Thursday, November 1, 2012

Horse Hill Annexation and NEEA

Upon going to City Councils Executive Committee to address the recent document which was put together by a wide range of "Stakeholders" is now being challenged by some the same stakeholders who participated in the creation of it. Fact is they want this $750,000 study redone or sent back for more information requiring nothing but delays and money.

"City- Wide Food and Urban Agriculture Strategy" is a project that many people have dedicated an enormous amount of time to develop. NEEA has heard many comments from other Blogs and media sources who consistently want to discredit the hours of time volunteered to review the insurmountable pile of information and then attempt to come to a conclusion to be a win win for everyone. From comments written in the social media and Blogs that attempt to discredit the outcome or back grounds of the people representing each of the stakeholder groups, Are you truly ever happy?

In the beginning of this project, our Community felt we were being excluded and left behind. Imagine before NEEA was formed, and residents found out there was a Questionnaire being circulated throughout the farmers markets. We initially weren't too concerned but when we investigated the questions being asked of the public, it was clear, land preservation was on the topic. Not City wide, NE Edmonton in particular so we questioned the Horse Hill Community League if they had been advised and offered the electronic copy to circulate throughout our Community? This is where things got interesting because we got the big   "NO".   Further investigating, we found out the Greater Edmonton Alliance (GEA) had, it was on their website with comments prior to filling it out to direct their members to indicate land preservation in NE Edmonton.
We now felt left behind!

For those who direct North East Agricultural Producers (NEAP) and Greater Edmonton Allianace (GEA), this is why NEEA was formed. We as landowners and former supporters of your cause need, to explain why we will not support your cause and let the public you are misinforming understand;
  • We as residents supported the commercial agricultural producers who, while they owned their properties (which consisted of contiguous tracts of prime agricultural and micro-climate claiming soils) we supported them as a Community would so they could continue their farming on their lands. Justt as what is being done in City Council today.
  • Upon completing two agricultural land studies, it became apparent to everyone in the City Planning Department and within the Community, this soil and micro-climate are simply nothing out of the ordinary for the regional area. There too was a third  study (prior to this one) that was never allowed to be reviewed. NEEA has it! NEEA has exhausted the search for this "MICRO-CLIMATE" in NE Edmonton. We have asked our Provincial Government representative to supply the documented study showing the data for our area. "None Existant"                                                                
  • Approximately 2005, prior to the recent Municipal District Plan (MDP), these same commercial agricultural producers requested our assistance again for the most recent MDP process. Now twenty five years since annexation, our Community has gone without many of the same conveniences that our urban residents enjoy, in fact we have seen an enormous amount of development take place in all areas of the City excluding, NE Edmonton. 
  • At the 2005 meeting , the Community questioned the commercial agricultural producers about land sales as many residents had only heard the rumors. Much of their land (contiguous tracts of prime agricultural and micro-climate claiming soils) had been been sold by them to a new owner. Not to their  families in the commercial agricultural producing business but to investment companies willing to pay far more per acre than any farming Community. As the new owners were not in attendance, our Community refused to represent their interests as we had no idea what they were. The Community was astonished these commercial agricultural producers were more than willing to impose constraints upon property they no longer owned? Never the less trying to get the Community to support them? Without the investment company in attendance, we refused to support them any longer. How far were these commercial agricultural producers willing to go?
  • While attending the most recent MDP process, our Community was handed the blindsiding of our existence! A food and agriculture strategy for the city wide before any MDP's can go ahead and for us as a Community, yet again another land study! Who was leading this charge? GEA and ?...our NE Commercial Agricultural Producers (neighbors)? These members of our Community have turned their backs and treated us with the same respect they showed for the purchasers of their (contiguous tracts of prime agricultural and micro-climate claiming soils) land! The same Community who has supported them since annexation! We as a Community are now hugely stunned, how long had they been organizing. No consideration or concern for those they call, neighbors. Apparently they have a new Community and we are expendable. This is not how an agricultural community, treats one another!
  • NEEA is formed. The residents of this Community feel betrayed, let down by the commercial agricultural producers (our neighbors) and GEA. Upon realizing money is the ultimate reasoning to their approach we can't help but suspect GEA and their supporters are being played as we had. These producers had used us until we realized their intent, they easily replaced our Community with GEA's and kept us in the shadows of their intent on this food and agriculture initiative. Ill prepared going into the MDP and what was going to be pressed upon us yet again! Imagine how we felt when we found out recently our producers have been working with GEA since 2006. Notice the events from 2005 and then in 2006, they wasted no time!
  • January 2012 - An Advisory Committee is formed to detail and design the "City Wide Food and Urban Agriculture Study." Today this is what is being debated in City Council.
  •  Executive Council meeting Oct 26/2012 in City Council Chambers. Interesting day to say the least as we were to witness,
Comments like; 
  1. "Why should the Developers be involved when its about saving land for food security?"              
  2.  They were very clear in their messages to those who attended, "this is the common good for the citizens" without so much as inviting one member of our community to a meeting so the common could hear how this would affect you. NEEA too was excluded in participating in the Advisory Committee, that left the Community League President and these food people to speak on the rights of our Community's land owners, properties?  GEA, Local Foods and NEAP stakeholders were involved.
  3. "Property rights carry little right to zoning" as said by a Local Foods representative. "No compensation has to be given for their zoning rights. The Federal government has done it in the past."
  4. Our members in the audience clearly heard, "NEEA was invited to these meetings" which is a false statement. They are the ones who could not meet at least three meeting dates that were attempted by NEEA. Whether we were invited (NEEA) or not, How many residents in the area received a flyer inviting you personally to a house or Church meeting hosted by GEA , NEAP or the Local Foods Team? They held at least forty five of them in Urban Edmonton. 
That tells us they know our Community does NOT support NEAP or having a group who is unseen or heard from representing OUR interests.
Had they approached us with everyone's interests in hand, we would be standing there with them.

