Forum
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 4      Prev   1   2   3   4   Next
danapop

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 268
Reply with quote  #51 
Like I said. Not my tweet to defend. That said I don't see how it's relevant to this discussion.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #52 
Quote:
Originally Posted by danapop
Like I said. Not my tweet to defend. That said I don't see how it's relevant to this discussion.


Well Heron made two statements (a) individualism is a disease and (b) that the residents of Braeside mistakenly think they own the area simply because they live there. In the first statement she is denigrating the idea that the interests of the individuals are or ought to paramount and respected in any public initiative or policy. In the second statement she is a directly challenging the very idea of private property rights and her comment would make Stalin purr with delight.

Given that the Berrymore development is a conflict between the rights of the property owners to maintain their neighborhoods character and ambiance as it has been for years vs. City Hall's desire to transform the neighbourhood to fit their ideological perspective, her statements are both telling and relevant. They establish that Cathy is prepared to sacrifice the interest of individual residents and their property rights to promote the recent left wing fad known as increased densification of existing neighbourhoods.

This is not a surprise as she did that with the Erin Ridge residents when the Fr. Can. School project was in play.

0
Murray Lambert

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 297
Reply with quote  #53 
While I am not going to weigh in on yet another perpetual exchange of barbs and other nasties surrounding what Councillor Heron may or may not have said about whatever, whenever or wherever, the 'skeptic's' parting reference to Erin Ridge gives me pause to remember. Early on in the "Battle of Eldorado" we held literal 'grassroots' neighbourhood meetings in the park itself and I clearly recall Ms. Heron as one of the sitting city councillors who attended which gave us some degree of hope that perhaps we had an actual chance of accomplishing something. I also remember that she was accompanied by her dog which I now realize was a harbinger of what was yet to come when the reality set in that we were 'pooched'!
0
Ted Durham

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 371
Reply with quote  #54 
For the record, when you make a statement online in any form and do not quote the source, you become the owner of those words.  I looked at the statement, Cathy owns those words.  The context of what she wrote Dana says that "Individualism is a disease", no other qualifiers.

You may want to take an course in English writing.  There are rules people follow.  Of course, some people like to backtrack.

0
OMG

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 767
Reply with quote  #55 
Maybe a lesson for Heron....When you make a post on twitter with no qualifiers that post is taken as such. Can't blame anybody interpreting that tweet with a huge WOW!

Which councillor gave the Erin Ridge people assurances that the footprint of the school would be a certain area then voted against that?
0
OMG

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 767
Reply with quote  #56 
Maybe the Gazette  should pick up on the WASTE of TIME discussing motions like bee keeping, backyard chickens, or parking recreational trailers on the street ...a no brainer, which is not in the interest of the greater good of St Albert. Again special interest groups.
0
Mark Cassidy

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 12
Reply with quote  #57 
I have attended a public meeting with residents affected by this development here is what concerns from residents voiced at the meeting presented by the builders planner and with city officials in attendance.
The residents concerns were:

1) almost all residents in attendance with the exception of a few raised their hands opposed to the development..
2)adequate parking for the number of units.It was expressed that bike racks will provide additional means of transportation to help fill the gap if the residents did not find enough parking in the parking provided.The residents concerned felt if the parking was inadequate additional parking would lead to creating addition congestion and stress to the neighbouring streets.
3)parking for construction workers during the building of the project will create parking issues to the neighbouring community.
4)access to the Main Street in front of the property has limited visibility coming and especially leaving the facility.
5)loss of a natural visible park area over a low lying less visible flood plain area.
6)having a high density complex next to a single family area does not fit the neighbourhood character.
7)the planner when asked are you willing to compromise to change this existing plan to something more sensitive to the neighbouring residents concerns the planners response was "no we are expecting to keep this existing proposal"
8)Edmonton protects its river heritage locations and why aren't we doing the same in St.Albert for both historic and environment reasons.
9) city officials weren't familiar with proper zoning mix for the Braeside neighbourhood.This is information they should be knowledgeable and prepared for in attending this type of meeting.Otherwise they showed a desire to be as helpful as possible if further information was required.

