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
No comments:
Post a Comment