Forum
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
K Van Hoof

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 366
Reply with quote  #1 
Did everyone see the large full-page notice in Saturday's Gazette (page 19) about the upcoming open house on the proposed land-swap and development in Braeside? Yesterday I drove down Sturgeon Road past the site at the park and saw a number of people standing there waving signs reading "save our park", etc. Apparently there were 2 organized walking tours set up by the developer to show the public the site of their proposal. Wonder how those tours went with the protesters there..
I encourage anyone who is interested and has time to please attend Wednesday's meeting at St. Albert United Church on Green Grove Drive. Doors open at 6 and presentation is at 7.
0
Murray Lambert

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 297
Reply with quote  #2 
Ditto for me with regards to K Van Hoof's encouragement for all to attend the public meeting on the proposed densification project along Sturgeon Road in Braeside. While the proposed development in question may not have a direct impact on your lives or mine it certainly does for the most closely affected residents. This sort of thing is a harbinger of things to come for all areas of St. Albert and must be effectively resisted, lest the 'Botanical City' moniker become 'The Concrete Jungle'

See you at church on Wednesday!
0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,171
Reply with quote  #3 
I hope it is a large turnout and is able to show the city they cannot just do what they wish unchecked. Just working on Monday's edition of SAP which will be available in a few minutes.
0
Since2000

Member
Registered:
Posts: 94
Reply with quote  #4 
This development can't go ahead. Not sure why but it feels like this is the tipping point for this city who claims it's a botanical arts city yet continues to wipe out park and green space.  No more.  I will be there if possible.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #5 
Surely there is something fundamentally wrong with the entire political structure when the citizens of a neighbourhood have little or no say in relation to developments being inserted into their established neighbourhood.  Like the people of Erin Ridge, the people of Braeside invested their savings in their homes, expended their time maintaining their property, and are the people who will be directly and primarily affected by a new development.  

Surely these people should have a decisive say as to whether or not this land use planning change and the development thereon goes ahead.

Surely it is time we implemented a policy of "residential self determination" so that the people who have invested their time, lives, and money in a neighborhood have some control over their own destiny.

Surely we do not want another episode of the "Erin Ridge debacle".

Let's get out and support the people of Braeside.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #6 

Sinclair's editorial on the front page of SAP today is well worth reading and digesting. People are simply tired of the Political elites and the bureaucracy ignoring the will of the people on the ground that "they know better."

In St. Albert we had a perfect example of this when a townhall meeting was convened in relation to the proposed land development/land swap in Braeside. Towards the end of this townhall meeting, Mark Cassidy rather astutely asked for a show of hands as to who were in favour of the project and who were against. Out of a crowd of 50 + people, 97% indicated they were opposed to the project ... only 2 or 3 raised their hands in favour of the project.
Concerns were expressed as to whether or not the citizens would have any real input into the decision making on this issue ... and the responses from the developer's people and the two city representatives who were present was less than satisfactory. They assured everyone that there would be opportunities for the general public to voice their opinion. However, the real question was ... would that public opinion be given any real weight in the decision making process. On this latter point ... they were strangely ambiguous and vague.

If the people's voice actually had a real role to play in the decision making process, they would have cancelled this project after the straw vote occurred. There is no evidence that the public is in favour of this project ... the people of Braeside are dead against this project .... so why, in a democracy, is this project still proceeding full steam ahead??? Answer ... because the bureaucrats and the political elites think they know better than the "deplorables" who pay the taxes.

0
goldfinger41

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 26
Reply with quote  #7 

In support of citizens concerns and objections to building another multi -level 90 unit building on Sturgeon Road in Braeside, replacing 3-4 beautiful houses and a big part of the park to the east. The proposed swap of property, the height of the building, the method of construction on below water table soils, the increase traffic coming onto Sturgeon, the displacement of trees along the Red Willow Park walks, and the general sight line along the river will forever be destroyed. As well, for those wanting to walk and talk in solitude, respite and privacy, will be displaced forever.

 People in Braeside have had a lot taken from them over the years and now will have to put up with: a large building on the river; increased traffic with 80 units and 80 plus vehicles coming and going from beneath the building a single entrance out onto Sturgeon Road. I would imagine another traffic light will be necessary once the building is completed. For the planned entrance will be aligned with Beacon Cr. Lots of fun ahead, eh?

