Re: "Affordable living downtown a great first step," Editorial, The Gazette, Dec. 15.
After 60-plus years of home-owning in St. Albert’s Sturgeon area, Woodlands area, and currently in downtown St. Albert, owning and living in a downtown-area condo is a dream. It is quiet, safe, friendly, welcoming, and convenient. The negative image created by an imagined need to revitalize the area is unflattering to the downtown, to those of us who live there, and to past councils who worked hard to build it into the historic little pocket it has become. It was never meant to be a “busy hub” for a population of 70,000-plus people.
Our past opinion of downtown St. Albert was erroneous. It’s a far cry from “a sleepy little core.” It has vibrant, enthusiastic residents who appreciate the openness and safety of living there and the upscale architecture of the beautiful brick buildings, the courthouse, St. Albert Place with its theatre, a first-class library, and an impressive art gallery. There are also shops and businesses, a post office, doctor and lawyer offices, and several well-established eateries.
Our mayor and city council should think about enhancing what already exists rather than getting stuck on a possible outdated revitalization plan. The envisioned revitalization has already been achieved.
Of major concern are Churchill House I and II, Churchill Manor, and The Versailles. Owners have much to lose with the injection of a 130-unit, first level of retail, subsidized living, mixed-income, high rise community on 22 St. Thomas Street backing onto St. Joseph’s Street.
Yes, the city does need subsidized housing, albeit in an appropriate setting and location that meets both families' and current residents' needs by not imposing on existing owners' lifestyle and property value.
Possibly, the new subsidized residents may not have the financial base to support the downtown businesses. A congested, high-density living location is not a healthy solution for low-income families, with no grocery store, no banking.
A high-density injection will greatly increase current parking issues, increase traffic flow, cause overcrowding, and may increase crime rates and safety issues. It will be the beginning of the downtown's demise and is not the correct “fit” for Homeland’s new subsidized renters nor the current residents/taxpayers.
A better choice of location would be the site of the vacated Fire Hall No. 1, where high-rise apartments now exist.
Current downtown owners, whose property values, lifestyles, and community will be affected, never received a notice, nor opportunity for input from the mayor or councillors regarding this situation.
The “revitalization of the downtown” has become a panacea catch-phrase which covers an abundance of political manoeuvring to justify spending taxpayer monies without much oversight. In this case, it would appear the depreciated asset value of the land without a generation of revenue income and the lure of $290,000 per annum in forecast tax return have precipitated the entire process.
The envisioned return of $290,000 has been publicized without the publication of the concomitant expenditure of $87,118.35 of taxpayer value to remove the land as an asset from the city’s account after it has been depreciated by amortization over the years of city ownership (the details of which can be found in a publicly available background document on the city's website). In other words, an appraised land value of $3.4 million in 2019 has been sold to the Homeland Homes developer for $1 and includes the write-off of a depreciated asset of the land at $87,118.35 of taxpayer value.
It has the benefit of being considered the city's contribution to the cost of the development at a value of $2.79 million. Why weren't the negotiations for the approval of this project made transparent at the time? The lack of public input on a decision of this magnitude is unconscionable. Why was a parcel of land appraised at $3.4 million in 2019 sold at a cost of $87,117.35?
Holly and Skip Pickle, St. Albert