This is what we will support, since annexation (1981) we as residents of OUR Community have lived by as the commercial agricultural producers, the same conditions that were presented to us word for word by the                     City of Edmonton;

Not withstanding the City's belief in, and support of, the principle advocating the preservation of the Province's agricultural land base, the City must view the matter of agricultural land management from an urban perspective. That perspective centres on the following assumptions;
  • agricultural lands within the corporate limits of the City of Edmonton will ultimately be developed for urban use;
  • urban development represents the highest and best use for all incorporated lands;
  • urban centres constitute the most efficient and economical opportunities to accommodate the Province's population and industrial growth and;
  • ultimately, urban development represents a legitimate use of all incorporated lands, irrespective of soil productivity considerations.

The City of Edmonton Planning also stated;

"Agriculture zoning for the urban growth areas (UGA) will be an interim use until the land is required for urban development."

This was to prevent fragmentation of the land and prevent "Leap Frogging" something GEA has stated they support to stop the development of this ag land? That means allowing the Municipalities to grow and not Edmonton?


Regardless of your position, our Community as the NEAP organizers have been living with the same understanding for thirty two years. TOPSOIL was their name prior to 2006, unfortunately they wore out their welcome as explained earlier. The same arguments and attempts for justification then, as today, only now they own little of what they have suggested for GEA to represent in their vision.

We as a Community have a hard time believing the Community in Edmonton will support these individuals, once they hear the facts behind what NEAP is.

Conclusion;

There are people out there that want to argue and discredit this fabulous Horse Hill Community and it's resident owners. For those people, we will give you every opportunity to hear us and get involved, should you have the perspective our history, property rights and voices be eliminated from any discussion; We as a Community will challenge your perspective.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

November 23, 2009 Post MDP


In providing information to our members and the public to inform them of how we got to where we are, NEEA is committed to providing facts to support all the claims made by our organization.We will provide new information each day until the Non-Statutory meeting in City Council Oct 26/ 2012. This we hope will bring the facts to the table and supply information to those seeking the truth.

This article was found in "Just Food Edmonton's Blog" published November 23/2009. This particular "win" for GEA at City Council came with information and direction from residents within our Community (Horse Hill) who have alot of knowledge and participation in the previous two (1983 and 1997) NE Land Management Studies which clearly stated that NE Edmonton would be staged as agriculture until it was required for urban growth.

From our Communities perspective, we call their win a "blind siding" of the Community. GEA started this campaign in 2008! Who did they campaign? The same Community who has been very patient and accepting to our agricultural producers had just been duped going into City Council. Not one meeting to involve the Community residents by GEA or North East Agricultural Producers (NEAP) to simply let the Horse Hill Community League know what was about to be proposed. Leaving the Horse Hill Community uninformed!

Notice too;
                  "Motions were passed to ensure that mechanisms and strategies to preserve farmland within in Edmonton will be in place before any land can be planned, rezoned or developed."