The representatives of the "unknown" developer (Greg MacKenzie & Associates Consulting Ltd. gjmackenzie@outlook.com), who cannot be found online because the dot com name goes to the Highlands Community League in Edmonton. The organization and backers for the project appear to be a mystery at every search. The representatives who appeared at the location were not very informative, nor did they seem well versed in potential problems with building in such a location.

So my opinion is that those presenting the scant model of the building and property were front men for whoever is behind the development. From where is the money coming? Who is really behind the development? How did they get this far without a word from anyone? How can "one" person buy out three beautiful large homes and properties along the river apply for tearing down these homes, get approval from the city to pursue this kind of development without someone knowing? Or, without the city ensuring that whoever is developing the land, can in fact follow through with the financing and expertise to build in such a location?

We have had several buildings in St. Albert fall short and lay unfinished, or, vacant for years. Examples: Medical Office building next to Socrates Restaurant, Tenor Condos just down the street from where the above building on Sturgeon is located, and the condos in old down town St. Albert next to the St. Albert Trail near the Clock Tower. All were started. Never checked out by the city and all failed miserably. Landrex took over the Tenor development and saved the city another unfinished monster on the river. The builders of the Medical structure next to Socrates still lays empty, and the one downtown took nearly ten years before someone took over that one.

Will, or, can the city guarantee that the same thing will not happen again with mysterious financial backers? Will the city protect the trees and designated park land along the river? Or, is it a double speak on the "Cultivating Life," "Greening City?" Where is the integrity? Will the city allow this kind of development along the Sturgeon to continue and change the nature (Cultivating Life, the Garden City, the River City), of St. Albert,  spoiling the natural and peaceful nature walks of its citizens?

 I would ask all readers and friends of readers: Is this what the people of St. Albert, no matter where you live here in the city, want going forward? Is it worth having their Council and its Administration approve this kind of robbery of land and landscape in order to justify their need for tax money? Get mad. It may happen to your neighbourhood some day too. We are all St. Albertans. We should be a collaborate family against this kind of development. Or, in a few years, we have none of the enjoyment of a river valley.

0
K Van Hoof

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 366
Reply with quote  #8 
I agree that this development should be turned down. Will that happen with our current council? I'm betting no. I was at the meeting and listened to some very concerned citizens ask how they could get the city to consider quashing this proposed development...what was the proper procedure. Having fought against the school on Eldorado with what we all considered reasonable arguments, and lost, I just felt sorry for what these people are about to find out: once things have progressed to the point where there are drawings and traffic studies and city admin holding public meetings...it's basically a done deal. Most telling was that there were no plans done up for IF the land swap didn't go through...because it's assumed that there's no way the swap WON'T happen.
Speaking of rampant development on the Sturgeon...I'd like to know how the Botanica development slipped under everyone's radar. People are upset at this Braeside proposal, with its 4 stories and 80 suites, and yet the Botanica has 10 stories with about 240 units. Once the second phase is complete, it will be quite the wall of condos overlooking the river and the baseball park. Heck, you can see the building looming from Boudreau up by the hospital! And what happens if the Hole's sell off the last part of their property? More condos? More "shoppes"? The number of people driving into - and out of - that site every day once it's all built will be significant.
It's long past due that St. Albert comes up with some kind of policy around the river valley. Maybe it's too late already..
0
OMG

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 767
Reply with quote  #9 
When there is secrecy involved regarding the owners/financial backer, a huge red flag goes up! Wonder why they want to be anonymous?
0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,171
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG
When there is secrecy involved regarding the owners/financial backer, a huge red flag goes up! Wonder why they want to be anonymous?


Oddly enough, that is exactly what I wonder about the people here on SAP who use nick names.
0
Dennis Arneson

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #11 
Interesting point HH. Often wondered how many anonymous posters here actually reside or have property in St Albert. There's sometimes comments about decisions affecting St Albert being made in DT Edmonton. There'd be some irony if non-resident posters were were attempting to impact St Albert decisions. That's all.
0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,171
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Arneson
Interesting point HH. Often wondered how many anonymous posters here actually reside or have property in St Albert. There's sometimes comments about decisions affecting St Albert being made in DT Edmonton. There'd be some irony if non-resident posters were were attempting to impact St Albert decisions. That's all.