The residents have many good reasons in having this project turned down changes to eliminate concerns would help this project.The intrusive nature of this plan to the existing mature neighbourhood and lack of willingness to accommodate or compromise is concerning.

Quite frankly I am disappointed in the city resident meetings whereby the majority of residents have concerns and or oppose proposals but the city or developer gives muted responses and just approves them without doing the hard work towards finding working compromises or to listen to valid legitimate concerns.I am looking forward to meeting with residents again on this matter if the developer continues to proceed.I would like to review the zoning requirements and determine whether our current and short,medium and long term planning fits St.Albert's character rather than whether we are being implemented with over zealous constraints from a made in Edmonton Plan imputed on St.Albert from the Capitol Regional Board.Kindly email me at marksold@hotmail.com if further questions arise from this Braeside neighbourhood proposal.
0
SweetLou

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 116
Reply with quote  #58 
In reading the discussion a post jogged my memory on the Francophone school issue in Erin Ridge.  I can't remember the exact quote or who said it - maybe one of you will recall and fill in the blanks.  

A councilor was quoted as saying the school was a "done deal" the day of or the day before the town hall.  It may have been a tweet - not sure though.

anyone?
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #59 
So what is City Hall doing about the numerous issues raised by the Braeside residents and enumerated by Mark Cassidy??

Answer --- they are busy sweeping them under the rug.

All during Crouse's "reign" we have had repeated conflicts over his infill projects ... see Aikensdale, Mission, Grandin, Erin Ridge and now Braeside. 

Do we want a continuation of this central planning imperialism or do we want residential self determination?

If you want more central planning Imperialism .... elect Brodhead ,Heron and their friends who are more concerned about the Capital Region Boards agenda than they are the interests of St. Albert.  
0
danapop

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 268
Reply with quote  #60 
As I understand this, this is a developer driven project and nothing has actually been before council yet.  Would it not be more prudent to wait until a complete analysis of the project comes in prior to forming a decision?
0
danapop

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 268
Reply with quote  #61 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG
Maybe the Gazette  should pick up on the WASTE of TIME discussing motions like bee keeping, backyard chickens, or parking recreational trailers on the street ...a no brainer, which is not in the interest of the greater good of St Albert. Again special interest groups.


Just because you do not support Hens or bees doesn't mean that there are citizens who don't.  Both of these were citizen driven initiatives.  You are not the judge and jury as to what is and isn't good for OUR city.  
0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,171
Reply with quote  #62 
If you review the video of Monday last council, Heron admitted the beekeeping and hen issues were driven by a very small group of citizens. Funny how she supports tiny minorities, but rejects vast majorities who oppose things like the Erin Ridge school and traffic issues and the road to nowhere and traffic circle.
0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #63 
Dana:  So how many citizens are clamoring to have beehives in their backyard??? 

Don't you think council should have had that disclosed before they moved to spend $ 15000.00 plus staff time plus office overhead on some study which is designed to buttress Heron's motion?  How about asking them for an informal petition so we can see how many people think they are entitled to have bees flying around the city terrifying those who are allergic to bee stings.

0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #64 
Quote:
Originally Posted by danapop
As I understand this, this is a developer driven project and nothing has actually been before council yet.  Would it not be more prudent to wait until a complete analysis of the project comes in prior to forming a decision?


Dana: Actually the developer laid out his project at a townhall meeting in the United Church some time ago. That proposal showed he wanted to put a multi unit apartment block in an existing single family residential area. The proposal also called for the exchange of parkland adjacent to the Sturgeon Road for some low lying swampland adjacent to the river. He suggested that this was supposed to be affordable housing. However, anyone with any experience in construction knows that (a) this land is in a flood zone (b) it is going to require extensive costly piles driven 80 feet below ground and (c) given the additional cost of the piling there is no way this could every be anything but highpriced apartments or condos and not affordable housing.