How about we help? Ownership, Edmonton Area Land Trust to name a couple easy ones.
Their initiative was clearly expressed in the previous read.

This is one of the many reasons the North East Edmonton Alliance (NEEA) was created... to inform, bring facts, reasoning and representation for those who have another voice for our Community.

The Resident Stakeholders, NEEA Members


Protecting Edmonton’s Food Security

The Greater Edmonton Alliance had a great day at city hall yesterday, winning key votes on their year long campaign to preserve farm land and integrate a local food system into any future plans for development.
Motions were passed to ensure that mechanisms and strategies to preserve farmland within in Edmonton will be in place before any land can be planned, rezoned or developed.

This was GEA’s primary task from the beginning of the “This Land is our Land” Campaign launched in September of 2008. More than a year later it is now moving forward in the final version of the MDP to be voted on in February.
The biggest win came on the following motion:
2.2.1.7- Preparation of Area Structure Plans is authorized for the Northeast, Southeast, Southwest Urban Growth Areas and shall only be approved following council acceptance of, and adherence with the:
- Growth Coordination Strategy
- Integrated Infrastructure Plan: and
- City Wide Food and Agriculture Strategy

An amendment to delete the City Wide Food and Agriculture Strategy was made by Ward 3 Councilor Tony Caterina. This amendment was defeated in a 7-6 nail-biter.
Those councilors who voted for keeping the City Wide Food and Agriculture Strategy tied to the motion and any future planning and development were: Karen Lebovici, Ron Hayter, Don Iveson, Dave Theile, Ben Henderson, Kim Krushell, Linda Sloan.

Those who voted to remove the City Wide Food and Agriculture strategy from the motion were: Mayor Mandel, Tony Caterina, Ed Gibbons, Jane Batty, Bryan Anderson and Amarjeet Sohi.
The GEA extends their thanks to all of who helped out with the campaign.
This is a huge step forward for food security in Edmonton.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues Response


       President of the Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues
   Response to the City Wide Food and Urban Agriculture Strategy


From David Dodge's blog    http://efcldistrictb.blogspot.ca/


#5  Food And Agricultural Strategy Needs More Meat On The Bones


The EFCL has decided to ask the city to do more work on the Food and Agricultural Strategy before adopting the draft document as city policy.


While liking many of the ideas presented in the policy, such as the promotion of food hubs, farmer’s markets and community gardens, the EFCL couldn't determine from the document who was going to undertake any of the projects, how they would do them or where they would get the resources. 

The EFCL also didn't see any commitment to protecting any of the city’s prime agricultural land, which is a key ingredient to providing locally-grown food.

Without additional direction the federation is concerned that the draft policy won’t accomplish much of anything.


The following is the response to Mr. Dodge from NEEA, please feel free to comment on his blog or send him an email if you should choose, email  
                                      David Dodge districtb@efcl.org <districtb@efcl.org>
                                           
                                                      Ask him to consider NEEA 's position. 


Hi David,

North East Edmonton Alliance (NEEA) is a group of landowners in NE Edmonton representing the majority of landowners in NE Edmonton – better known as “Horse Hill” or the North East Urban Growth Area (UGA).

Of the 3,887 hectares acres under discussion in the NE UGA, 26% is within the River Valley Alliance jurisdiction and a further 8.8% is already in use for recreation areas, power lines & telecommunication sites, and the Alberta Hospital Edmonton leaving approximately 2,530 hectares for development and amenities including parks, schools, roads and other ancillary uses, those who wish to continue farming into the future own approximately 200 hectares – the remainder is owned by an assortment of developers and other private landowners.

Since annexation in 1981, it was made very clear to the residents that until it was required for urban development, it would be staged as agriculture. For the residents and area agricultural producers this was fine. However, leapfrog development and uses not compatible with the agricultural nature of the area have increased significantly. This, over the past several years and for the past two MDP debates, led to the Horse Hill Community League requesting that Council proceed with an Area Structure Plan so that these sorts of developments could be curtailed and rezoning where it was required and consistent with the ASP could proceed.  For instance there is a major cemetery developed in the area that is currently zoned agricultural.  This should be corrected.