After eight years of riding herd on this forum in one form or another, I have had to help many members with issues involving their use of the forum, particularly with posting or lost passwords etc. That assistance even extended to yourself with issues with using a mobile device to post or read here.

From that experience, I can assure you that the vast majority of people who are members and post here do in fact live in St. Albert. I would estimate them to be 3/4 of the list or more. There are members who live in the USA and a couple more worldwide, but I have never known them to post on any issues that concern St. Albert.

That leads me to the conclusion that most viewpoints here are made by residents of the city. Since I do not know the identity of every single poster, there may indeed be a few from Edmonton who offer opinions, yes. But then again, I have seen people I know live in St. Albert quick to make comments about the city of Edmonton both pro and con. It is the way of the web.

My point was more to the reluctance of all folks to use their real names, period. It would add much validity to their points of view and the last time I made such a plea, it was a pleasant surprise to see so many drop the nick names and who now post using their real names. That speaks volumes to the courage of their convictions regardless of their positions on issues.

I hope that helps you understand the makeup of the membership. One final point. A former member called members here 'my people', referring to me on Facebook recently. That is an outright falsehood. Anyone is free to join (unless your IP address is banned) and I have no control over who they are nor what they post, unless a post creates legal issues for the forum. Members are simply an internet community and all are welcome to post their opinions.

As for members who use outside social media to try and embarrass or ridicule the forum by blowing things out of all proportion, I have no use for such bullies and treat them as such. I never get angry, but I do get even.

0
kellex98

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 171
Reply with quote  #13 
I try to post respectful postings that reflect my pov...but I don't want to use my real name because it would "connect" me to other personalities.  Then my opinions would get supported or dismissed based on who I know or are related to...rather than based on their substance.  By having a nickname, readers can choose to agree or disagree with me based on what I write and not on what my name is.  [wink]
0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,171
Reply with quote  #14 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kellex98
I try to post respectful postings that reflect my pov...but I don't want to use my real name because it would "connect" me to other personalities.  Then my opinions would get supported or dismissed based on who I know or are related to...rather than based on their substance.  By having a nickname, readers can choose to agree or disagree with me based on what I write and not on what my name is.  [wink]


For the record, I fully understand your need for using a nick name, as do I for a handful of posters here, who took the time and trouble to alert me to their 'special circumstances' that could cause potential issues for them with employers or because of family members involvement in sensitive positions.

That noted, far too many fall into the group who remain anon for no valid reason IMHO.
0
Swallow1

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 762
Reply with quote  #15 
HH - Yeah, I'd use my real name, if I could run reallllly fast!
Sad to say, that's not the case at all.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #16 
Swallow 1:  

One of the interesting characteristics of those who are incessantly complaining about the use of pseudonyms is that many of them do not run any financial or other risk in posting under their own names. The more vocal complainants seem to hold down government jobs where their income is guaranteed, their pension is untouchable, and they have no concern about losing clientele or customers, and no concerns about repercussions with their employers. It would seem that they live in a bubble completely disconnected from those who work in the private sector who, in complete contrast, could suffer financial or other negative consequences by using their own name.

Secondly, it is remarkable how petty and colloquial these critics have become. Anyone who surfs the Internet will find major media networks and well known websites where the use of pseudonyms is a common practice because people do not want exposure to the risks that occur if their actual identity is spread across the entire Internet. However, in St. Albert, it seems, the use of a pseudonym is considered a major crisis by these people.  I suppose the problem is that it impairs their ability to get on their Internet gossip columns of Facebook and Twitter and slag someone who has the audacity to have an opinion or world view that does not correspond to their own.

The third feature which is predominant among these pseudonym complainants is that they often profess to be "progressives" who embrace diversity, pro choice, and claim to be so very respectful of others. However, when they encounter a poster who chooses not to use his own name for personal reasons, the "progressives" suddenly abnegate diversity and demand conformity; denigrate the right for persons to make a personal choice on the use of a pseudonym; and proceed to disrespect that person by invoking a series of ad hominem attacks.

The louder they complain about the use of pseudonyms on the Internet the more it causes one to suspect they simply lack the intellectual prowess to deal with the substance of the other person's post. Since they do not have an identifiable individual to bully, they resort to attacking the person for his/her very use of a pseudonym.

