☚ Click Left For Municipal Election Forum

02/08/2010 07:47


Arrogant Mayor, Council Refuse Meeting

Don,

I can't find an e-mail address for Frances Badrock or Wes Brodhead. I don't know if you can help but I would sure appreciate it. (Email on the way to you Dave.)

The following e-mail was sent out to Council and candidates. We issued a formal request of Council to set up a meeting with Habitat for Humanity, Council, our community and anyone else who might want to attend to discuss Habitat's latest proposal before the fall Council meeting.

We were turned down cold.

Regards,

Dave Evans

SINC SAYS:

So Dave, council changes the entire game plan on 70 Arlington, ignores the recommendations of the public hearings, changes the deal entirely with Habitat, drops the original developer and then tells the residents of Akinsdale to take a hike? Is that about it? How arrogant.

The Email To Council:

1. Introduction

Our community requested that the City Council set up a meeting with Habitat for Humanity, Akinsdale, themselves and anyone else from St. Albert who wished to attend, to discuss the latest Habitat for Humanity proposal before the fall hearing. Since Council doesn't see fit to set up this meeting, the only other alternative that we have is to try and see if we can get answers to our questions and express our concerns is though e-mail. The following is an attempt to do so.

Since it is unknown whether or not the decision on this property will be decided before the election, we have also decided to distribute this report to any new candidates running for Council. In order to accommodate them, we have also provided some background information that the current Councilors may already be aware of.


2. History

Our community’s concerns over this property dates back to 1978 when the St. Albert Protestant Separate School Division (PSSD) informed the Community that it would not be building a school on this property in spite of the huge sign on the property that stated otherwise. PSSD then made efforts to sell the land for private development. This was strongly opposed by our community. A joint committee was set up in 1994 by PSSD and our community to try and come to some resolution. PSSD requested that the 5 acres be split with 2 acres being attached to Attwood Park and the remaining 3 acres being rezoned for a church. A poll of the local homes (115) surrounding the property resulted in over 90% being in favor of the proposal. In 1995, at the request of our community and PSSD, the land was split and rezoned.

Even though several churches have expressed and interest in the property, by their own admission, PSSD never made any effort to sell the land to a church. Churches cannot afford to pay as much for property as a developer can. In 2000, PSSD took a request to the St. Albert Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) to have the property rezoned to medium-density residential so that Qualico could build 30 duplexes in a configuration that is very similar to Habitat’s current proposal. The project was turned down by the MPC for being too dense as well as an inappropriate use of the property. In 2004, PSSD again requested that the property be rezoned so that the Maxwell Care Group could place a large, private, 3 story, seniors' complex. This too was turned down by the MPC as being inappropriate.


3. Protestant Separate School Division

This property is one of 6 reserves that currently exist in St. Albert. The other 5 are all classified as Municipal Reserves (MR) meaning that should a School Division decide that it does not require one of the properties for a school, that reserve will become parkland based on the Municipal Government Act and St. Albert’s bylaws. Why is this property excluded? Because its title was acquired by PSSD in 1979. The Municipal Act was in place at the time but not the St. Albert bylaw which was passed in 1980. Much of the credibility for PSSD owning this property is based on the claim that PSSD negotiated separately from the City for it. Such is not the case. Senior Qualico Managers from the time of Akinsdale’s creation state that PSSD was never involved in the negotiations for the school reserves.

This property is one of 3 school reserves acquired by the City for Akinsdale. One was where the Elmer Gish School now resides, 70 Arlington Drive and the third was at the corner of Akins Drive and Hebert Road. The Akins Drive property was split in 1980 with 3 acres being sold by the Catholic School Division to the Church of Latter Day Saints and 2 acres being provided for the Kinex arena. This is the only school reserve that has been sold off in St. Albert. Akinsdale is the only community that was required to give up a school reserve and is now being forced to give up another.

It is strange that the City always negotiated for school reserves, supposedly stopped negotiating for school reserves for Akinsdale and then continued for communities created after Akinsdale. A developer, by law, is required to provide a minimum of 10% of the land for any new development for schools and parks. PSSD insists that these school reserves were negotiated over and above this 10%. Doesn’t it stretch credibility to believe that Qualico, known for being a tough negotiator, would provide three 5 acre lots of prime real estate for $1 each when there wasn’t any obligation for them to do so?

There could have been a school on the property; the Francophone School Division expressed an interest in acquiring the property years ago but they were informed by PSSD that they would have to pay market value for the property. A church could have been built if PSSD hadn’t been so insistent on being paid market value for the property.