So given the land use conflict between the existing single family residential neighborhood and a high cost multi family dwelling, what do you think the final presentation will disclose that we do not already know?

0
theskeptic

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,484
Reply with quote  #65 

As with many of Cathy's special interest projects, the bee thing is not particularly well thought out.

The issue is not whether a St. Albert resident can or cannot keep bees. Many urban people are in the bee keeping business. They arrange to have their beehives situated in some farmers field next to his alfalfa or clover crop where the bees can obtain pollen. At the appropriate time they travel out to the rural area and recover the honey combs. They then take them home for processing in their garage.. No fuss ... No muss ... No bother to their neighbours.

So the obvious questions are these

  • why should a minuscule number of urban residents be allowed to keep their beehives in their backyard instead of keeping them in a farmers field where they belong? 
  • What % of the St. Albert population are allergic to bee stings?
  • What % of the St. Albert population have an fear of bees?
  • What are the number of persons who want to keep beehives in their backyard?
  • Why is it essential for them to have the beehives in their backyard? ... Do they plan to take their bees for a walk? .... Do they plan to train these bees to roll over and play dead ? .... What is the rationale for having them in the backyard rather than in some farmers field?
0
OMG

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 767
Reply with quote  #66 
No I am not judge and jury. If I were, an investigation would have happened in the mayor's double billing. We had a "judge and jury" of 4 councillors.

But I do have an opinion just like you do Dana and so do the anonymous Gazette editorial writers. The pecuniary interest Cam brought up in council seemingly to the Gazette was a waste of time. I disagree. This was an important discussion in the interest of many more people in St Albert than bee keeping. After all most of the population want politicians who are ethical and upfront. It is  disconcerting that a politician can do and say whatever they please because the insurance paid with our tax dollars does not deter them from stepping out of line.
0
Swallow1

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 762
Reply with quote  #67 
@dana:
Subject: Councillor Gilles Prefontaine ResignsReplies: 152
 Posted By: Swallow1Views: 3,904
 
"Individualism is a disease" Tweeted Coun Heron:

Individuality is formed essentially for self-preservation. When we come to self-preservation the only thing that needs preservation is your physical body.

—Sadhguru

- See more at: http://www.sadhguruonline.com/videos/individualism-is-a-disease#sthash.yxPAuaC1.dpuf

I feel so stupid....
0
K Van Hoof

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 366
Reply with quote  #68 
@dana: there is every reason Braeside residents should be very concerned NOW about this "developer driven project". I was involved in the Erin Ridge situation and saw first-hand how the city was wholly involved in the planning process - even when they denied outright that they knew anything about the school plans. I attended the Braeside development meetings and saw slick maps and plans presented by both the developer and the city. Councillor Heron was present at the initial presentation and was fully supportive of the proposal. I'm thinking this is more than developer driven. And even if it is, it's a rare developer that gets told "no" by the city. I have friends in the affected area who are very concerned, and I told them that based on our (Erin Ridge's) experience, this is looking like a done deal and they're hooped.
0
K Van Hoof

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 366
Reply with quote  #69 
And I totally agree with Mark Cassidy. Why aren't we being more sensitive with development on our river?? Just look at the Botanica development on the old Hole's site. I have to think Lois and Ted are spinning in their graves.
0
Head Honcho

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,171
Reply with quote  #70 
Quote:
Originally Posted by K Van Hoof
And I totally agree with Mark Cassidy. Why aren't we being more sensitive with development on our river?? Just look at the Botanica development on the old Hole's site. I have to think Lois and Ted are spinning in their graves.