From our perspective, these individuals who wish to continue farming should prove their intent by donating and preserving in perpetuity their lands as agriculture through the Edmonton Area Land Trust; an organization who I believe Mr. Bolstad was instrumental in implementing while he represented TOPSOIL and Legacy Lands Conservation Society. Both these organizations are well known within our community for past land preservation tactics in Horse Hill (NE Edmonton). NEEA suspects this will NOT occur as past suggestions to this effect have not been heeded. There would have been ways to save this land if that was truly important to this group through any number of avenues including cooperative ownership as they, their friends and relatives sold land to developers.

Soil tests have been taken and there have been two previous studies by the City of Edmonton. This strategy does not show results different form the past two. We are not surprised by the latest study results, but we are surprised how suddenly everyone seems to claim the soil inside Edmonton is better than anything around Edmonton.

The study has proven 733,000 ha of #1, 2 and 3 soil makes up the Edmonton capital region. Fact is much of the information gathered for this study came from those past land studies.

NEEA is of the opinion that although we as an organization will support the study, we cannot understand whom, the Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues is representing here?
Where did EFCL gather their information? NEEA is concerned with the implication and direction that may come from your comments. Have you ever had a discussion with the Horse Hill Community League? Has EFCL held a local open house for feedback?  How informed are you and your executive on agriculture in the City? Many of our members are farmers or past producers who are very informed and would provide a much different perspective if you are interested in the other side of the story.

During the past 32 years a group of agricultural producers have wanted to create an agricultural zone.  These same producers at one point owned much of the land that is being sought out which is over and above the land currently owned by them. Instead of preserving this "prime agricultural land" through ownership they decided to sell it but not for agricultural value instead to the development industry knowing very clearly who was purchasing the land. Six farmers... 2- market and greenhouse commercial producers, 2-tree and shrub nurseries, 1- berry producer and an international commercial seed potato producer who harvests and stores very little in Edmonton boundaries.

The Horse Hill Community League was blindsided at the MDP when the Greater Edmonton Alliance along with these six agricultural producers made a presentation to City Council to involve this City Wide Food and Agriculture Strategy to the remaining UGA’s.  The main aim of this Strategy seemed to be solely focused on “saving” agricultural land in the NE rather than developing a comprehensive food strategy for the City. Publicly even now all discussion is focused on the NE. How does this translate into a “food movement” or a food strategy as to a City wide aspect?

This issue has divided the community for years. We have dealt for the past two years now with the implications that these groups presented at City Council. The numerous meetings, lack of representation to the stakeholder meetings, incorrect addresses to which questionnaires and surveys were sent or never received are issues the league has tried to address as it tries to ensure that all residents all heard on this issue.  We support the representative from the Horse Hill Community League in her efforts in this regard.

As the past president of this community, I am suggesting the EFCL become more involved educating themselves from affected individuals from all sides prior to developing an opinion that can or will create long reaching consequences. As an example, during my Community Presidency, the Top of Bank Policy was supported by the EFCL. Consequences to privately owned properties were not fully explored, as the landowners were not consulted. Are you completely aware of the restrictions and constraints this has created with the EFCL's support? My property is one of them, when I questioned EFCL; I was never given a reply. NEEA would like you to reconsider your statement until you consult with a broader range of stakeholders including the affected Communities and their respective leagues.

Please feel free to contact us or visit our blog     northeastedmontonalliance.blogspot.ca

Sincerely;

Todd Molineaux
NEEA Representative

Monday, October 15, 2012


Important Information Regarding
YOUR Property!

Edmonton City Hall is holding a meeting on October 26 regarding the Food and Agricultural Strategy that is being proposed. We NEED you to commit to attend so our voices are heard.

This Strategy GREATLY affects Land and Property in Northeast Edmonton.

NEEA (North East Edmonton Alliance) is holding a discussion on Friday Oct 19 from 6-7PM Sharp at Evergreen Community League to organize for the October 26 Meeting. We will have more information available for you there.

Plan to attend both meetings-Your property may be significantly affected if we are not willing to stand up for our rights.
For more info Email or call: Gerald or Ingrid Sieben 780-818-6496, Sharon Stepanick 780-818-6267 or Todd or Brenda Molineaux 780-278-8475

Sunday, September 16, 2012

Does a Micro Climate exist in Horse Hill?


   In the discussion about the Horse Hill ASP, there have been claims made about the one-of-a-kind soil, and the existence of a micro climate. For reference, Webster’s dictionary defines a microclimate as:  “the essentially uniform local climate of a usually small site or habitat”.