4. St. Albert City Council

The majority of prior City Councils were always against using this land for residential development. It was the expressed belief of these Council members that the property should be appended to Attwood Park. However, Council was not willing to meet PSSD’s demands to be paid full market value for property that it acquired for $1.

In 2008, the current City Council entered into an agreement where Habitat would provide a bid for the 70 Arlington Property based on using the property for ‘affordable housing’. Never once did they consult with our community regarding this proposal. In fact, a deliberate effort was made to undermine us when it provided the Gazette with a press release that stated that the Community rejected a church when Council was well aware that the opposite was the truth. This falsehood caused us much harm by damaging our credibility. It suggested that if this Community wouldn’t accept a church, it is unlikely that it will accept anything, so why deal with them. Council has continued to display a dismissive attitude towards us throughout the entire process.

Another issue is that the City states that this property exceeds the 10% municipal allocation but it can only do so if it includes the 2 hockey arenas and their parking as part of Akinsdale’s parkland. These arenas are hardly for the exclusive use of Akinsdale’s residents. This argument was presented in 2004 and was judged as being invalid by the MPC.

The efforts between Council and Habitat resulted in the Habitat/Apollo proposal for 63 row housing units. This was later reduced to 58 units and we were informed that this was as small as the project could go and still be viable. Our community believed this project was unacceptable. Professional appraisals showed that a project that placed units this close (23 ft.) to existing residents bordering the property would result in about a $40,000 to $50,000 loss in property value for them. In addition, their lots are 10 ft. shorter than standard because they supposedly border onto a park. Apparently, bordering onto a park is a more attractive feature than having two-story housing 23 feet from your back fence.

After dozens of letters and 4 Council meetings where most of the local residents showed up to express their displeasure. Council decided on 2 ‘Roundtable Meetings’ where Akinsdale residents could demonstrate what they wanted. Before the Roundtable Meetings, the residents met as a group and formulated their own proposal. It called for 16 to 20 units in a cul-de-sac with good separation from existing properties and the Attwood Park soccer field that bordered the property. It also provided separate backyards for each unit. At the Roundtable Meetings, 16 of the 19 tables presented the cul-de-sac with the 16 to 20 unit configuration. Two tables presented a 12 unit configuration and 1 table, where the majority of its members were from outside of Akinsdale, presented a 28 unit proposal. At the following Council meeting where the results were presented, the 28 unit configuration became the guideline; Councilor Lemieux proposed a maximum of 34 units and the majority of Council accepted his recommendation. The Roundtable Meetings were a complete waste of time. All they did was firmly convince our community that this Council didn’t have any intent of addressing its concerns.


5. Habitat for Humanity

Sometimes a person can get the feeling that they are being conned. The 63 unit proposal was so ridiculous that it was hard to believe that anyone would seriously consider it. When Habitat and Apollo informed us, with great fanfare, that they were now reducing the number of units to 58 and this was a major sacrifice, it was difficult to take them seriously. The current proposal, which is now to be built exclusively by Habitat, is almost the same configuration as the 58 units except slightly more than every third unit is eliminated. The problem is that the duplexes still are only 23 ft. away from the bordering residences and the loss in property value will be the same as with the 58 unit proposal.

Habitat built its reputation on fixing up dilapidated homes and by building homes on vacant lots for people with limited incomes. It was not built on major infills such as this project. This isn’t the only major project of this kind. There is a similar project being undertaken in Bergman, Edmonton. This project also ran into stiff opposition. Similar proposals have been made in the USA and one was recently cancelled due to local opposition.


5. Issues

  • The major problem with any project being built on this property is the cost of providing services (Est. $1,000,000). In order to reduce the size of the project, the City will have to assist in paying for these services. The $840,000 bid by Habitat for this property is ridiculous based on the fact that the land is currently zoned for a church or school. We are told that this bid was provided in a competitive bidding process. It is extremely doubtful that there was a second or third bid for this property. The $840,000 is about double any prior offer that PSSD ever received. Why is PSSD being provided with a windfall when the Province, the City and our community are expected to make major concessions for ‘affordable housing’? By rights, the cost of the property should be reduced to $400,000 or less, (again, PSSD paid $1 for the land). The monies saved could then be used to help pay for services and, thereby, the size of the project could be reduced significantly.

  • Someone has to inform Alfred Nikolai to stop telling people that this is a low-density project. This is totally wrong. His latest proposal requires R3 zoning which is at the high end of medium-density housing

  • Alfred states that this project will have to be paid for though donations from St. Albert’s residents and companies. Habitat will be very fortunate to receive any donations from Akinsdale residents and there are a lot of other St. Albert citizens who are not pleased with how this project was handled. This displeasure will probably have a very negative impact on Habitat’s fund raising efforts. For the 47 unit Bergman project, Edmonton has a population of 15,638 residents per unit. For the 34 unit Akinsdale project, St. Albert has a population of 1,706 residents per unit. Almost 10 times more per resident will have to be provided by St. Albert over Edmonton to pay for this project. This is a very risky undertaking.

