The Important Role of Surplus School Sites
First Place Program showhomes at Caenarvon
Since late August and the release of the City’s census numbers, there has been a great deal of discussion around the fact that Edmonton is experiencing significant growth (here are reports discussing growth pressures from Aug 19 Executive Committee), and that many different approaches are needed in order to accommodate all the new citizens that are coming to our booming city. One of these approaches is Infill, a topic I have written about previously here. Last night, my Council colleague Amarjeet Sohi and I attended a public meeting in the Larkspur community to discuss the advancement of another approach: Surplus School Sites.
Thanks to demographic and density shifts in our neighbourhoods (as once again shown in the recent municipal census data), we need to be creative with how we revitalize mature communities (where our population is dropping) and encourage a better balance of growth between the perimeter and the core of our city. Dispersing this growth and allowing more of it to occur in our mature neighbourhoods allows the city to make better use of existing infrastructure, which increases the city’s fiscal efficiency and performance. By accommodating more people within the city’s established footprint, infill also reduces the overall financial, environmental, and social impacts of growth.
Within this recent period of economic prosperity, we have seen a significant rise in housing prices. In fact, the average cost of a single family detached house in Edmonton is currently $435,584. This has meant that many young working people starting out, who previously might have been able to afford the purchase of a new home, have been priced out of the homebuying market. More are forced to remain in a tight rental market that is already at an exceptionally low vacancy level, or potentially begin to look at other regional or suburban markets where first homes are more affordable.
To help accommodate more of these homebuyers, and add them them to our infrastructure-rich established neighbourhoods, Surplus School Sites are being used to diversify our housing mix. The First Place Program builds on these sites, providing market-priced housing that is more affordable thanks to the deferred payment of upfront land costs. In order to ensure this program targets people who need it, there is a household income cap of $117K a year. First Place unlocks the housing market for these young working families who otherwise might not be able to purchase in Edmonton.
First Place Program homebuyers at Casselman
The City has launched a clear and comprehensive communication plan to ensure that residents who live, or are perhaps looking to live, around these Surplus School Sites are well aware of their development potential. This wasn’t always the case, especially with some of the early sites, but this Council is working to improve transparency around these sites. Today, for example, the City is talking to realtors to ensure they understand the approved land uses and are able to fully inform prospective future buyers who are looking to move near these sites. For those already living in the community, new signage is being placed at site locations and community members are being provided information and asked for feedback earlier in the process to improve engagement. For those sites that are currently in the planning and design stages, members of the community are being actively involved in the design of the development to make sure that these new buildings fit with the character of the neighbourhood.
Change in our neighbourhoods can be very challenging, and often the first reaction is resistance. I understand this. But to make sure that our City and our neighbourhoods can be as productive, livable, and inclusive as possible, we can’t let our fear guide us. While our city’s shape and form may change, my hope is that Edmonton’s welcoming spirit will remain intact. Surplus School Sites offer us the chance to let our city’s character shine through.
Interior of the First Place Program showhome at Caenarvon
I am in strong opposition to anything being built on our surplus school site in River Ridge. When we moved in 31 years ago, the area was zoned as single family ONLY. That is why we chose our lot over others in different neighborhoods as this factor was important to us. Now you are prepared to take that away from families in our area? We bought in SW and continued to pay the elevated taxes to ensure that the neighborhood was conducive to our needs. The green space in River Ridge is already far less than other new areas, we do not have the walking paths or pond areas to access. This site is our only chance for outdoor activities. Any day you go by you will see kids, parents, dogs all enjoying the space with various activities. If and I say IF this site is slated for some sort of building, it should be with the communities approval! First home owners as we have seen in the past usually end up to become a slum area as the buildings and yards are not kept up. This decreases our property value significantly. Why not put these projects into new areas being built ( there are many) where people know going in when they purchase a home that this will be a multi family housing area. Do not spring this on a developed area where people have had faith in the city to live up to their promises. I feel you can not re create a new criteria in these areas where people have purchased very high priced homes with the understanding that it would remain single family housing. Please do as you promised in your campaign and listen to your citizens. I voted for you in hopes that you would make a difference in this area. Don’t disappoint me please! I look forward to your response.
