, SECA supported high density development around the Fish Creek Lacombe LRT station (TOD supportive) when we came out in favour of the Highbury condominium project. By lending our support to that development and the earlier Beacon Hill development, SECA has demonstrated quite visibly that we are not a NIMBY community. However we are very concerned that there has been no fulsome community engagement and certainly no estimated costs for implementation of the Plan are contained within the Plan-It document. Realistically, we cannot be expected to support these goals without some idea of the associated costs of implementing the Plan. We recognize that we the taxpayer and/or the user will pay for them. It is therefore not viable to seek Calgarians’ support at this time when critical information is missing from the Plan.
We would also like to point out that Calgary is a winter city and this year’s record snowfalls made for many icy sidewalks and treacherous walks to the LRT station. A number of our residents slipped and fell despite diligent snow shovelling by our residents (incidentally the City was not as diligent). So, when the plan talks about walk-able cities, we must respect the fact that we are a winter city. As such, walking and cycling to work may not be possible for many months of the year.
Furthermore, we do not believe that the City of Calgary and geographical disparate can afford a transit system that has the frequency and routes necessary to service our diverse employment areas. Not all Calgarians work downtown where the LRT service is severely limited by lack of capacity. Calgary has the Airport and Foothills industrial areas that have limited bus service as well as the University and Foothills Hospital employment districts. The cost to provide for a predominantly transit oriented system that might encourage people to stop using their cars will, we think, be too expensive for many Calgarians.
We support the Plan-it Calgary's position to maintain healthy and sustainable habitats and maintaining and expanding the green space within the existing neighbourhoods. As indicated above, we have expressed our concern with a developer who has publicly used Plan-it Calgary to justify their intent of removing our existing green space (Shaw-nee Golf Course) in the name of increased density and profit. Plan-it Calgary should most definitely protect community open space and its administrators should ensure complete transparency when dealing with potential developers.
We are very troubled by the city's apparent experiment in social engineering. What concerns us is that the city is trying to force Calgarians and the real estate marketplace to move into non-traditional housing. We believe in choice but specify that the ability to select from a full range of choices should be available to all Calgarians.
Plan-It Open House gallery boards have stated as a FACT that high density housing is what the people of Calgary want. When asked what type of housing they will live in thirty years from now, 50% of Calgarians (in 2008) who live in single family homes estimated living in different types of housing such as an apartment or townhouse. This FACT is merely a finding in a questionable survey. People currently living in single family homes would be on average 30 to 60 years old in 2008. In thirty years time, they will be of mostly senior and retirement age and might want to live in retirement apartments or move to warmer climates within Canada or the U.S. However, their children, who were not part of the survey, will have families and will undoubtedly aspire to live in single-family houses with lawns and gardens instead of apartments. The major reason that the suburbia of major towns is expanding is because the majority, in Calgary 70% of the population, aspire to live in single family homes. They do not want to live in high density apartments or townhouses.
Another FACT that concerns us is the statement, ‘increasing the number of people living in a community (density) can provide better economies for public transit, support commercial development in neighbourhoods and reduce public infrastructure and service costs’. Although this FACT may be true from the perspective of developers and businesses in that it is better economics for them, it is not necessarily true for the people living in established communities. We are not blind to the fact that many people want to live within walking distance of shops, transit and the place of business. However, we believe that this is unrealistic because these same people are not interested in the accompanying increase in noise, local traffic (including pedestrian), the associated pollution as well as an increase in criminal activity. A study over many years in the UK has revealed that after the introduction of high density housing in quiet residential areas, criminal activities such as burglaries and muggings increased considerably. Is Plan-it prepared to accommodate this issue with an increase in police officers and other emergency agencies that all require additional buildings and funding? Issues of downtown policing, parks, social services, etc (while they may have separate planning documents) need to be integrated into this master 'vision' document - at least at a reference level.
SECA may support balanced growth and diversity in residential housing choices but not at the cost of forcing people out of the city or into housing that is beyond their means or not appropriate for their lifestyle needs. Furthermore we are concerned that if the city of Calgary does not provide a variety of housing types both the surrounding communities and Calgary will still be faced with the responsibility and costs of providing for traffic solutions and services for people beyond our boundaries. Consequently we will be paying the cost and gaining none of the tax benefits.
With regard to transportation choices we support improved public transit but not at the risk of crippling the already overloaded road network. Not everyone works downtown where public transit is concentrated. Calgary has the airport industrial and the foothills industrial areas that are predominantly heavy truck, rail or airport oriented. Reducing travel time by putting homes closer to work will not work with many of our employment districts so a strong road network is critical for moving people and goods effectively and efficiently throughout our City.
While we do not deny the need to have a vision, of paramount concern is that there has been no costs associated with the Plan. While it is important for plans to provide direction – these plans must also be tempered with realism and cost estimates and an understanding of Calgarians’ willingness to buy into them. Historically the taxpayer will have to pay for these visions and is entitled to at least know how much they are going to cost.
For the reasons indicated above, the SECA board would urge Alderman Colley-Urquhart, her Alderman colleagues and the Mayor to reject Plan-it Calgary at this time – send it back to the Administration for more study and costing, ensure that it cannot be exploited by land hungry developers and then reintroduce, at a later date after full community engagement has occurred, a revised, realistic concept together with costs. When that has been accomplished, we will be willing to revisit the Plan.
Yours sincerely,
Gloria Dingwall
President, SECA