   I don’t think anyone would suggest this is bad farm land; it certainly isn’t. Just as in other parts of our province, there is some really good soil; and some soil that isn’t as good.

   As you can see on the Government of Alberta’s website this highly productive soil surrounds Edmonton, and stretches throughout the centre of the province. It is called Black Chernozemic soils, and according to Alberta Agriculture & Rural Development: “These soils are associated with grassland areas with the most available moisture and cooler temperatures. These soils are characterized by the presence of a black surface horizon that is 12 to 20 cm thick with organic matter generally in the range of 6 to 10 percent. These are highly productive soils that are used to grow a wide variety of agricultural crops.





   The map below, also from Alberta Agriculture, shows frost-free days throughout the province. The more days above freezing, the longer the growing season:





   As you can see, there is a pocket around Edmonton that has more days with temperatures about freezing than other areas (more than 125 days). There is also a pocket east of Red Deer, and a very large region around Medicine Hat. There are many large areas in the province that have slightly less frost-free days, with 115-125 days. Most of the region with the black Chernozemic soils falls into this category. Also many farmers have fields that are earlier than others because of a south facing slope or windbreaks that provide protection.

   So while there is certainly good soil here, and a few days a year extra above freezing, it is at the very least a stretch to suggest this is the “best land in Canada” or a far superior micro-climate with a much longer growing season.  

   To say that this land is so unique that no other like can be found anywhere makes for good sound bites but it just isn’t true.

   Learn the facts; 

   Join NEEA. Send an email to NEEAandfriends@gmail.com.

Sunday, September 2, 2012

What is Urban Agriculture?



While there are community gardens throughout the city, this is something different and a very unique vision. It hasn’t been done in Edmonton before; it has never been part of the discussion in an ASP before. Where urban agriculture is concerned, here’s what the current plan proposes:
·         Retain all land currently being used by major vegetable producers as agriculture. That’s about 184 ha for private agriculture uses
·         Designate another 11 ha along the utility corridors and rail rights of way as agriculture
·         Designate some of the City’s land (10% of the total plan area, usually used for schools and parks) for community gardens. This could amount to another 8 to 15 ha
Previous ASPs in Edmonton didn’t designate any land for agriculture. What is proposed amounts to more than 200ha. That means it is being proposed to set aside more land for agricultural use than what is currently being used for intensive food production purposes such as fruit and vegetables.
That’s an important distinction to make. The ASP suggests that once this land is developed and full of vibrant communities, there would be more land for intensive food production than what is being used for that purpose today!
Despite this, there are still suggestions that this isn’t enough; that a 600 ha parcel of land needs to be set aside. Not only does this disregard landowner’s rights (see previous post), it doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Who would buy this land? Who would use it? Would Edmonton rate payers foot the bill just in case enough people want to plant a garden? No viable options have been suggested. No demand for this much agricultural land has been presented. No qualified buyer has come forward looking to purchase this land.
The current plan sets aside more land for agricultural use than what the current demand for it appears to be. It is a balance of landowner’s rights, the City’s growth needs, and requests of community groups. The current ASP is fair, it makes sense, and it has NEEA’s support.
We encourage you to get involved and let your City Councillor know that you support the current ASP.
Join NEEA. Send an email to NEEAandfriends@gmail.com

Monday, August 27, 2012

The Facts of the Horse Hill ASP

      
While everyone is entitled to their own opinion and views on what makes a great ASP, spreading misinformation to support a particular position is not. Throughout this ASP process, a lot of incorrect information has been spread.

NEEA believes it is critical for anyone following this to know what the facts are. To that end, we present the straight facts on this ASP:

·         This is not being rushed. The land was annexed for this purpose 30 years ago. It was identified as one of three Priority Growth Areas, and as an Urban Growth Area by the City in 2010 as part of the Municipal Development Plan
·         This land has been urban land, part of the City of Edmonton, for 30 years
·         No one was ever forced to sell, nor will they be forced to sell
·         There are no farms to be saved. No land being used for agricultural purposed by major vegetable producers is at risk. It is all retained in the proposed plan as agriculture
·         The plan proposes more than 200 hectares of land for agriculture. No ASP in Edmonton has ever marked any land as agriculture before
·         This ASP is the first in Edmonton’s history to incorporate urban agriculture as a major focus of the plan
·         This ASP followed a unique process, with a significant amount more input from community groups and the public. This flow chart illustrates what the typical process looks like, and what has happened with this ASP: http://planhorsehill.harmonyapp.com/assets/4e9f80c0dabe9d276d007daf/ne_riverview_flowchart_process_21march2011_final1.pdf
·         Landowners, residents, community groups and environmental groups have all had numerous and equal opportunities to contribute to the design of the plan. In addition to public open houses, the Stakeholder Advisory Group played a major role in developing this ASP. Have a look at the membership list: http://planhorsehill.com/assets/4e9dffe9dabe9d6a2300d444/ne_sag_terms_of_reference_23august20111.pdf
·         Edmonton’s food security is not at risk. The proposed plan actually sets aside more land for agricultural purposes than what is currently being used to grow produce. The region is also an exporter of food; and farmer’s markets are supplied by producers throughout the Capital Region and beyond, not just farm in Horse Hill.

Join NEEA. Send an email to NEEAandfriends@gmail.com

Sunday, August 26, 2012

A Word on Property Rights

Majority of NEEA members are property owners within this area, others, are long-time area residents. For some of us, this land has been in our family for generations. Property rights seem to be more top of mind in rural areas compared to urban areas. Perhaps it is because rural property owners tend to own a lot more land than the average home owner in the city. More importantly, it is probably because many rural land owners depend on using their land to earn a living.

One major difference between the plan area and other areas where individuals rely on their land to earn a living, is that this is urban land. It may appear rural, but it has been part of the City of Edmonton, pegged for eventual development and urban land for 30 years.

NEEA believes property rights are important, and that all landowner’s rights should be respected, regardless of rural or urban. However, I am sure we can all agree land use varies greatly between rural and urban, as do broadly accepted expectations of what can and can’t happen on that land.

Throughout the history of this plan area, property rights have been respected. When the land was annexed 30 years ago, no one was forced to sell their land. Recognizing the inevitable development signalled by the annexation, some landowners chose to sell; others chose to consider new ways to do business.
Now, 30 years after the first step towards development, NEEA believes property rights are still being respected. Landowners and residents have had tremendous opportunities to be involved in the planning process, through public open houses and the Stakeholder Advisory Group, as have other community groups who do not own land.

Because some land owners rely on their land to earn a living, some growing vegetables, their property rights are respected, and these uses are reflected in the plan for the area. All land currently being used by major vegetable producers to grow produce are retained in the draft plan as agricultural use. No land being used to grow vegetables by major producers are marked to be turned into houses or condos or shopping centres. It is protected in the proposed plan for this purpose.

This was done because this is what these landowners wanted; their property rights are being respected. The proposed plan was designed with this in mind. The draft plan goes even further than respecting property rights in relation to agriculture use. The plan has considered other ways to integrate agriculture into this urban community and create a unique neighbourhood. It proposes designating another 11 hectares along the utility corridors and rail rights of way as agriculture, and using some of the City’s park land for community gardens.

What’s been so disappointing is that while these landowner’s property rights were completely respected, some still suggest ignoring their neighbours’ property rights by essentially sterilizing a large tract of land –600 hectares-- and designating the land for only agriculture use. The rights of landowners who want their land to remain agricultural are being respected. And so too should the rights of landowners who don’t want their land designated as agricultural.

Join NEEA. Send an email to NEEAandfriends@gmail.com

 

Monday, August 20, 2012

A Balanced Vision for NE Edmonton

        A Balanced Vision (the ASP is balanced-what and who has had a say in the draft ASP.)
As many of you know, the ASP process is well underway for land in Edmonton’s north east, also known as Horse Hill. The ASP process involves consulting stakeholders-landowners, residents, community groups, environmental groups, etc. to come up with the best plan for a successful community.

As landowners and residents, many NEEA members have been watching this closely and I personally have been taking part as a member of the Stakeholder Advisory Group. The entire process for planning a new neighbourhood is very detailed and has a number of stages of review and approval. The whole idea is to make sure all stakeholder’s have a say, and a balanced plan is put forward in the end; something that is a reasonable and a fair reflection of all what everyone envisions-the City, residents, landowners, community groups, utility companies, environmental groups, etc. Here is a list of those involved in this Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG):http://planhorsehill.com/overview/public-consultation/
In addition, several public meetings have also been held.