We live next to Henderson Park, one of the sites selected for redevelop of the designated school site. Yes – there are people that are unfortunate and can’t immediately own a single family dwelling or condo. Believe me if they so desired they could do so. My wife and I lived in basement suites for 10 years while I obtained a professional degree and still managed to purchase a modest home. So I don’t buy into the mayor’s comments. Where there is a will there is a way. We had our current home custom built in River Ridge in 1991, we are both retired now and this was to be our retirement home next to a park or as we anticipated at the time a possible school. We were comfortable with that. Now it is proposed to infill with a much lessor quality living accommodations, which will have many negative effects: namely increased traffic (area is now also designated with no parking on one side of street for the period Nov 1 to March 15),loss of green space which is limited in the surrounding area as well as devaluation of surrounding property values. If and when the project proceeds we will be selling, we assume at less than market price, as the as the area will no longer hold what we envisioned for our retirement. Another vote lost !
Our family lives in Haddow. As you are well aware, our park was rezoned with NO public consultation. The City of Edmonton’s own policy, C513, states that if a decision directly affects citizens they should have a right to be involved. How is rezoning agricultural land (AG) to CS4, behind closed doors, having citizens involved? It is a slap in the face when the only involvement is having residents pick the colour of siding or landscaping. Is that what our democratic rights have come to? Our neighbourhood is a young and extremely active one. We have over 900 children bussed or driven out of our neighbourhood to school each weekday. My 8 year old son spends just over two hours on the bus each day and next year my 6 year old will as well. It is completely ridiculous that you are adding many more families to the neighbourhood through FPP just to have their kids bussed out to schools as well. We need a school much more than we need medium density housing. We already have more medium density housing than green space. We did our own “public engagement” by conducting an online survey. Residents of Haddow would like a school, a community centre, a hockey rink, etc. in the heart of their community, Haddow Park, not more medium density housing. Each community should be assessed individually. These days we are trying to get kids off electronics and outside to be active, but yet you are taking away greenspace, which is used by over 2000 kids for soccer and several other activities. It doesn’t make sense. In your article you mentioned having more growth occurring in mature neighbourhoods, “Dispersing this growth and allowing more of it to occur in our mature neighbourhoods allows the city to make better use of existing infrastructure, which increases the city’s fiscal efficiency and performance.” Page A4 of the city’s Residential Infill Guideline Manual shows that Haddow is NOT considered a mature neighbourhood. In June, we invited you to come out to the park, talk to the neighbourhood kids, and see the high level of activity in our park. You declined. Our city councillor, Bryan Anderson, left a message on our voice mail stating that it was “senseless to try and fight a fight you know you can’t win”. It is so clear that City Council has a definite agenda and is going to push it through no matter how the residents feel or what the effects are on communities. I am extremely disappointed by this and feel as though our rights have been dismissed. You have the power to overturn the decisions that have been made and restore some sense of democracy and faith in our city council.
Don Iveson, and councillors like Michael Walters have it WRONG. You are taking away valuable greenspace in our communities that people need to live. Infilling the only space for soccer fields in in communities like Twin Brooks will permanently take away space for all future generations, and we will never get that space back. The Twin Brooks field in question is next to the GP Nicholson elementary school and YMCA daycare, it is the site of 2 permanent soccer fields where the community soccer program is operated, the site where the GPN running club trains, and where the TimBits soccer program runs in the summer months. With the annexation of lands south to the airport, what is the point of making closer-in communities UNLIVEABLE? Approximately 2500 Twin Brooks residents have signed a change.orgpetition (Don-Iveson-save-our-greenspace) to try and stop this development, but the mayor and city councillors have refused to acknowledge the unfairness of this FPP SSS program. Instead of representing the needs and opinions of their constituents, city councillors are going ahead heavy-handedly developing what little greenspace we have left. Mayor Iveson has said FPP infill development should occur only in mature neighbourhoods, yet Twin Brooks is only 15-20 years old, and the community is filled with school aged children. Where are those children going to play; the parking lot of the FPP townhouses? The mayor, city councillors, and the developer involved in this, Landmark Homes, should be ashamed.
