|
|
 |
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
EDITORIAL COMMENT - July 26/06 - Annexation Spat Needs Local Fix |
||||||||
|
City Growth Requires Planning and Vision One would have expected some insight, vision, balance and a better understanding of how the situation has developed from the managing editor of a regional newspaper. Instead of coming up with a solution that would create a win-win for the residents and businesses of both the City and the County, he has blatantly taken a narrow and short-sighted position in favour of City administration’s awkward and embarrassing lack of preparation for the current explosive growth and demands the region is experiencing. Although I agree that the City should have a 20-30 year supply of land for industrial development, you really can't blame the County for the City being caught with none. Nor should the City expect to be able to expand indefinitely into prime agricultural land without long-term planning and vision. Not to mention consultation and co-operation with its neighbours. To suggest that the County is preventing the City from growing perpetuates a misconception that can only damage an already fragile relationship between the administrations of both municipalities and the positive relationship between their respective taxpayers. The City's proposal to expand across Highway 2 is a major departure from the Intermunicipal Development Plan and other co-operative planning documents prior to 2004, all of which had treated Highway 2 as a natural boundary. Although the County has indicated a preference that that policy be maintained, it is not cast in stone. In fact, the County recently offered all the land the city would want for the next 50-100 years, including the proposed annexation lands and all of the Burnt Lake area, but the City turned it down, perhaps because it was too big of a chunk of land to swallow or because it didn't include Gasoline Alley. All the County really wants is some long term planning and vision. And perhaps a little respect from the City for the County's need and right to grow and provide opportunity for business and industry. The two municipalities really need to consult with one another as partners rather than adversaries so that everyone benefits from this once-in-a-generation opportunity that world events have thrust upon us. A local solution to intermunicipal disputes is far superior to a provincially-imposed one, no matter what position the province should take. An option to prevent or at least deal with future disputes might be for the two municipalities to create a semi-autonomous 'authority', 'board' or 'commission' (like the old Regional Planning Commission) with appointments not only from each of the municipalities but also from the business and agricultural community. This 'commission' could develop a long-term vision for the area within a 3 to 5 mile radius of the City and plan for the systematic annexation of parcels into the City when needed while maintaining a balance between sustainable growth, land use, infrastructure, agriculture and the environment. Another alternative might be to encourage joint development of lands around the city with tax-sharing and responsibility-sharing between the two municipalities. With some vision, who knows, perhaps the city and the county could demonstrate leadership as it has in the past and develop a model to emulate for other municipalities around the province who are going through similar challenges. A co-operative and locally-made solution will provide the most benefit to all interests well into the future.
Paul Pettypiece |
|||||||
|
|
The
Region |
Communities of the
Region |
News
| Events
|
History
|
Regional Map |
Published
by
AbundanceNet |
||||||
