Plan It passed at Council yesterday so we should all be celebrating, right? After all, we’re moving forward and the efforts of everyone who fought so hard to keep the thing alive are to be commended: the hard-working team that crafted the plan, the thousands of citizens who gave their input and spoke up in favour of it and the members of Council who have championed it for months. So why, instead, do many of us feel a sense of betrayal the morning after? It comes down to a crucial amendment that was lobbed into the mix at the eleventh hour.
When yesterday’s agenda finally moved to Plan It, we learned that Alderman Fox-Mellway would be introducing a new amendment on behalf of the Mayor, lowering the bar for intensity thresholds in future greenfield developments. Presumably the City’s Plan It team would have used this density target in their recommendations to Council if they could support it. Likewise the stakeholder advisory committee to Plan It would have endorsed the lower standard but, in fact, some members thought it should be higher. Doesn’t matter, they weren’t consulted on this anyway. Instead the Mayor made a deal with UDI and the CHBA, representatives of the greenfield development industry who didn’t like the number proposed in Plan It. Exactly what transpired and who participated, we don’t know at this point. We do know that, prior to opening deliberations on Plan It, Council met in camera. That’s where a letter was shared by the Mayor. Afterwards, the letter was made part of the public record but its content was not shared with those following the proceedings. And then an amendment was introduced to substantially water down a key intensity threshold for greenfield development. Only three Aldermen – Ceci, Farrell and Pincott - voiced concerns about the lack of transparency and consultation on the amendment and voted against it. It passed, and so, too, did Plan It. Unanimously.
Before the vote on this surprise amendment, the Mayor stated that Council shouldn’t get too hung up on this one number, that the overall plan is strong enough to see us well into the future. Which begs a number of questions: if the number is no big deal, why did UDI and CHBA lobby so forcefully for it? Why the backroom deal to cement it if it really didn’t matter? And why did a number of Alderman who have been opponents of Plan It for months suddenly jump on board when that insignificant number was changed in the document?
History may judge that members of Council held their noses to pass a plan which by no means had unanimous support going into this meeting but those who brokered the deal sacrificed transparency to get it done and did an end run around the stakeholders who represented interests other than those of the greenfield development industry. Does the end justify the means?
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Sorry Cherim, I put this info on a much older post. Here it is again.
Just wanted to let you know about the new website that we’ve launched for citizens in Calgary. http://www.futurecalgary.ca Please feel free to post ideas. Also, here’s a GlobalTV segment in Edmonton talking about it.
http://kl.am/3×7I
Also, if anyone would like a copy of the email sent to all of Calgary’s Alderman just let me know. Thank-you.