St. Albert Place might be a fine example of Douglas Cardinal’s nature-inspired architecture, but lately it’s resembled a punching bag. City hall has taken it in the teeth over issues like the hiccups with the waste pickup scheme, dog parks and the mayor’s value-for-taxes message — ill-timed to coincide with the arrival of property tax notices, the City of Edmonton’s annual property tax survey and a plan to hike transit fares by 10 per cent.
Added to that mix is a damning industrial land needs study that not only reinforces St. Albert’s bad rap for being unfriendly toward businesses, it notes the city is in tough against regional competitors and even raises the spectre of our long-term viability if left as a mostly residential suburb with little in the way of local employment. If that wasn’t bad enough, the study puts a public spotlight on an internal tug-of-war between two departments — business and tourism development and planning and development — which are giving city council conflicting advice on how much industrial land St. Albert needs. Planning and development, in reviewing historic development trends, has previously argued the city already has enough industrial land. Meanwhile, business and tourism, which works closely with businesses that want to set up shop in St. Albert, has always underscored a dearth of lot sizes — particularly large industrial lots. The result is a report that suggests St. Albert needs a whopping 362 hectares of industrial land over the next 25 years.
Just how bleak is St. Albert’s image? Well, after consulting with industry representatives the study quoted Marshall McLuhan, who once said “perception is reality.” The perception from the real estate and business community is the city’s reputation is as dirty as a smokestack on refinery row, with too little political will and too much bureaucracy standing in the way of development. “Before looking for corrective mechanisms, there must first be an attitude change that industrial development is important to the community’s sustainability,” the report states. So much for the business friendly claims in those glossy annual reports.
Even if city council makes economic development a true priority instead of giving it lip service, St. Albert faces an uphill battle — stuck in the starting blocks while other communities like Parkland County, Edmonton, Leduc and Leduc County have much more to offer the industrial sector — in the case of Parkland, almost 12 times the amount of shovel-ready industrial. St. Albert missed the last boom while reviewing where to put the roads and pipes in the ground in the annexed lands, and council has done very little to allay fears the city will be ready for the next wave. The previous council rejected a plan to create a new industrial park in the northwest, while the current group faces pressure from developers to build anything — in the northwest (residential), in South Campbell (urban village) and South Riel (commercial).
Meanwhile, the industrial supply study will gather dust on a shelf until year’s end as planning and development comes up with possible locations for industrial, tasks already completed for the municipal development plan review and last year’s industrial fiasco. It’s a curious delay given what’s at stake and the most likely outcome is that industrial makes most sense along Ray Gibbon Drive — within striking distance of the ring road, Yellowhead Trail, the CN intermodal yards and resource development to the north. When studies show industrial sites create jobs and actually result in profits for cities as opposed to an operating drain like residential, St. Albert needs to get serious about opening the doors to industry. If we don’t, the consequences for homeowners are just as predictable and angry letters to the editor will be the least of council’s worries.
Bryan Alary is an editor at the Gazette.