I too am in opposition to all of the developments of the Surplus School sites as proposed. I fully agree that the city needs to address infill and revitalizing mature neighborhoods. However, the area around schools or schools that were never built are the heart of the community. The grounds serve as oasis in the neighborhood. This land should have been given to the communities to serve the community. In Twin Brooks we are losing a soccer field replacing it with an eye sore and sealing off the sight lines from the road. Sticking housing in area zoned for a school is a ridiculous idea in my opinion. The bigger issue however is the process to allow the developments to proceed with little or no public consultation. Grouping all developments together showed no care to the citizens of Edmonton. You allude to the fact that this was a mistake in the earlier developments. You should warn all the other communities that have surplus schools that the City of Edmonton will proceed regardless of how much opposition there may be. For you living in these communities be assured that you will have no say except for maybe picking the color of the shingles or siding.Yourself and City Council are elected to serve the citizens of Edmonton yet council making arbitrary decisions like this without consult and following normal procedures is unbelievable. The amount and level of opposition to these projects is unprecedented in the affected communities yet City Council has basically told citizens we don’t want to talk anymore. Now tax dollars are paying for a plan to reduce the level of opposition through dialog. I suggest that the planned and unplanned projects be put on hold until citizens have been given their legal and constitutional rights to formally have a process in this planning.
Please stay out of our backyards and leave our fields as they are. We do NOT need FPP condos on the only greenspace and recreational area in Twin Brooks. We understand your ambition to hopefully create a denser city but we do not want to be Toronto or New York. Part of the joys of living in Edmonton is/was there is/was room to “stretch your legs”. Sometimes it’s not all about fiscal budget this and that. It’s about quality of life too. Please, you must respect the voices of people in Twin Brooks and other communities when they say they DO NOT want this FPP program to move forward in their respective “backyards”. It is very disrespectful to stroll into our greenspace and take it from us without our consent. Obviously, technically you do not need our consent but really in essence this is OUR greenspace. Twin Brooks is a nice, quiet neighborhood and we love it that way! We do NOT need to make it more “vibrant” and busier! Please do not bring your FPP condos here.
From what I understand the First Place program defers property taxes. If this is correct, then property taxes on this type of housing would be approximately $1500.00 (just over $100/month). If this $1500.00 is the “breaking point” of being able to get into housing or not, then maybe the potential owner should not be purchasing a home until they can comfortably afford the $100/month and purchase from the market like everyone else. As a single middle-class working person, if you can’t afford the $1500/year then your not ready to by a house.
I am a new resident of Twin Brooks. We moved here in August 2013. We picked the place because of the different factors with the major one: green space: beautiful Twin Brooks Park with lots of room to play soccer, have fun with kids, and lots of other outdoor activities. Do not take our park!!!! Build anywhere else!!! Not in the middle of the established neighborhood green park where the residents like to spend leisure time and prescribed physical activities. Do not take our Health from US!!!
I understand the challenges of growing city and I think the discussion about infill is important; and I can even see that some development on “surplus” school sites can be beneficial – if done right and according to the rules. Calgary, with arguably bigger growth in the past ~10 years and much bigger sprawl, has done it right – sites were declared parkland and development was allowed as needed after proper process of assessing the need etc.