0
Murray Lambert

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 297
Reply with quote  #17 
Whether a person chooses to post comments using their real name or a pseudonym is a personal prerogative for reasons entirely of their own. No one should judge individuals one way or the other but concentrate instead on the viewpoints and positions on the issue(s) being discussed. I for one chose some time ago to switch to using use my real name in place of a pseudonym for which I should neither be praised nor condemned. Quite simply, it is my business alone.

In a perfect world this wouldn't even be up for discussion for there would be no such need.
0
Willy

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 233
Reply with quote  #18 
I choose to be anonymous for several reasons but mostly personal preference. I'm sure a few people here know who I am or have a good idea who I am.
I don't fully understand why people get their knickers in a knot when they don't know who the messenger is. Some how because you don't know the persons identity -- their comments, observations, statements are not valid or somehow with out merit no matter how accurate the comments were? If the information, comments or what have you are accurate and valid then they stand on their own merit. It doesn't matter who made them.

Remember the Think Tank brewhaha during the last election. The information provided couldn't be refuted, so try to discredit the messenger. Of course they were left in pickle because they had no defence and didn't know who to attack. So attack the fact that they're anonymous. If the information is accurate then what does it matter from where said info came from? Except that the truth sometimes hurts, doesn't it?
If the info conveyed was considered malicious, bullying, libellous, slanderous, deceitful it would be pretty easy to discredit or disprove and again would live or die on its merits or lack there of. Plus of course there are legal remedies.
So I guess it's more important who is speaking than what it is they have to say.

But just for the fact that a person is anonymous he is a coward, a liar, a bully or what ever? Give me a break.

Sorry for my rambling, I'm sitting in a hotel room, my mind wandered and I followed it.
0
warmodel

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 546
Reply with quote  #19 
A question that has not been brought up in the past, and that is if the majority of council members can put forward motions for expenditures for sports facilities, Service Place, ice rinks, etc. - has any thought been given to the erection of a covered and a heated facility for transit passengers at the major stop next to St. Albert Center. Surely if money could be found to plant trees down the center of the main corridor thru the city, one should be able to find ways to cover the project I have mentioned. If Edmonton as well as Sherwood Park can erect heated facilities (some with coffee dispensers,) etc. After all St. Albert boasts about the amenities etc, back these words up with what the city has to offer besides being 'botanical'. Perhaps the Mayor and members of council would give an attempt for a week or so by waiting in extreme cold days for a while awaiting a bus.  your thoughts.
0
Swallow1

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 762
Reply with quote  #20 
Quote:
Originally Posted by theskeptic
Surely there is something fundamentally wrong with the entire political structure when the citizens of a neighbourhood have little or no say in relation to developments being inserted into their established neighbourhood.  

Surely these people should have a decisive say as to whether or not this land use planning change and the development thereon goes ahead.

Surely it is time we implemented a policy of "residential self determination"...
Surely we do not want another episode of the "Erin Ridge debacle".

Let's get out and support the people of Braeside.


This is EXACTLY what was happening in Akinsdale.  Way back then, many people weren't upset, because it could NEVER happen in their neighbourhoods. 

Or, so they thought.

Now it's all open season on all thing relating to property in this city. 

Now would probably be a good time for everyone to watch their neighbours backs.
0
K Van Hoof

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 366
Reply with quote  #21 
We received a notice from the city that the public hearing dealing with this development has been postponed until after the municipal election in October. It was "determined that there is insufficient time remaining in this council term for these applications to be brought forward at this time". Let's hope for some fresh faces on council.

Meanwhile, the Botanica's phase 2 still seems stalled, plus there's the condo being built next to Canadian Tire. Maybe the market is getting a bit saturated?
0
Swallow1

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 762
Reply with quote  #22 
Quote:
Originally Posted by K Van Hoof
We received a notice from the city that the public hearing dealing with this development has been postponed until after the municipal election in October. It was "determined that there is insufficient time remaining in this council term for these applications to be brought forward at this time". Let's hope for some fresh faces on council. Meanwhile, the Botanica's phase 2 still seems stalled, plus there's the condo being built next to Canadian Tire. Maybe the market is getting a bit saturated?


New Condo's by Canadian Tire?   I saw that, as well.  Last I heard, it was a seniors condo that was having a hard time getting off the ground. 
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.