There have been discussions and claims from a couple of groups that this ASP does not provide enough land for agriculture. Each ASP must provide 10% of subdivided lands to the City for parks and schools. This draft ASP does that. It also retains about 184 hectares of land for private agriculture use, and another 11 hectares along the transmission right of way. In addition, it proposed some of the City’s park land be used for community gardens, which could mean another 8 to 15 hectares of cultivated land.
That adds up to more than 200 hectares of agriculture land. So how does this compare with other ASPs? Historically, most ASPs designate no land for permanent agriculture uses.
It is also being implied that existing vegetable farms will be lost-either forced to sell or paved over. This is simply, unequivocally not true. No one is, or ever was, forced to sell their land.  During all the planning and meetings that I have been involved in, this has never been suggested by anyone.  Furthermore, all land currently being used by major vegetable producers will remain designated for permanent agricultural uses unless those landowners want a change.
A balanced approach, taking into consideration many viewpoints, opinions and desires to reach consensus takes compromise and accommodation by all parties involved. Despite the significant commitment to agriculture land use in the ASP, groups like GEA refuse to take part in any sort of consensus building or working together. They continue to state they want to see one single tract of 600 hectares permanently set aside for agriculture uses only, and have yet to consider any other possibilities or options.
         This is not how a community works together, or finds a balanced       
         approach to anything; we must be willing to have discussions and 
         consider balanced options, as all other members of the SAG have.     
         Rights and desires of landowners must be respected while working    
         together with other community members to build a plan for a  
         residential community that incorporates urban agriculture.

         Respectfully;
         Todd Molineaux
         NEEAandFriends@gmail.com         

Friday, August 10, 2012

Edmonton’s Growth and demand for new communities in NE Edmonton

     Edmonton’s Growth and demand for new communities
   (why we need this to be developed)
 From 2006 to 2011, 82,000 more people called Edmonton home. The city is growing, and so is the demand for new neighbourhoods. Edmonton’s north east, or Horse Hill, is one area that will eventually be home to new neighbourhoods. The ASP (Area Structure Plan) is being developed to decide what these new neighbourhoods will eventually look like.
Developing this land into new communities isn’t a new idea, or a plan hatched overnight. This land was annexed into the City of Edmonton in 1982 for exactly that purpose, and growing this area has been a focus for the city. It is next to what will be a new industrial park called the Edmonton Energy and Technology Park. According to the City of Edmonton: Comprehensive studies have made the case for developing an industrial cluster in the area known locally as Horse Hill. Such a development would take advantage of the significant economic opportunities available to Edmonton and the surrounding region from the oil sand developments in the north.
The City of Edmonton, along with its partners in Alberta's Industrial Heartland, recognize the huge potential for refining the by-products that are left over from oil sand production (known as residual feedstocks) into consumer and industrial products.” http://www.edmonton.ca/business_economy/edmonton-energy-and-technology-park.aspx
Edmonton Energy and Technology Park is expected to employ about 84,000 people. This is on top of the 6,000 people working in the nearby Alberta’s Industrial Heartland. Many of these people will want to live near their work, and proximity to neighbourhoods offering schools, shopping, transit, etc. will not only attract residents, but also employers. Companies will be more willing to set up a shop in an area that is somewhere its employees will be happy to live-and proximity to a vibrant, well-serviced neighbourhood will be an attractive selling point.
If Edmonton doesn’t make space available, you can bet neighbouring municipalities will develop neighbourhoods and welcome them with open arms. Not only will Edmonton miss out on this opportunity, it just doesn’t make sense to develop a business park for the city and then not develop neighbourhoods for the families it will attract.
Many of us have lived here all of our life, in some cases for generations. The annexation in 1982 impacted many families’ and business’ decisions, as it was evident this would one day be developed. Some landowners chose to cash in and sell to developers years and years ago. It would be very hypocritical for those same people to now oppose the plan, but in some cases that is what is happening.
As residents and landowners, NEEA supports the vision of the ASP and plans to develop this land. We are committed to staying involved in this process to make sure a balanced plan is created, that fairly reflects the needs of the City, and rights of property owners.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

What are your Property Rights and who is challenging them?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK8uT9B-ZYQ&feature=player_embedded

Property Rights in Canada. Some interesting highlighted points of view!
Most interesting is in all the Stakeholder meetings hosted by the City of Edmonton and HB Lanarc which our representatives attended, Toronto is to have one of the most comprehensive Food and Ag innitiatives as reported by them and others. NEEA is questioning this fact after listening to the second speaker talk about what happens when others who have nothing to loose but the landowner.