The “controversy” is nothing new – see 2006 article http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=7ef1ef92-961d-469f-811c-4a2e70d6e2bc&sponsor=
My biggest “beef” however is with the “First Place program” itself. It doesn’t really follow MGA in terms of what development is supported on school sites declared surplus. Moreover, it’s not affordable housing by any means; with an income of $117k, one can qualify for $464k worth of a house (providing they can produce the required 5% down-payment; this already takes into consideration property tax and modest condo fees and utility cost), according to BMO online calculator. Even with a lot more modest $80k income one can afford $300k of mortgage; and there are currently 1251 listings on MLS alone for properties under $300k (starting at $60k) in Edmonton (all around the city). I’d say that FPP merely allows for slightly upgraded housing, and has nothing to do with allowing people to enter housing market. This is not an appropriate use of tax dollars!
I’d be very curious to see why Edmonton is so special to warrant such a program; Calgary doesn’t have one and to the best of my knowledge, neither does Vancouver or Toronto, where housing situation (pricing level) is arguably worse than ours.
I think that as society, we are to an extent responsible to take care of less fortunate, making sure that people live in safe and decent conditions. Townhouses are way over and above; and I wonder how hard-working people who already live here and have been contributing to Edmonton’s success and just bought a small condo in the past 4-5 years feel about not having the opportunity for this sort of an upgrade…
Mayor Iveson,
The “resistance” is not due to fear, but due to the fact that Citizens’ democratic rights are not being respected. The proposed developments in Haddow and Twin Brooks are opposed by the neighbourhood. The developments will take away park space that is used regularly by all ages.
Over 2500 residents oppose this development Mayor Iveson.
https://www.change.org/p/don-iveson-save-our-greenspace
Moreover, the development was approved by council, without the appropriate public consultation as required by the Municipal Government Act. This is the opposite of transparency!
Lastly, all of the proposed FPP sites are actually located outside of “mature” neighbourhoods. This contradicts the basic premise of sustainable development and “infill”.
Mayor Iveson, please reverse this poor decision and listen to your Citizens.
Dear Mayor Iveson,
My first point is that you changed the deal. Prior to buying our lot in Haddow, we went to our builder’s office to view the layout of what would become our new community. Both the public and separate school sites were shown as ‘Future School Site’ on the area plot plan. That was an important element to our decision to buy. The mantra championed by administration is that a building is a building is a building. A high-density housing development is simply a different type of structure than a school. But a school is the center of a community. It’s a place where kids meet kids and parents meet parents. There are parent-teacher interviews, PTA meetings, fundraisers, elections, athletic events, and concerts that bring parents and children in a community together. The school also offers after-hour venues for meeting rooms and physical fitness. It is the hub of a community. How does a residential complex like First Place contribute to the cohesiveness and health of a neighborhood? Need I remind you who paid for these school sites in the first place?
My second point is that the entire process surrounding the surplus school sites (SSS) has sidelined our democratic rights. Community residents have a right to determine outcomes in their neighborhoods. This has been taken away from us. And here’s the real catch – the 2006 Order-in-Council that removed the MGA requirement for public notice wrt rezoning SSS kept the issue under the radar. Here we are 8 years later and
people are just finding out about what’s happening to their parks and green spaces. Very effective strategy if your intent is to do what you want in spite of the people paying your way.
I am aware of Council’s infill strategy and I believe for some neighborhoods, the First Place Program (FPP) is a good fit. But you folks have painted every neighborhood the same color. This is not right. You still have time to put the brakes on further developments so that we residents have a say. Your argument that ‘it wouldn’t be fair to the neighborhoods who already have FPP’ doesn’t hold water. Businesses that proceed with flawed strategies don’t survive.
