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

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

 

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         

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.