  • Alfred states that this project will take years to complete. It should be pointed out that Akinsdale is not a construction site but an established community. This land borders on Attwood Park where our children play. What guarantees can Habitat and the City provide that this project will be completed in a reasonable timeframe, such as 2 years? To set up this land as a construction site for anything longer is a dangerous and unacceptable imposition. What guarantees can be provided that this project will ever be completed at all if the donations are insufficient. Will we end up with a permanent construction site? There has to be adequate guarantees for funding to complete the project before it ever commences and when it does, it has to be finished in a timely manner.

  • The proposal calls for units to be built 23 ft. away from existing properties. Behind these existing properties are drainage ditches that draw water away from the land onto Arlington Drive. The southern ditch also drains runoff from the 2 block long pathway between Arlington Drive and Attwood Park. During the spring runoff and summer storms, these ditches become dangerous for children. Those units backing on to these ditches will have these ditches right at their backdoors. This is very unsafe.

  • A soccer field borders the project on the Attwood Park side. The reason it was built so close to this property is because in 1995 when the land was split, with 2 acres being attached to Atwood Park, this piece of land became a soccer field. It was never believed by Council at that time that a project of this density would ever be approved for this property. A chain link fence is designated to separate the soccer field from the project. This will make the soccer field dangerously unacceptable. Is the soccer field to be sacrificed?

  • The diagram of the project shows trees in the drainage ditches to provide some separation between the projects units and existing homes. Trees cannot be planted in drainage ditches so there won’t be any separation.

  • The project proposes a public walkway through the center of it. Will this be acceptable to the project’s residents and who will be responsible for maintaining it?


7. Summary

This proposal does not meet all the criteria that Council established for the site. Habitat, without the assistance of a private developer, and the total dependence on public donations to undertake and complete this project, will create an unacceptable long-term construction site. It would appear that, under these circumstances, the cul-de-sac that the community proposed would as well. If Council is absolutely committed to providing some level of affordable housing on this site, perhaps the wisest thing to do is scale the project back to 5 duplexes (10 units) right along Arlington. While this will not provide the density that Council had in mind, it has several advantages:

  • Like the Northridge project, it is manageable. It doesn’t place all the eggs in one basket.
  • The cost of providing services for such a project would be significantly less than either Habitat’s proposal or the cul-de-sac
  • It is of a size that will require significantly less in donations and can be completed by Habitat in a reasonable time-frame.
  • It would retain most of the property as a park.
  • The homes bordering the property would not have any units backing on to them and, therefore, their property values would not be impacted.
  • Unlike the current proposal, the Habitat duplexes would have the benefit of full backyards and they too would back on to a park.
  • It would bring closure to a struggle that the community has had to endure for over 30 years.
  • Finally, and most importantly, the Community would endorse the project. I am sure that many Akinsdale residents would even volunteer to help to build it.

Dave Evans
President – Akinsdale Group



Free Online Polls



Some Suggestions For That Birthday Party

Hi Don:
 
In response to your article on the birthday party. One item that has been mentioned in the past is holding the R.C.M.P. Musical Ride with an expenditure being quoted as at $40,000.00.
 
In 1978 I held the position of President of the Jasper Lions Club and we had the opportunity of sponsoring the ride. The responsibility of the club included the providing of space for the horses for a two day period (Brewster Transport made available the bus garage), hay for each stall in the 'stable', as well as the cost of feed.
 
I took the time to check on the computer under the heading R.C.M.P. Musical Ride, and specifically under the heading "Host Information" and it appears nothing has changed regarding the requirements - so I must ask the question, why are they showing a budget for $40,000.00?  The aforementioned responsibilities would be nowhere near that.
 
I would also ask as to where they intend on holding this show, reason being the last portion of the 28 minute show features the 'charge' by all horses and riders. As I have mentioned earlier to a party that the area we held it at was the 'practice green' at Jasper Park Lodge - with the outcome being a chewed up site which did not sit well with the greenskeeper. 
 
I would say in closing that it could quite possibly be taken on by a service club or organization to carry out without too much trouble - and in particular using volunteers.
 
G. Proulx
St. Albert

SINC SAYS:

Well, George, in spite of residents being firmly against this waste of our money, a council wearing blinders is forging full steam ahead.