I too am disappointed in the way this program has been handled. Without consultation the city has repurposed land that was once designated for schoolyards. These changes are a significant change from the original community plan, and will greatly impact the citizens that live in these communities, to their detriment. The FPP program is also taking away valuable greenspace in our communities that people need to live. Infilling the only space for soccer fields in in communities like Twin Brooks will permanently take away space for all future generations, and we will never get that space back. The Twin Brooks field in question is next to the GP Nicholson elementary school and YMCA daycare, it is the site of 2 permanent soccer fields where the community soccer program is operated, the site where the GPN running club trains, and where the TimBits soccer program runs in the summer months. With the annexation of lands south to the airport, what is the point of densifying suburbs? There are no facilities here for low-income residents as in closer in urban communities. Approximately 2500 Twin Brooks residents have signed a change.org petition (Don-Iveson-save-our-greenspace) to try and stop this development, but the mayor and city councillors appear to not acknowledge the unfairness of this FPP SSS program. Instead of representing the needs and opinions of their constituents, the city is going ahead heavy-handedly developing what little greenspace we have left. The mayor has said FPP infill development should occur only in mature neighbourhoods, yet Twin Brooks, and many other FPP communities, are only 15-20 years old, and the communities are filled with school aged children. I strongly suggest that the program and process be reviewed, and communities that are impacted have a say in whether or not this program is right for their communities.
Mayor Iveson,
Could you please respond to the content of the following documents?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8k6riclzr9flfz0/Signed_Letter_II_w_appendices.pdf?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wjqqx6hl49ip5px/IMG_0003.pdf?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3mmdcu2dmizvuqu/Additional%20information.pdf?dl=0
The documents above detail what is known to be a concerted and coordinated effort instigated by certain industry participants and aided and abetted by ex-Mayor Mandel and council to circumvent both city policies C468 and C513.
Also, does Mr. McCargar or Mayor Iveson have any comment on the interview Mr. McCarger participated in on 630 CHED where he stated that (to paraphrase) “people who bought in the affected areas should have performed due diligence and known that surplus school sites would be developed” despite the fact that C468 forbade such development and that there was no way for homeowners to have done what Mr. McCargar suggests? It would seem that many portions of the interview were excised from the CHED archives, but I’m sure Mr. McCargar will remember his marketing statements.
Still “No”? What’s the problem now?
For every 100 people you think may benefit from the FPP program, you are hurting thousands who already live in these communities by taking away their green space. In this day and age can we afford to discourage people from getting outside and getting some exercise and fresh air? Please do not take away these easily accessible fields/green space. They are important and help to get people out of their houses just because they are so close by and easily accessible.
To those letting Mayor Iveson know that he is losing current votes, I can only ruefully laugh in that his position on this issue was abundantly clear BEFORE the last election on which he evidently won yours. You voted for this.
The May 20, 2014 city council hearing was the last one we will see on the matter, and only twelve people showed up to speak. A filibuster would have had a lot more impact. I suspect it would not have changed the vote. We are being told by Council here that they know best and are doing it in the best interests of the city on a broad basis. Perhaps with respect to our finances they are correct. While no-one in Council will admit it, our city is mired in fiscal ruin. They must religiously increase property taxes by 5% plus per year, (a doubling of our taxes every 14 years) just to maintain the dilapidated status quo.
For those still interested in reversing this, your only option is through the courts. I would gladly take it up, but because we are no longer effected by this issue in my community we have no cause of action. Good luck and keep up the good fight!
This post has generated some comments, and I want to try and address the key points in one response. If you have raised an issue and I have not addressed it here, it’s because City Staff or I have done so already, and the answers can be found on the City’s surplus school sites page at http://www.edmonton.ca/surplusschools.
There are several concerns about the loss of the green space and sports fields in communities where surplus school sites are to be developed. When the combination park/school site area is designed, two factors are considered: open green space for sports fields, and the actual school building site, which was always intended to have a school built on it. While the school site may be used as temporary sports fields, this was never intended to be a permanent use and the remaining planned parkland was designed at the time of the neighbourhood’s original planning to be appropriate for the neighbourhood’s needs. The development of the surplus school sites, whether for seniors’ housing or the First Place Program, will only fill the footprint originally planned for the school site. All the open green space originally intended for park will remain for public recreational use.
Property value is another concern that sometimes arisen. I can appreciate this concern, as a home is likely the most significant investment anyone will make in their lifetime. The City’s Assessment and Taxation branch has reviewed sales data for neighbourhoods where surplus school sites have been developed over the last five years; the data indicates that property value of the properties nearby the surplus school site developments with townhouses do not experience a significantly different value than those with a school being developed on the building site.