Gotta agree with you there KVH. I do not and will not even go on that property for that reason. Those stores will never see a dime from me. I prefer to recall it the way it was, warm and friendly and so St. Albert. That is now lost to profit and greed commercialism.
0
K Van Hoof

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 366
Reply with quote  #71 
And the irony is that the Enjoy Center could probably have fit on the old site (judging by the size of the development going in now), and maybe they wouldn't currently be in receivership.
0
Murray Lambert

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 297
Reply with quote  #72 
Kudos to 'K Van Hoof' for an excellent posting that in its relatively few words says so much. Indeed, the Braeside area is experiencing the same unscrupulous tactics that were used against us in Erin Ridge. I will be addressing that matter at today's (02/21/17) Public Hearing (5:00 P.M. in Council Chambers) which in part deals with the redistricting of what is left of Eldorado Park back to a 'P' land use designation. 

The whole thing is sort of like a rather unorthodox car thief taking your Cadillac and replacing it with a Chevy for which you should be eternally grateful, don't you think?
0
Steve Stone

Member
Registered:
Posts: 40
Reply with quote  #73 

Friends of the St. Albert River Valley

As time goes by, the majority of our City Council and administrators seem to be more and more living in a dream world of fantasy and disregard for reality. Consequences of decisions, actions or inactions seem not to figure in their ‘logic’, but apparently only what may appear beneficial for now, or for the self-interest of a handful, if not personal gain in one way or another.

Our City Planners seems to have lost any bearing on sound reason; instead, in my opinion, we perceive chaos reigning with a helter-skelter “mosh pit” craziness that is anything but responsible.

Sometimes I think anyone can build anything anywhere they so wish …and anyone can tear down anything anywhere they so desire …with only one prequalification; that necessity being they have the right ‘pull’ with the ‘right’ people in the ‘right’ places that can freely make decisions without any accountability what-so-ever. As I said …“Sometimes I think”… but I must be wrong in thinking such gross things about our honourable civil servants; or, am I?

The City’s consideration of the latest plans for “53, 55, & 57 Sturgeon Road - Proposed Municipal Development Plan Amendment, Redistricting, and Land Transaction” is not just another thoughtless disrespect (they never seem to listen) for resident community taxpayers, but in my opinion, also reveals their indifference and absence of love for the character, history, uniqueness, beauty and attraction of our city.

Just take one look, our City’s Coat-of-Arms highlights the Sturgeon River. With the developments some are lobbing for, if they are successful, maybe we will have to change the design of our Coat-of-Arms to include those new infringements along our river. It is always a good idea to learn valuable lessons from others; this is high time we learn from our neighbors in Edmonton – what a great job they have done and is doing to preserve their river valley! Are we so very stupid to ignore what we can learn from them?

We always boast about the beautiful natural trails we have in St. Albert; always taken pride in pointing out to the world how wonderful and beautiful they are and how we are determined to protect them. Yet, apparently, we just want to take the most natural one, the most beautiful one, the one that supports the widest variety of natural life and the ONLY historically important one, we just want to dump it all for the benefit of land developers and a couple of land owners who stand to make a fortune on the “deal” at our expense …and the loss can never be recovered.

I would suggest too, this is a concern all St. Albertans must have; the River Valley belongs to all of us. It also belongs to our history and to future generations. It is time to wake up and insist our River Valley be protected from any intrusion.

All those individuals and authorities, who are involved with the sort-after destruction of our River Valley, ought to be ashamed of themselves.

 

0
Murray Lambert

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 297
Reply with quote  #74 
Very well written Steve, pretty well says it all, it should be promulgated far and wide.
0
Swallow1

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 762
Reply with quote  #75 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetLou
In reading the discussion a post jogged my memory on the Francophone school issue in Erin Ridge.  I can't remember the exact quote or who said it - maybe one of you will recall and fill in the blanks.  

A councilor was quoted as saying the school was a "done deal" the day of or the day before the town hall.  It may have been a tweet - not sure though.

anyone?


I do believe that "done deal" and "individualism is a disease" are but two quotes that could be "owned" by Coun Heron.
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.