In my blog post, I said “we need to be creative with how we revitalize mature communities (where our population is dropping) and encourage a better balance of growth between the perimeter and the core of our city.” I apologize if this created some confusion or expectations that infill development, including the development of surplus school sites, should then only take place in mature neighbourhoods. Mature neighbourhoods are experiencing a significant demographic shift and require some creative forms of development, but all established neighbourhoods have a part to play in infill development. It only makes good fiscal sense to make use of existing, often underutilized infrastructure wherever possible rather than only investing millions of dollars in new neighbourhoods.
I hope this response helps clarify why this program is important and aims to help ALL Edmontonians continue to call our City and its diverse communities home.
Don,
You are playing loose with semantics. What you call “Revitalizing mature communities” is another way of saying “greatly increasing the residential density of neighbourhoods, at the expense of much needed greenspace”. This isn’t being “creative”, this is increasing the cities’ tax base, so the city can generate more revenue. Where you say “encourage a better balance of growth between the perimeter and core of our city”, surely you must understand that not all people want to live downtown, that is what “suburbs” are, lower density areas where there is more space and greenspace for families and children to ride bikes, play soccer, and fly kires, things you can’t easily do in an inner city community. By densifying the suburbs, residents looking for more space, will be forced to move even further out to the perimeter of the city, or right out of the city. Where you say “our city”, it is only our city as long as we have a say in how it run and developed. In this case, it appears we have no ability to convince you that we do not want suburb development without bringing a lawsuit against you and city council. As you are supposed to represent us, the least you could do is consider the wishes of each community to be developed individually, without steamrolling over all communities as one. It is evident that tax revenue and developer profit is your most important concern, not the needs of the city residents. Finally, where you say it is not just mature neighbourhoods (anymore) that should experience additional infill and development, that all communities should experience increased development, because it only makes “fiscal sense”, again, by densifying suburbs to the level of inner city areas, contrarily, you are ensuring that more neighbourhoods will be built further out to accommodate residents that want/need more space. It actually is more logical to infill mature communities and protect the greenspace in the suburbs. Therefore, your plan is illogical, so illogical that I expect that it is driven by other motivations: tax revenue, developer kickbacks, and greed. Where you say “good fiscal sense”, just like the photo radar windfall, what you mean is, generate so much revenue that you can pay for pet expensive projects like a new arena, without unduly raising city taxes. Oh wait, you are doing that too. Your steadfast pursuit of this unpopular and un-green development program makes me question why you are the beautiful City of Edmonton’s mayor.
Don, you mentioned ” the data indicates that property value of the properties nearby the surplus school site developments with townhouses do not experience a “significantly” different value than those with a school being developed on the building site.” The operative word is “significantly”. So what is it? They experience a moderate drop in value? What, $50k loss in value vs. $100k? Like one other poster on this board, I too made due and rented apartments until my wife and I saved enough for a down payment while paying off our student loans. There are a lot more affordable condos and apartments for rent and now with thousands of layoffs happening in the oil sector, there will be a lot more rentals on the market. Well, even without the drop in oil, there are plenty of real estate listings in Edmonton in the $200k range. These condos/townhouses are much better than the apartments that my wife and I rented, while we had kids as well. Anyways, to everyone on this board, short of a lawsuit, this effort is futile. We sold our house in 2007 at the first whiff of this and moved to a different neighbourhood. By the way, Don, I’m not sure if you noticed, but there is a baby boom in Alberta. We need the green space. Yes, its true the green space was initially intended to be built on, but just as you undemocratically decided to build “unaffordable” housing (since these buyers cant afford the property taxes on them), you can easily undemocratically decide to leave it as green space. Because most people cant even afford to put their kids in hockey and instead are putting them in soccer. Another reason why we need the green space. But hey, who am I to argue. Good night. Glad I moved.
While my comment is in reference to the proposed Skyrattler site it has implications for all the remaining sites. I find it interesting that builders are getting heard relative to choices of prime sites and residents are not. We were essentially advised by yourself that either the Skyrattler surplus school site be redeveloped for housing or that another private developer be allowed to rezone and redevelop the Taylor College site. Is this a divide and conquer strategy Don with different residents offered different repugnant choices within the same community? Our little community already has the highest multi-family density of all the areas proposed. This development along with; possible elimination of parking for LRT service at Century Park and the extension of the LRT south which will effectively eliminate one of two access points to our community displays a distinct lack of forward planning for the sake of development.
Who really benefits?? The developer or the residents?? Ask youself, who do you represent? When you attended a meeting regarding surplus school site redevelopment at the Blue Quill community hall a few years ago as our area councillor a straw poll was taken from attendees and no one voted in favour of the redevelopment.
I no longer have any confidence that residents will be heard aside from the placement of a tree or two and the colour of the townhouses.
Last Summer, my family moved from crowed Southside Rutherford to Bulyea Height community because I have three young kids and I hope them to have more play area and less traffic safety concern as in the new residential area. The most important reason is public school capacity in Rutherford is overwhelming and I decided to pay more for lot value in Riverbend area. I am so shocked when I read the relevant information on this program. I am not a politician, but I know what a politician should do for citizens. Listening to different voices and concerns before making a significant decision that impact whole residents in the area and younger generations. I am glad I have vote right and being a proud Canadian. My family will not vote you for next election!
I too am in opposition to all of the developments of the Surplus School sites as proposed.11 Houses will loss value because your Sustainable Team is the lack of imagination and abilities to asset the impact.
The Bearspaw Houses today is unsafe to place for kids and new owners , no protection fences, no construction signs and they are open for a news owners : This is your Government proposal ?
http://www.edmonton.ca/residential_neighbourhoods/neighbourhoods/bearspaw.aspx
The Keheewin Park serve as the oasis in the neighborhood. This land should have been given to the communities to serve the community , the original plan was approved to build a JR. Hight . Actually, our kids need to travel 55 minutes a day to go a JR. High. Our kid’s population is over 900 . Of the City Team provide the lack of information , legally is a misleading information, what kind of integrity is that? Of Course, Kids don’t vote are not valuable for many politicians.
Time to vote is coming and I don’t will forget , I don’t have a political party but I have a political opinion and I will fight again who don’t care our Kids Education , who don’t protect the environment and who don’t respect the neighbors right to take a part of the city planning.
Your decisions and your Counselor like Mr. Walters make me an activist and many other neighbors in YEG. See you soon.
City councils idea of listening to community members is over paying a consultant to talk down to community members during a handful of meetings. Surplus sites or green spaces are busy year round, in addition to being an area for physical and mental exercise, often a place where local residents meet and can feel apart of a community. All this goes away once development occurs, and living in Edmonton become less desirable.
I live across the road from a surplus site and can attest that fields have been dramatically more active in past few years, the neighbourhood is turning over to younger families and in addition to young kids, older ones drive/bike/walk to practice or participant in pick up games. Once surplus sites are developed the green spaces that still exist will be so busy with organized activities such as soccer, flag football etc, there won’t be time or space for the causal/non organized user.
In Ogilvie the housing development will be placed right in the middle of the green space making it an eyesore but also reducing the space to single ball diamond (that backs onto a substation and transmission corridor) and small track of grass rather than 2 soccer fields that lead up to a new playground and busy community hall. Requests to relocate the development south displacing the less desirable ball diamond land have been rejected citing additional costs despite strong community support. Funny how quickly a council with a track record of ever increasing property taxes all of a sudden becomes fiscally responsible to its’ tax payers.
I share similar concerns of the other posters of increased traffic, loss in property value and quality of life. Less and less good place to live in the city.
Don, what you have said above is not true and I request that you please respond to this – as I feel ethically as though this administration is not being forthright. Your exact wording “The development of the surplus school sites, whether for seniors’ housing or the First Place Program, will only fill the footprint originally planned for the school site.” In Twin Brooks, there is not the original surplus as you are stating. That surplus was used up when the city decided to build a child care facility, and pump house, and health care facility on the same site. As well, the public school is larger than was originally planned. That surplus is gone. The city used up the land and is now trying to claim what should rightfully be the community’s green space. The fact that you claim that the same “surplus” still exists is completely untrue.
In fact, Twin Brooks would be well below the standard hectares per resident if you move forward with this development. This is clearly the wrong decision.
I believe in infill when done right. This community has very little recreational greenspace when you compare with most mature (and new) communities in the city. You MUST look at each neighborhood individually. Please do not rush this through. Make the right decision – listen to your residents. Look where it makes most sense for infill. Forget the deals made with developers and do the right thing for your residents – and our children.
Please properly assess traffic safety impacts RIGHT NEXT TO THE SCHOOL, lines of sight (security), and greenspace/community recreation space per resident BEFORE moving forward with these developments. Stop them now and do it right.
Mr. Iveson,
First, you state that “The development of the surplus school sites, whether for seniors’ housing or the First Place Program, will only fill the footprint originally planned for the school site.” Nonsense. The original proposal restricted development to the “building envelope”, a definition that magically morphed to “footprint”.
You also state “the actual school building site, which was always intended to have a school built on it.”
Untrue. City Policy C468, used to read as follows:
POLICY TO GOVERN THE USE OF FUNDS FROM THE SALE OF SURPLUS SCHOOL SITES
3.01 The Parks and Recreation Department will receive residual funds from the Planning and Development Department and track and record by neighbourhood level plan area and larger plan area.
3.03 The Parks and Recreation Department will identify the need for acquisition or development of parkland ( as defined in 1.09) within the local neighbourhood or larger plan area and submit any proposed acquisition or development to Council through the established Capital Priorities Plan Process.
3.04 The Parks and Recreation Department will acquire and develop or direct the development of parkland to minimum levels of service and, based on need, to share levels of service, firstly within the neighbourhood level plan area, secondly to adjacent neighbourhood park sites within the larger plan area, and finally to other neighbourhood or district park sites within the larger plan area. Acquisition and/or development will occur in the following order:
(a) acquisition of parkland;
(b) development of parkland to the minimum level of service;
(c) development of parkland to the shared level of service based on assessed program needs and available community funding.
PRIORITY ORDER FOR THE USE OF SURPLUS SCHOOL SITE FUNDS
Priority 1 – Retire Outstanding Debt
Priority 2 – Acquire Land
Priority 3 – Develop School/Parkland to Minimum Level
Priority 4 – Develop Parkland to Shared Level
I don’t see a Priority that indicates anything about turning surplus school sits into anything but parkland. Public space. I most certainly do not see a Priority that says anything about turning such sites into housing.
Let’s not bring up the alterations to other policies allowing for the abridgement of policies concerning public engagement vis-a-vis rezoning applications. Wouldn’t want to muddy the murky waters.
Has there been any discussion with the communities as to the use of the residual funds obtained through the sale of these surplus school sites, as per C468?
No. Council ran interference for certain developers and a priori moved to bypass standing City Policy, policy that taxpayers paid for.
As usual, the City starts with a proposal that is serially watered down, altered without consultation. As with the NAIT lands the City sells a story, gets some acceptance and then along comes Lucy who pulls the ball.
It’s really quite a disgusting tale. City Directors on 630 Ched telling residents that they “should have known”, despite the fact that the MGA did not permit FP housing when residents purchased their homes. If Council and City Administration put 1/2 as much effort into dealing with residents as they do marketing for developers …
http://www.brookview.ca/FTHBPdoc/Nov%2017%202006%20FOIPd%20meeting.pdf
The Proposal, page 006 basically states that the November 17, 2006 private Council meeting redirected net revenues from the sale of surplus school sites in direct opposition of standing Policy C468.
In-camera meetings to determine how to reallocate net funds away from residents in violation of existing policy?
Seems to me that this sort of governance is not governance at all.